Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Violence is certainly not good. But in some cases,this is not something that is good, but a necessity.
Violence is justified in response to violence when there are no other options to protect yourself.
There is also such a thing as “righteous anger”. The law will not justify it, but you can understand it in a human way. People are often driven to distraction and provoked to violence. The boundaries of righteous and unrighteous anger are naturally blurred.
But this is not a question of good. Either driven and provoked, or it's a matter of protection.
And of course, when it comes to morality, everything is very complicated and ambiguous. No one will give you an objective assessment of everything and everything in moral matters(the benefit is also a moral assessment if anything).
And in order to answer your question more accurately, you need to look at what you consider good and for whom it is good and for whom it is not. Each person has their own understanding of this. Someone can, from someone else's point of view, do pure evil, and the one who does it believes that he is doing a good deed.
From the point of view of anarchist doctrine, any state in the broadest sense and all the attributes associated with it – power, laws, army, police, the right to use force – is violence.
The same Hobbes wrote that the state, also known as” Leviathan”, concentrates in its hands the right to violence in order to prevent its spread in society, because it prevents the natural state of people – “wars of all against all”.
Of course, Hobbes is not the ultimate truth, but according to many anthropologists and sociologists, it does work. Because when we entrust the state with this function, we oblige it to follow instructions and laws, which reduces the overall level of violence.
So from this point of view, some violence can actually be good.
And isn't any law violence?))) don't do it or strict uncles will come with batons and put you in a cell.
Violence is so far the only tool that has forced humanity to live by the rules.
just think about it – in our entire history of the world, nothing else has been invented.
belief, religion, philosophy – none of this works to protect people from each other. And only an uncle with a club can do that.
Yes, it is permissible to kill a murderer coming at you, a rapist or an aggressor. Of course, any murder is a sin, but in these cases the main burden of sin falls on the attacker. It is also permissible to deprive criminals who harm people of their freedom.
any evil can be turned to the benefit of a person – however, it should be pointed out here that this is not the merit of evil.
The aphorism from Faust is false: “I am part of the power that always wants evil and always does good.” The good is not done by evil in itself, but by the Creator, using evil for admonition, for salvation,and for the education of man. Through negative or bad experiences, a person can learn truth, righteousness, etc.
The answer is very simple actually. Let the violence come to you. I'm sure that even a maniac who cuts you up into mincemeat will have some use. Do you want this? Is the answer clear?