Is violence a right? or do people have the right to be violent?

On another site I presented this hypothetical. If you awoke with the power to remove the human race's ability to do violence to one another (be it direct violence or starving people to get what you want and so forth) would it be unethical to do so?
This was an interesting thought experiment that ended with not most people clinging to the idea of free will which I understand, but that violence has a "purpose" in the human race and it would just be wrong to remove it.

So this time I am taking a simpler approach and forgetting the above thought exercise (feel free to throw it into debate if you would like) and will make this more basic.
Do people have a right to commit violence or a right to be violent?
I am thinking more of initiating violence here than in self defense whether it be out of anger, outrage, etc.

And...debate!

Ummm...I think you should find something else to do/think about.

Exercising is good.

violence is not a "right" but i like free will and freedom

Ntharotep said:

On another site I presented this hypothetical. If you awoke with the power to remove the human race's ability to do violence to one another (be it direct violence or starving people to get what you want and so forth) would it be unethical to do so?
This was an interesting thought experiment that ended with not most people clinging to the idea of free will which I understand, but that violence has a "purpose" in the human race and it would just be wrong to remove it.

So this time I am taking a simpler approach and forgetting the above thought exercise (feel free to throw it into debate if you would like) and will make this more basic.
Do people have a right to commit violence or a right to be violent?
I am thinking more of initiating violence here than in self defense whether it be out of anger, outrage, etc.

And...debate!

Click to expand...

Here's the problems with that as I see it:


1. Define "violence". This is a big one... it might not seem like it but bear with me.
Is non-violent coercion violent? If you control my ability to get what I need to live, you can make me do most anything you want if I can't resort to violence against you. What about emotional blackmail and psychological manipulation? Perhaps you say well just walk away, but what if you can't? What if you're dependent on your manipulator? What if your manipulator pursues you and will not tolerate escape?

2. How will you prevent bad behavior like theft?

If anyone can take anything I have at any time without fear of being forcibly stopped, or forcibly punished, how will we keep society functional? How can you take anyone to jail who doesn't want to go without some degree of "violence" at least as a credible threat? How much harder to keep them there and under control if they don't want to and you can't "force" them? And is unwilling detention a form of violence? If it isn't, how do we determine when it is or isn't justified? If it lacks this "compulsive aversion" effect then it could be done by a private person to another private person and the victim has no resort to violence?


Or if you're seperating out self-defense... how do you define SD? Can you defend property? With how much force?

If my neighbor is dumping toxic sludge on my kid's playground is it SD to use force to stop him?





This is a complex issue that is resistant to simple solutions.

People have the natural right to self defense. That includes the use of violence as a tool for defense, if needed. Beyond that, people do not have the right to commit violence.

Nations are slightly different, but only in how they define what constitutes a threat to their particular national security, to whit they have the sovereign right to defense which includes the practice of war.

Governments can define certain forms of violence as punishment for crimes committed against the people living under said government - in the US we have a Constitutional Right which precludes cruel or unusual punishment which includes torture and most forms of violence, but so far has been ruled to allow the death penalty which regardless of the form of execution is violence against the person being killed.

All of the above is dependent upon how you define violence. For instance, you mentioned starving people, and I would say that in that instance it would be legitimate in warfare by putting an enclave of the enemy under siege, but not legitimate or legal where one person imprisoned another and deprived them of food and water. But, again, it depends completely upon how you define an act of violence (what is violence), who is performing the act, and under what circumstances the act is occurring.

DA60 said:

Ummm...I think you should find something else to do/think about.

Exercising is good.

Click to expand...

You could have simply not participated. Just saying.

Ntharotep said:

On another site I presented this hypothetical. If you awoke with the power to remove the human race's ability to do violence to one another (be it direct violence or starving people to get what you want and so forth) would it be unethical to do so?
This was an interesting thought experiment that ended with not most people clinging to the idea of free will which I understand, but that violence has a "purpose" in the human race and it would just be wrong to remove it.

So this time I am taking a simpler approach and forgetting the above thought exercise (feel free to throw it into debate if you would like) and will make this more basic.
Do people have a right to commit violence or a right to be violent?
I am thinking more of initiating violence here than in self defense whether it be out of anger, outrage, etc.

And...debate!

Click to expand...

You do not have a right to initiate violence. You can defend yourself. The government has the power to initiate violence in limited capacity depending on the circumstances.

stonewall50 said:

You do not have a right to initiate violence. You can defend yourself. The government has the power to initiate violence in limited capacity depending on the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I can't agree, not entirely.


If someone won't allow me access to the resources I need to live, and I have no other viable options, I can and will resort to violence to obtain them... since otherwise, my dependents and I will perish.


Nations do this as well.


My neighbor may be doing things to me that fall short of "violence" but are certainly intolerable by any reasonable standard, and if there is no other way to get him to stop some level of coercive force may be necessary. This may not strictly be self-defense but it may prove unavoidable, whether engaged upon by me or by law enforcement the moral principle is the same.

Violence is the necessary and inevitable basis of all social order. If you abolished it, humanity itself may not go extinct, but human civilization certainly would.

You're rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another. People have the right to life and to persue happiness. Being violent against someone violates both and is also an extremely damaging thing socially as well.

I think people have the right to use violence in defending themselves, as that's protecting their right to life and happiness when someone else is trying to assault you.

I have the right to defend myself as violently as needed.

Ntharotep said:

On another site I presented this hypothetical. If you awoke with the power to remove the human race's ability to do violence to one another (be it direct violence or starving people to get what you want and so forth) would it be unethical to do so?
This was an interesting thought experiment that ended with not most people clinging to the idea of free will which I understand, but that violence has a "purpose" in the human race and it would just be wrong to remove it.

So this time I am taking a simpler approach and forgetting the above thought exercise (feel free to throw it into debate if you would like) and will make this more basic.
Do people have a right to commit violence or a right to be violent?
I am thinking more of initiating violence here than in self defense whether it be out of anger, outrage, etc.

And...debate!

Click to expand...

One reaps what one sows.

One should be very careful about what is sown.