[namithailoveyou]

why does it matter if people are violent?

[Rybee]

Because the violence usually infringes another persons 'rights'.

[salty_candy]

Not always, but if it can be reasonably avoided then yes, I think it's wrong.

[JCC-MGS]

Violence is wrong but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils and sometimes it's entirely wrong but you understand it on a human level. Generally speaking I'd say violence is wrong but it's impractical to be a pacifist in a society which hasn't embraced the idea

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by Rybee)
Because the violence usually infringes another persons 'rights'.

What are rights and where do they come from? what about the rights of the attacker?

[Rybee]

(Original post by namithailoveyou)
What are rights and where do they come from? what about the rights of the attacker?

I put rights in apostrophes because I use the term 'rights' very loosely. I don't believe anyone is born with any rights but you earn them from the society that you live within at different times of your life.

I don't think we have many rights at all. People say my;
right to healthcare
right to food and water
right to wear a pineapple on my head
right to protest
right to an education
right to be offended

They are NOT your rights at all. Rights and Requests are very different and the line is sometimes negligible in size - but there is a line.

That said, should you have a right not to be attacked in your own home by a random and unknown violent person? I'd say so. It's your house and you've earned that right because of this.

Do you have a right not to be attacked in the street? I don't think so. I don't think that it is your RIGHT to have the rest of society to respect you without question. So no. I think you have all reason to request you should not be attacked by a violent person, but I don't think it's your right. I think it's arrogant to believe that you have all these rights...

[namithailoveyou]

No such rights exist. it is a question of anything goes, since the attacker's "right" is supreme.

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Violence is wrong but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils and sometimes it's entirely wrong but you understand it on a human level. Generally speaking I'd say violence is wrong but it's impractical to be a pacifist in a society which hasn't embraced the idea

Wrong according to whom? I don't see why it's wrong to hurt other people.

[Rybee]

(Original post by namithailoveyou)
Wrong according to whom? I don't see why it's wrong to hurt other people.

Wrong in what sense? Socially, Economically, Morally? Sometimes it can be justified, other times it can't.

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by Rybee)
Wrong in what sense? Socially, Economically, Morally? Sometimes it can be justified, other times it can't.

What? I just said I don't see why violence is wrong. If somebody gets "hurt" it's their own fault.

[Hopple]

Violence is the reason each of us is alive today - our ancestors were better at violence than their enemies

[Rybee]

(Original post by namithailoveyou)
What? I just said I don't see why violence is wrong. If somebody gets "hurt" it's their own fault.

Can you explain how the people murdered a few weeks ago in the cinema in america were at fault? Fault is concerned with wrong-doing and blame. Why were they to blame for an unpredicted mass killing?

If I was to break into your house and shoot you in the head, why is that your fault?

[Rybee]

By the way, I don't think fault can often be applied to acts of omissions.

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by Rybee)
Can you explain how the people murdered a few weeks ago in the cinema in america were at fault? Fault is concerned with wrong-doing and blame. Why were they to blame for an unpredicted mass killing?

Life is tough, they got killed, so what? The killer's morality is evident, who are you to cite it as wrong?

If I was to break into your house and shoot you in the head, why is that your fault?

How can it be?

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by Hopple)
Violence is the reason each of us is alive today - our ancestors were better at violence than their enemies

Geek jokes aside, this proves that violence is not wrong.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

It is always wrong, though there can be times when it is unavoidable, that said, it is still wrong regardless of whether it is the only option

[Rybee]

(Original post by namithailoveyou)
Life is tough, they got killed, so what? The killer's morality is evident, who are you to cite it as wrong?

You said if someone was attacked, it was their fault.

So I say, if I broke into your house and shot you in the head, why is that your fault?

[miser]

My answer to this question reflects my understanding of what morality means. If morality ought to mean anything, it is that we should avoid harming people when it is not necessary to do so. In this light, violence against a person when it is not necessary introduces a greater amount of unnecessary suffering into the world, which worsens existence for at least one person. If the unnecessary bringing to harm of any being is decided to be unethical, then in order to remain moral we should avoid it. If this is the case then it matters, morally speaking, if a person is hurt when it can otherwise reasonably be avoided.

[Raheem786]

In a lot of cases it is wrong. But sometimes it is necessary like the Libyan/Syrian Revolutions.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[namithailoveyou]

(Original post by miser)
My answer to this question reflects my understanding of what morality means. If morality ought to mean anything, it is that we should avoid harming people when it is not necessary to do so. In this light, violence against a person when it is not necessary introduces a greater amount of unnecessary suffering into the world, which worsens existence for at least one person. If the unnecessary bringing to harm of any being is decided to be unethical, then in order to remain moral we should avoid it. If this is the case then it matters, morally speaking, if a person is hurt when it can otherwise reasonably be avoided.

What if we wish to harm the other person, why is it "wrong" then?