According To Borghini's Can Violence Be Justified?

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

My operational definition of violence is any kind of physical action where the intention is to hurt, damage or kill someone or something. There is the question of whether violence is a part of human nature or simply some people way of interacting with the world around us, were we always violent or is it a more pronounced feature of the modern era? I believe that violence is a key part of human nature and has contributed to our survival and evolution on many occasions, however it can also a major drawback and has led to some of humanities most devastating mortality rates, wars and atrocities. It is widely accepted that violence is present in at least some humans, and so where does this violence originate from? The nature vs nurture debate explores whether people are born with this violent gene or are raised by their parents or guardians to act in a violent way but are not born with it. The nature vs nurture debate is a key part of violences origins in humanity and so will be explored in this essay.

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

The history of humanity is written in blood. Even as violence as a whole is decreasing, acts of extreme violence continue to be perpetrated. To be clear, this essay is not about individuals violent and cold at their core. Such people are readily understood within the image of a lone, antisocial killer set apart from humanity by their very lacking of it. This essay is about violence conducted on a scale that can only be enabled by the participation of people who, under normal circumstances, would not act violent. The puzzle of how and why genocides, apartheid, state brutality, torture, and mob killings are perpetrated by ordinary people points to psychosocial mechanisms as their cause. Ordinarily non-violent people commit extreme violence

Violence as a concept is highly controversial. Because violence is an ever-present force within the world, society as a whole is incessant upon finding situations in which it may be acceptable. The infatuation with the justification of violence is not a new concept, it spans generations and is constantly evolving. One way that society has approached this idea is the utilitarian rational. This idea was theorized early on by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Anderson, 2004). Simply put, the idea of utilitarianism is the idea that the route that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the most ethical. This can be exemplified by the situation commonly presented during Marine training, the Trolley Dilemma. The scenario states: A trolley was on a set course to hit and kill 5 people on a track.

What is self defense? Self defense is is defined as “ The right to prevent suffering force or

Self defense is a general right to defend oneself against the use of unlawful force. One may defend oneself with deadly force only if the attacker threatens him with serious bodily harm.

Violence has never helped anyone but instead it has taken away the lives of people. In the essay, Jones says, “…the

As portrayed in the famous “Washington Crossing the Delaware” painting, George Washington and his men fought with all they can in order to push back against British powers in order to gain the American colonists autonomy from Great Britain they deserved (Source C). This piece of history can explain how using violence in order to break away from another aggressive force that has shown brutality towards the other group can be justified, because that could be the only way to get their message across to show the opposition how they believe they should be treated. And, while violence still happens to be a predominant event in society, many presume that reacting against an oppressor is just. While violence should not be the immediate answer to any problem, many concur that using brutality can be useful in the event of fighting against an opposing influence. In a survey conducted about mass violence, 72% of students concur that acting out against an oppressive power can vindicate violence (Source J). This survey explains that many agree that an oppressed force should have the right to use force in order to get their message across or fight for their liberties, and should have the right to do so. However, not all may believe this, and sometimes force against the abusers is not necessary to voice their

Violence help them enjoy themselves as a free human, and also help them live better without the rule wrote by the colonist. “Even if the armed struggle has been

Throughout history many people have debated whether or not nonviolent acts work or is it tactic that wastes time. Many places across the globe including the United States has depended on violent acts in order settle foreign and domestic disputes. Even though many people believe violence is a way to settle disputes a lot of places have discovered other alternatives in order to solve their problems peacefully. One of the alternative methods that societies are leaning towards is nonviolence. Nonviolence had become an effective tool to help fix social problems in many places around the world. Even though solving problems peacefully as a major impact on the people involved it still comes with negative aspects. This essay will prove how practicing

Governments and politicians grant themselves, and only themselves, the right to violate law and order, to use extreme violence in violation of the supposed rules of society, as a means of achieving supposedly good ends.

In the world today, violence is seen everywhere one can look from the media to our everyday life’s. In violence, someone is being dehumanized when it happens between two or more parties. For someone to act out in violence shows the inner moral of a person. Violence in most cases isn’t justiciable, but it’s interesting to see how individuals use their own morals in violence and everyday life. To show where these morals come from, I’m going to be using the works: Even in the Rain directed by Iciar Bollain, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, and How Experiences Become Rights by Hans Joas.

In some instances, but very few, violent conflict can be considered ethical. Even in these situations, violent conflict is only considered ethical to an extent. Times when violent conflict can be considered ethical are: self-defense and revenge. Self defense is only ethical to an extent because at some point it is no longer self-defense. Revenge is only ethical when it is absolutely necessary, and and at some point it can no longer be considered ethical because it just turns to violence.