The Use of Force

[Taosaur]

Yes, another Dalai Lama inspired thread. What can I say, he's a smart man The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation. I came to the same conclusion growing up in violent surroundings, and watching people handicap themselves with anger and violent reactions throughout my life. There are situations where the use of force is understandable and justified (idealists may disagree), but few if any in which it is the wisest or most productive option. Whenever we engage in violence, we forfeit control of the situation and are all but certain to share in the suffering it produces. The unpredictable nature of violence is especially relevant to war. War is generally undertaken with a desired end result (paradoxically, one of the goals is almost always a reduction in violence), but how can we work toward a fixed goal if our means are a roll of the dice, and the dice are weighted in favor of generating more violence? Many people feel they make themselves vulnerable by taking the option of force off the table (whether personally or as a community/nation), but as a known pacifist who regularly socializes with bikers, veterans, ex-convicts, alcoholics, and various combinations of the above, I can tell you my experience has been the opposite. Anyone agree, disagree, or have any stories that demonstrate the value of either violence or nonviolence?

[Alric]

This is how I think. If I get into a fight, I assume the other guy is going to try to kill me. That means I am going to go all out and try to escape. It doesn't matter if violence is unpredictable because I don't care if they get seriously hurt. It is all about living. When you look at it like that, you realize you should never be fighting, unless its a life or death situation. All the situations, were the person doesn't want to kill you, can be gotten out of without any violence. Its also possible you could die in the fight, especially if they pull out a gun or knife. And if they get seriously hurt you can end up in jail, even if its their fault. So unless you are prepared to die(or go to prison for life), you should not be fighting.

[XeL]

I agree with you post entirely, Taosaur. Resorting to violence will lead to grasping of negative emotions such as anger and contempt. This is the reason to why more aggressive people often find themselves in situations where they seem justify their violent actions. Being a pacifist myself, I've never been in a fight.

[Repo!]

It goes back to a lesson our mother's taught when we were young. Simply put: two wrongs do not make a right. It's the easiest way to look at it.

[Saturos]

two wrongs do not make a right However, three rights make a left.

[Spartiate]

I'm not quite sure I follow... Violence is bad? That's a little obvious...

[Taosaur]

I'm not quite sure I follow... Violence is bad? That's a little obvious... Not so much "violence is bad"--that's meaningless. Violence is a bad idea. It's impractical. It increases the volatility of any situation in ways that we can't control. If it's obvious to you, great! Meanwhile, people are getting into screaming matches, destroying their own homes and belongings, hobbling themselves with criminal records, and going to war. A substantial portion of my country demands that their commander in chief be willing to drop a nuclear bomb. So just maybe it's worth discussing the nature of violence, and its consequences.

[Xaqaria]

I personally decided that I would never strike the use of force off my list of options, but that I would still treat its use as a failure to find a different solution. I have studied aikido (and will continue to in the future although I'm not currently) which is very much inline with that philosophy. Aikido seeks to avoid conflict in any way possible, and even when one does engage in violence, the skills are designed to prevent injury to both yourself and your attacker as well.

[ooflendoodle]

Just to be very clear violence is any physical action meant to do someone physical harm?

[Alric]

That is true, most people will say violence is bad, then quickly react to problems with violence.

[Caprisun]

Our species evolved using violence to solve conflicts, among other things. So while on a personal level it isn't always the most prudent way to handle things in our modern society, I don't think it should automatically be chalked down to the "way of the caveman," since those capacities still exist in all of us and they still serve the same purpose. Some people just have more control over those tendencies, but having more control doesn't necessarily mean you should never unleash those powers. Meaning if you get punched in the face, for the love of God fight back! My two cents. Meanwhile, people are getting into screaming matches, destroying their own homes and belongings, hobbling themselves with criminal records I do agree with this. An overly violent disposition is invariably a bad thing, I've personally seen it ruin more than a few lives. So I guess controlled and calculated violence used only in necessary situations is the key.

[Malac Reborn]

The reason, as to why the use of force is a last resort, is never explained.

[Noogah]

Meanwhile, people are getting into screaming matches, destroying their own homes and belongings, hobbling themselves with criminal records, and going to war. A substantial portion of my country demands that their commander in chief be willing to drop a nuclear bomb. I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land. Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me. There is such thing as controlled violence. In an ideal world, when Mr. A was doing something awful, then Mr. B could confront Mr. A, and explain how ti was wrong. Mr. A would cease. In this world, it is quite possible that Mr. A won't cease. He may either ignore Mr. B, or hurt/kill him. If it comes to this, and Mr. A is hurting innocent people, and will listen to nothing, which would be worse? To allow Mr. A to continue hurting people? Or to disable Mr. A, and thus save the innocent people in question? This is a logical, controlled, and well thought out situation. I think of controlled fires. Fires, out of control, can be devastating to humanity. When under close control, they can be one of the most useful and productive forces harness-able. I especially feel that way about criminals. Swift, and painful judgment to criminals quickly stamps out hurtful actions, and the fear caused keeps people in line. We live in an imperfect world. Force, and violence is sometimes necessary to keep the peace. I personally decided that I would never strike the use of force off my list of options, but that I would still treat its use as a failure to find a different solution. I agree that violence should (usually) be a last resort. But, you have only failed if there was a different option that you refused to take. If there were absolutely zero options left for you, you took the only available option and have not failed. Of course, all IMHO.

[Caprisun]

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land. Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me. There is such thing as controlled violence. But what percentage of the world's population do you think is capable of clearing their heads in the heat of the moment? I would argue that the vast majority are prone to impulsive and rash behavior, behavior they are inevitably going to regret. For most people, violence is unpredictable and it is uncontrollable, like a tornado. I'm sure we've all experienced an anger that completely engulfed our senses and literally took over our bodies. There were times when I was playing football where I felt like an animal, like I was thirsty for blood and there wasn't anything anybody could do to stop me. All it takes is a trigger and you enter into that mode. Then you get that fire in your eyes and the rest is history. There are certain factors that amplify that feeling as well, like crowds of people or a girlfriend close by. That's why you always see fights around crowds of people. People act like idiots in crowds. I think we would all like to believe that at least our nation's governments don't behave in this way when waging war, but when you really analyze historical wars, you'll find that nations tend to act a lot like primordial man; driven almost entirely by instinct. Sure, the actual war plan and execution of said plan is highly controlled and calculated, but the forces which drive nations into war with each other are as unpredicatable as a man who has just found out his wife cheated on him with his best friend.

[Malac Reborn]

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land. Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me. There is such thing as controlled violence. In an ideal world, when Mr. A was doing something awful, then Mr. B could confront Mr. A, and explain how ti was wrong. Mr. A would cease. In this world, it is quite possible that Mr. A won't cease. He may either ignore Mr. B, or hurt/kill him. If it comes to this, and Mr. A is hurting innocent people, and will listen to nothing, which would be worse? To allow Mr. A to continue hurting people? Or to disable Mr. A, and thus save the innocent people in question? This is a logical, controlled, and well thought out situation. It seems both, Taosaur and you, are talking about the same thing. Also, are you saying that controlled violence is the act to engage in violent conflict with whomever you consider unpredictably violent? There is too much ambiguity in your post for me to clearly understand it, and I assume your post might be confusing to other readers as well. So, Noogah, please clarify your post so we may understand it better.

[Noogah]

I would argue that the vast majority are prone to impulsive and rash behavior, behavior they are inevitably going to regret. Of course, I won't argue that this type is heavily prevalent. It's sad, really. But what I'm trying to point out is that this is not the definitive use of violence. Violence can be used in a controlled manner as well, and when it is, it can be very useful in helping more people out than other methods. It seems both, Taosaur and you, are talking about the same thing. ...well, we're both discussing violence, if that's what you mean. Also, are you saying that controlled violence is the act to engage in violent conflict with whomever you consider unpredictably violent? Not at all. The only reason I said Mr. A was hurting people was an example. Mr. A could, alternatively, be engaging in common crime. Theft, fraud, and yes, senseless violence. What I am saying, is that "violence" can be used to suppress harmful/illegal activities in a very swift and effective manner, without anyone dying, or getting permanently hurt. Not in all cases of course. Just in severe cases, where common methods (I.E, Prison, fines, etc.) are ineffective. Of course, in this case, I would say it defies the very definition of violence. Perhaps what I am talking about is really just the use of physical force to stop unethical/harmful/illegal activities where more civilized methods more or less fail.

[Caprisun]

Of course, I won't argue that this type is heavily prevalent. It's sad, really. But what I'm trying to point out is that this is not the definitive use of violence. Violence can be used in a controlled manner as well, and when it is, it can be very useful in helping more people out than other methods. I don't think there is a person in this thread who hasn't acknowledged that point, Taosaur included. I think one of the main sentiments of this thread is that while you can control yourself in the face of violence, you can't ever control the other person. That's where the factors of unpredictability and uncontrollability come in.

[Taosaur]

I don't think there is a person in this thread who hasn't acknowledged that point, Taosaur included. I think one of the main sentiments of this thread is that while you can control yourself in the face of violence, you can't ever control the other person. That's where the factors of unpredictability and uncontrollability come in. Well, not so much. The volatility of violent action is more a corollary of the fact that one can never control the exact consequences of one's actions nor find their precise causes. We can only control the qualities of our actions and the motivations from which we act. If you throw a punch, a man may end up dead. The man may be you. If you enter into a stream of violence, do not make any assumptions about when you will reach the other shore.

[Alric]

Its funny you bring up that argument, because its the same thing the government argues when it talks about things like the war in Iraq. They say violence is needed to stop bad people but we have seen the result. It is chaotic and innocent people are dying all the time over there, because of our government.

[ooflendoodle]

I think the world is too diverse to have one set answer as to when and where to use violence controlled or otherwise.

[juroara]

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land. Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me. There is such thing as controlled violence. In an ideal world, when Mr. A was doing something awful, then Mr. B could confront Mr. A, and explain how ti was wrong. Mr. A would cease. In this world, it is quite possible that Mr. A won't cease. He may either ignore Mr. B, or hurt/kill him. If it comes to this, and Mr. A is hurting innocent people, and will listen to nothing, which would be worse? To allow Mr. A to continue hurting people? Or to disable Mr. A, and thus save the innocent people in question? This is a logical, controlled, and well thought out situation. I think of controlled fires. Fires, out of control, can be devastating to humanity. When under close control, they can be one of the most useful and productive forces harness-able. I especially feel that way about criminals. Swift, and painful judgment to criminals quickly stamps out hurtful actions, and the fear caused keeps people in line. We live in an imperfect world. Force, and violence is sometimes necessary to keep the peace. I agree that violence should (usually) be a last resort. But, you have only failed if there was a different option that you refused to take. If there were absolutely zero options left for you, you took the only available option and have not failed. Of course, all IMHO. Using ninja moves to grab a gun out of a raving lunatic's hand isn't violence. Violence is using that same gun to bash his eyeball in!! Violence is violence because it CARRIES THE INTENTION TO HARM. Not disarm. Officers beating the crap out of prison inmates IS VIOLENCE. The result is unpredictable. Inmates go crazy, lose all emotional control, or tossed in isolation cells for time periods ranging from months to years. Others form prison alliances that out-number and out-power the officers. Making the situation even worse. Others yet become suicidal or suffer other forms of depression. Can we guarantee the results of isolation will be rehabilitation? No, we can't. Often it's more mental and emotional instability. Rage, hatred, anger, depression, hallucinations, vengeance, suicide. The deterioration of one's humanity, or what ever is left. It may be hands off violence, but it's emotional violence aka abuse. Whether or not an inmate can be kept in line has little or nothing to do with an officer beating the shit out of him. Think of it this way, in America at least, prisons are CROWDED. The prisoners out number the officers. If they want to bloody riot, they can, and within minutes they can have entire control of the facility. So why don't mass riots happen more often? Because many inmates have something to keep in line for - freedom and a life outside of prison. It's the FEAR of an even longer term that keeps most inmates in line. And the greatest factor that keeps an inmate in line is sanity. An insane prisoner is a ticking time bomb. It doesn't even matter if they are one or two days away from freedom, if they can't control their emotions they can screw it all up. We should care about the lives of prisoners because they mirror our civilizations. They mirror humanity born and bred in violence or emotional abuse. And most importantly they mirror our self-denial. How many prisoners can really function in our modern world? . . . . Who here hasn't at one point been angry at how our modern world functions? They reflect us as a people, and it's an ugly reflection as a society we want to ignore. As dreamers we should all know that fighting your Shadow Self only makes it bigger. Look at the Taliban. Look at how polar opposite they are from the "american dream", they are our "shadow selves". Recent studies suggest that it's actually HUMAN NATURE to SHY AWAY FROM DANGER. Running away from danger is our instinct. Not violence!! It takes either TRAINING or emotional/mental instability to be violent! (even the caveman has to LEARN to hunt and LEARN to kill. we are not creatures born with that killer instinct) Most acts of violence in this world is a sign of disease.

[Caprisun]

Well, not so much. The volatility of violent action is more a corollary of the fact that one can never control the exact consequences of one's actions nor find their precise causes. We can only control the qualities of our actions and the motivations from which we act. If you throw a punch, a man may end up dead. The man may be you. If you enter into a stream of violence, do not make any assumptions about when you will reach the other shore. Right, that is essentially the same thing . . . I think. Its funny you bring up that argument, because its the same thing the government argues when it talks about things like the war in Iraq. They say violence is needed to stop bad people but we have seen the result. It is chaotic and innocent people are dying all the time over there, because of our government. And what else would you propose?

[Alric]

Diplomacy and trade. No country uses violence for the sake of violence. There is something they want or need. If they use violence its because they think its the best or only way to get what it is they want. Though with diplomacy and trade you can find alternatives, and get any country to become better.

[Xaqaria]

I agree that violence should (usually) be a last resort. But, you have only failed if there was a different option that you refused to take. If there were absolutely zero options left for you, you took the only available option and have not failed. Of course, all IMHO. There is always another option, that is why I say that the use of violence is a failure to figure out what the other options are, or to use them. Violence is always accompanied by a certain degree of failure. It may be the lesser of several failures that the person is aware of, but it is still a failure nonetheless.

[ArcanumNoctis]

Yes, another Dalai Lama inspired thread. What can I say, he's a smart man I came to the same conclusion growing up in violent surroundings, and watching people handicap themselves with anger and violent reactions throughout my life. There are situations where the use of force is understandable and justified (idealists may disagree), but few if any in which it is the wisest or most productive option. Whenever we engage in violence, we forfeit control of the situation and are all but certain to share in the suffering it produces. The unpredictable nature of violence is especially relevant to war. War is generally undertaken with a desired end result (paradoxically, one of the goals is almost always a reduction in violence), but how can we work toward a fixed goal if our means are a roll of the dice, and the dice are weighted in favor of generating more violence? Many people feel they make themselves vulnerable by taking the option of force off the table (whether personally or as a community/nation), but as a known pacifist who regularly socializes with bikers, veterans, ex-convicts, alcoholics, and various combinations of the above, I can tell you my experience has been the opposite. Anyone agree, disagree, or have any stories that demonstrate the value of either violence or nonviolence? When you respond with violence, you are actually fighting yourself. Thats why you can't resort to violence. You propagate the hate/chaos. It is a self infliction when you give in. The best way to look at it is the butterfly effect. You don't want to perpetuate it, you want to change it. However, I do believe in self defense. On a biological level, it is survival. On a spiritual level it doesn't matter. Sorry, I'm not going to side with the unknown in spirituality and instead I'm going to go with my biological instincts. In doing so, it is important to have an active pursuit in the disarming of all violence prior to it potentially reaching me or others. Absolution in self defense.