Is violence ever justified? argumentative essay

Violence is a central concept for describing social relationships among humans, a concept loaded with ethical and political significance. In some, probably most, circumstances it is evident that violence is unjust; but, some cases appear more debatable to someone’s eyes: can violence ever be justified?

As Self-Defense

The most plausible justification of violence is when it is perpetrated in return of other violence. If a person punches you in the face and seems intentions to keep doing so, it may seem justified to try and respond to the physical violence.

It is important to notice that violence may come in different forms, including psychological violence and verbal violence. In its mildest form, the argument in favor of violence as self-defense claims that to violence of some sort, an equally violent response may be justified. Thus, for instance, to a punch you may be legitimate to respond with a punch; yet, to mobbing (a form of psychological, verbal violence, and institutional), you are not justified in replying with a punch (a form of physical violence).

In a more audacious version of the justification of violence in the name of self-defense, violence of any kind may be justified in reply to the violence of any other kind, provided there is a somewhat fair use of the violence exercised in self-defense. Thus, it may even be appropriate to respond to mobbing by using physical violence, provided the violence does not exceed that which seems a fair payoff, sufficient to ensure self-defense.

An even more audacious version of the justification of violence in the name of self-defense has it that the sole possibility that in the future violence will be perpetrated against you, gives you sufficient reason to exercise violence against the possible offender. While this scenario occurs repeatedly in everyday life, it is certainly the more difficult one to justify: How do you know, after all, that an offense would follow?

Violence and Just War

What we have just discussed at the level of individuals can be held also for the relationships between States. A State may be justified to respond violently to a violent attack – be it physical, psychological, or verbal violence to be at stake. Equally, according to some, it may be justifiable to respond with physical violence to some legal or institutional violence. Suppose, for instance, that State S1 imposes an embargo over another State S2 so that inhabitants of the latter will experience tremendous inflation, scarcity of primary goods, and consequent civil depression. While one may argue that S1 did not impart physical violence over S2, it seems that S2 may have some reasons for a physical reaction to S2.

Matters concerning the justification of war have been discussed at length in the history of Western philosophy, and beyond. While some have repeatedly supported a pacifist perspective, other author stressed that on some occasions it is unavoidable to wage wars against some offender.

Idealistic vs. Realistic Ethics

Explanation:

there u go

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

first person

explanation: