is the practice of non-violence an absurd principle?

so, in a thread, a statement was made "the practice of non-violence is absurd as a principle"... it stopped me in my tracks, but was inappropriate for the thread so i thought i'd bring it here...

for the record, i only believe in me practicing violence as a direct self-defence or immediate protection of vulnerable loved ones, if necessary, but i don't agree with it in any other format...

so, what do you all think? discuss...

 

if you didn't have to fear violence you wouldn't have to practice it.

 

i don't fear it, it is just necessary sometimes because to some people it comes as a response to life and love... but i think i know what you saying...

 

I think that unless you have an ungodly amount of self-control then you can't say that you'll never commit a violent act. You could live a peaceful life of 90 years and look back on your existence as you lie on your death bed and say "I didn't do anything violent, I'm a pacifist" but you can't predict your life and behaviour from a young age. You can look back and say "I didn't do anything violent" and you can look forward and say "I will try not to do anything violent when my self-control is active" but you can't really label yourself a pacifist or non-violent person until the trial is over.

In conclusion: In a way it is bordering on the absurd but, as per usual, there are semantics involved when people say these sorts of things. When people say "I'm pacifist" they usually mean "Given time to think, I would choose not to fight."

 

I don't think anyone believes in complete non-violence, but I think you should do your utmost to avoid violence. Never deliberately go into a situation that would lead you to violence, and only use self-defense in the most dire of circumstances. Remember that even well-intentioned violence can rebound on itself.

The way to do this is to never wish harm on anyone else, even someone you hate. They are human too.

Violence is the result of fear. To quote the Tao Te Ching:

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend youself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

Peace and Love eace:

 

only as a last resort.i.e. in self defence or in the protection and defence of vunerable persons who for whatever reason are unable to defend themselves.i would do whatever i had to do to protect.

 

Seemed to work in the case of Britain and India. Seems not to work in Syria and plenty of other countries. Also seems like true change never comes without violence of some kind. On a personal level,it's always been easy for me to be non-violent-it doesn't appear to others that it would be successful to attempt to do me harm and I don't wish others harm.(with a few exceptions). It is easy to be a pacivist until one has kids and grand kids. The game changes.

 

It is my intention to avoid resorting to violence whenever possible. For the most part, I am successful. Sometimes it may not be possible to avoid it.

What comes from violence is never wholesome, but it may in some circumstances be less unwholesome than the alternative.

 

due to the recent riots i have been thinking more about violence vs non violence.... when i looked at the peaceful protesters, they get violence from the police and courts.. it would seem to me that it should be non-violent unless provoked and that we should be filming ALL of it... see where the flash point is...

 

I remember the particular post you refer to but thought such a statement lacked credibility for a number of reasons – one being that it seemed to contradict the views expressed in several other posts of the same user. Even so, in my opinion, it was/is an absurd statement in itself.

My own belief is that violence should be the last resort in defense of life, health, and property. Yes, property – many will disagree – so long as it’s not their property in peril. However, the question (as I understand it) is one of “violence” or “non-violence” and not of “deadly force”. It should be understood that almost any violence is potentially deadly – even if accidentally. Defense of property, in some cases, can (indirectly) be defending one’s health – in extreme cases, one’s life.

I do not believe one capable of putting up a physical (violent) defense should limit that to “vulnerable loved ones” but should defend anyone “vulnerable” or in need of help in dire circumstance. Again, many will likely disagree – so long as it is not they who are in peril. While it may seem contradictory, I do not believe that the military of one country should necessarily be used to aid or defend another – that is war – an entirely different matter by my thinking and meriting the careful consideration of all consequences. Putting oneself in harm’s way is much different that placing the wellbeing of an entire nation at risk.

Fear is not the cause of all violence – fear, or an awareness of the potential of violence certainly seems the reason many, usually non-violent and logically thinking, are willing and prepared (at least mentally) to take violent action. “Defense” does not equal “punishment” or “justice” – when emotions (fear, anger) and adrenaline are involved, boundaries may be unrecognized and easily crossed even by the “non-violent”.

 

great post.ya,"anyone vunerable" i agree.

 

yes i agree with most of that... the only bit i wouldn't agree with is about helping those who are vulnerable but not known to me... i went to help a woman once who was being battered and screamed at in the street by her partner... i didn't think it through, i just felt my legs taking me to them... i seriously wish i hadn't bothered as i was shouted at by the both of them and suddenly felt very vulnerable myself... bollocks to that... i can't say i wouldn't do it again, because, as i said, i just couldn't ignore it, but i have reservations... if it was a child/animal, i would not hesitate...

 

I think all humans have the propensity to either be violent or non-violent. Which way one leans depends on the amount of horror or peace they've witnessed in their lifetime.

I think the true test of non-violence is adhering to it in a violent situation. Non-violence is deliberate whereas violence is often pure heated emotion.

 

The practice of non-violence is no more absurd as a principle as the practice of violence as a principle. I would go further to say that VIOLENCE is the most absurd activity a human could engage in. Non-violence is a principle afterall, an ideal for which we strive.

There's nothing absurd about striving for peace or striving to be a peaceful human being. It's unrealistic to expect to be able to live up to this ideal completely - not impossible, but unrealistic. However, imagine if 90 percent of the world's population suddenly decided to strive for the practice of non-violence? It suddenly becomes much less unrealistic, doesn't it? This is what promoters of the idea that peace on earth is impossible refuse to see.

 

I've had very near the same experience as you on two different occasions – domestic issues are tough situations to read. In the future I'll get involved only if the battering appears to be going to the extreme. Most cops will say that the most dreaded “routine” call is a domestic dispute.

I got into big trouble as a teenager by responding violently to abuse of an animal – I’d do it again in a heart beat!

 

I’m not sure an individual can have a “propensity” to be both – if that’s what you mean. I do think most are capable of either – one may have a propensity to be violent, while another may have a propensity to be non-violent.

The truth in that depends, I think, on many factors. As one who has witnessed many horrific events, I do not believe that having been so unfortunate has made me more inclined toward violence but rather quite the opposite. Witnessing those same events certainly may have affected others differently.

While maintaining a non-violent posture, in violent situations, is a matter of self control, i.e. controlling anger or fear, it might also be the result of loss of self control/succumbing to emotion (fear). Maintaining one’s composure while deliberately (with intent and purpose) committing violent acts also requires controlling fear and/or anger.

Unfortunately, it seems there will always circumstances where violence is the only available option. One of my favorite quotes: “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”

 

Apparently, the propensity towards violence in men is indicated by the proportion of the index finger. The shorter the index finger, the more likely that man is to resort to violence and vice versa. This is something to do with the amount of testosterone produced and how it functions in the body.

 

Non violence is only effective if it's aggressive non violence.

 

:iagree: what a wise old dog you are

interesting... i wonder what it is in women...

what is aggressive non-violence?