Is Violence Ever or Never the Answer? Also, is violence a synonym for force?

JMJ

Recently, I attended a meeting where we were asked to analyse a training scenario that required us to assess which of the characters acted honourably and to rank them.

It was an interesting exercise and when discussing the actions of one character assaulting another, a colleague turned to me and said something to the effect that that character was the lowest ranking because "violence is never the answer".

I thought that violence sometimes is necessary. Thus went the argument, until later the same colleague made a statement that contradicted their earlier stance.

So, I have been wondering what is violence and is it morally permitted?

Research and Discussion

First, I went looking through my references and found the following in Moral Theology, by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan:

52. Violence, or coercion, is the use of force by an external agent to compel one to do what one does not want to do. Its effects on voluntariness are: (a) it cannot affect the internal act of the will,else we should have the contradiction that the act of the will was both voluntary, as proceeding from the will, and involuntary, as proceeding from external coercion; (b) it can affect external acts, such as walking, and so make them involuntary. If a boy is driven to school, the violence makes his going involuntary, but it does not make his will not to go to school involuntary.

1381. Certain sayings of our Lord--for example, that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword (Matt, xxvi. 52), and that one should not resist evil (Matt, v. 39)--are not an endorsement of extreme pacifism, but are respectively a condemnation of those who without due authority have recourse to violence, and a counsel of perfection, when this serves better the honor of God or the good of the neighbor. Moreover, these words of Christ were addressed, not to states, which are responsible for the welfare of their members, but to individuals. The Quakers have done excellent service for the cause of world peace, but their teaching that all war is contrary to the law of Christ cannot be admitted. The spirit of the Gospel includes justice as well as love.

Looking to the Catholic Encyclopedia I found:

Violence (Latin vis), an impulse from without tending to force one without any concurrence on his part to act against his choice. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Violence

Here's what I found on Wikipedia. Note the first definition is cited from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Violence is often defined as the use of physical force by humans to cause harm and degradation to other living beings, such as humiliation, pain, injury, disablement, damage to property and ultimately death, as well as destruction to a civilization society's living environment. There's growing recognition among researchers and practitioners of the need to include violence that does not necessarily result in injury or death. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines it as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."Violence - Wikipedia

Since violence is a type of 'use of force' I went looking for more references and found the following article citing St. Thomas

Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ (Summa Theologiae, II-II, 64, 7) Understanding self-defense and the truth about using deadly force – Catholic World Report

Conclusion

Pulling this together, what do we find? First, violence is a type of use of force to coerce someone to act in a certain way. As usual, the intention and the context are the key. There is the possibility that an intention can be morally licit, such as when a person in authority needs to apply force to capture a criminal or prevent a criminal act. If a person uses violence with an immoral intention, then it is obviously illicit.

In the case of officers of the law, they are defending society against the criminal. The same can be said for soldiers defending a nation against an aggressor.

In the case of self-defense, following most laws and St. Thomas Aquinas, you may use force (i.e. violence) to prevent harm to yourself or others.

So ... violence is sometimes the answer, meaning you must meet violence / force with violence / force to convince the other person to cease their attack. Hence - self-defense.

However ...

In this day, violence usually carries the connotation of illicit coercion or simple physical attacks against another.

So, the clearer method is, in my opinion, to reframe the statement that the use of force is lawful / licit as a response to another's use of force that is unlawful / illicit.

More simply put, everyone has the right to defend themselves with an appropriate use of force.

P^3

Tradicat

Search This Blog