Is violence always wrong?

Violence is necessary for peace and power

Question: Is violence always wrong?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, violence is not always wrong
Argument‹4 of 4: Violence is necessary for peace and power

Although violence is a complex concept, it is sometimes understood to be a threat that can ensure peace for years. The looming dangers of war have allowed countries to calmly deal with conflict and find resolutions that move away from violence.

The argument

The violence that is used to protect an individual's rights is good. Violence is necessary because, without its threat, humans would endanger each other since there would be no consequences for their actions. Citizens of the world are grounded by criminal laws that are punishable by death or other forms of violence. Peace means the lack of violence, but it is the presence of the legal justice system and criminal laws that allow humans to respect each other and look out for each other's safety. The absence of violence or war doesn't mean that people will be free of repression, injustice, or psychological violence since the meaning and triggers of violence evolve with humans. For instance, Homosexuality was considered a pathological disorder, and something had to be treated. However, with the establishment of science, we have come to understand that homosexuality is not a disorder but rather a natural state of being. In prioritizing peace, many people would not want to disturb the laws and policies that might cause disruption. This is why the fear of violence in the form of justice is necessary to keep citizens peaceful.

Premises

[P1]Without the threat of violent consequences, people would have no deterrent against harming one another. [P2] Legal justice systems rely on the threat of violence to enforce rights and keep citizens peaceful. [P3] Genuine peace requires this enforcement mechanism, since the mere absence of violence does not prevent repression or injustice. [C] Therefore, violence is not always wrong — it is sometimes necessary to secure peace and protect rights.

Counter-arguments

No matter what the reason is, violence is always wrong. There are moral ways of educating people on committing crimes or offending someone. Acts of violence only perpetuate further violence. Engaging in violence can never result in peace. It is a rage-reaction cycle, that will continue for as long as violence is present.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The deterrence claim treats the threat of violent punishment as the only restraint on harm. Most compliance with law is better explained by internalised norms, reciprocity and reputation, backed by sanctions that are coercive without being violent — fines, disqualification, confinement. [Rejecting P2] The premise slides between coercion and violence, which are not the same. Legal systems rest on the first; whether they require the second is the question at issue, and the societies with the least interpersonal harm generally use the least severe punishments rather than the most. [Rejecting P3] The observation that an absence of open violence can conceal repression is a good one, but it argues for a richer conception of peace rather than for the necessity of violence. The argument's own example makes the point: the reclassification of homosexuality was achieved through evidence and advocacy, not force. [Rejecting C] At most the premises support the narrower claim that coercive enforcement is sometimes justified. That is a considerable distance from the conclusion that violence is necessary, and it leaves the objection — that violence tends to reproduce itself — unanswered.