[Mercenary]

Violence is morally justified when it advances the position of the working class.

The ends justify the means, when the means justify the ends. Violent agendas like yours are what keeps the cycle going, and the working class down.

[Mercenary]

You shouldn't be surprised when your
violence is met by violence.

Sure, violence begets violence.

That's why I believe in non-aggression.

[Godstud]

Non-aggression does not work against someone who is willing to use violence. That's simply fact.

[Mercenary]

Why not? Are you claiming that self defense is a myth?

[Godstud]

Self-defense is using violence, whether you think it is, or not. That it is justified seems to not be important to you.

[Mercenary]

I never claimed that self defense was not violence. Your point?

[Drlee]

There is no such thing as objective self defense. I am an old man. I should probably not expect to successfully defend myself with my fists against a younger and more robust person. Nor can I reasonably expect to successfully flee. I have a pistol. I can carry my pistol under my coat. Having been a soldier for a couple of decades I am very good with my pistol.

My alternatives in the case of a perceived OR real threat from another person are to produce my pistol and a warning if there is time and space for the warning. If my perceived assailant even faints toward me to kill him instantly.

Your notion of self defense is idiotic. Just silly.

You like Aristotle Mercenary?

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

The state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues to exist for the sake of good life. Aristotle

The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness. Aristotle

It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims.

You should actually read him some time.

[recurnal]

I can walk into Walmart tomorrow and methodically bludgeon every cashier with a hammer.

I can also fail to get up from my couch soon enough tonight, causing a man in Taiwan to fall down the stairs to his death thirty years from now.

Somewhere between the wholly cruel and the wholly indeliberate lies morality. And it is one hard fucker to pin down—probably because it doesn't exist.

Do I condone violence? No way. But my measly denunciation won't stop a Taiwanese man from falling down the stairs in the year 2046, and it sure as hell won't stop sickos from buying hammers. The most I can do is to try at every turn to be kind, forgiving, and peaceful.

[Godstud]

I can walk into Walmart tomorrow and methodically bludgeon every cashier with a hammer.

I can also fail to get up from my couch soon enough tonight, causing a man in Taiwan to fall down the stairs to his death thirty years from now.

Is this some fucked up version of the "butterfly effect"?

I forgot to eat breakfast, therefore someone will die in Singapore from a peanut allergy in 25 years.

The most I can do is to try at every turn to be kind, forgiving, and peaceful.

That's the only thing you said that made any sense.

[Drlee]

The most I can do is to try at every turn to be kind, forgiving, and peaceful.

No. This is the least you can do.

The most you can do is serve at the risk of your life so that a great many people may live kind and peaceful lives.

This softball fight is getting to me. It takes strength and the willingness to resort to violence to ensure that a peaceful place may exist and then only while you watch.

People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf

[recurnal]

That's the only thing you said that made any sense.

Does it bother you to know that the next person who holds the door for you may be doing so because he's afraid of slippery Taiwanese staircases from the future?

That would bother me.

(My only point, really, is that consequentialism sucks and morality is more a series of personal choices than a set of universal principles.)

No. This is the least you can do.

The most you can do is serve at the risk of your life so that a great many people may live kind and peaceful lives.

This softball fight is getting to me. It takes strength and the willingness to resort to violence to ensure that a peaceful place may exist and then only while you watch.

Point taken.

[Godstud]

Does it bother you to know that the next person who holds the door for you may be doing so because he's afraid of slippery Taiwanese staircases from the future?

That would bother me.

I guess I am just not a special snowflake. I don't worry about the possibilities of things going awry that are beyond my control.

Morality is always person choices. You choose what is right or wrong based on your society's preconceived notions of what morality is. Morality is subjective and relative to where you are, and what society has taught you.

[recurnal]

I don't worry about the possibilities of things going awry that are beyond my control.

You see, I thought for a while I did, but @Drlee pointed out astutely that I'm no saint for pretending to be a saint.

What really bothers me isn't the world, which is obviously chaotic beyond my control. It's my own damned indifference to my immediate surroundings. That's something I can change—and while I don't think I'll be parachuting to save little girls any time soon, I can at least practice kindness and forgiveness.

[billabong]

Do you believe violence is morally justified? If so, under what circumstances, if any?

I believe in a strict adherence to non-aggression. I believe that imprisonment, execution, conscription, torture, and institutional intimidation are all acts of aggression.

Yes, it is morally justified in the defence of yourself; the defence of others; the defence of property (if it is proportionate and reasonable);to restrain those intent on harming themselves where their ability to make a reasoned judgement is impaired (e.g. injury to head); where it is reasonable to prevent crime; to arrest offenders....

So....If you class imprisonment as violence, it is justified for violent offenders who pose a risk to others (on the basis that this is society defending itself). A state under threat of annihilation can defend itself by requiring its citizens to defend it, therefore conscription is justifiable (although here I think you are confusing 'duress' with 'violence'). 'Intimidation' is not violence, your terms are unclear here. That leaves torture and execution. Those will be debated till the end of time I suspect.

If you have a strict adherence to non-aggression you will die, saved only by those pragmatists who decline to be so bound.

[Mercenary]

If you have a strict adherence to non-aggression you will die, saved only by those pragmatists who decline to be so bound.

Aggression isn't pragmatic. It is self destructive.

[Mercenary]

There is no such thing as objective self defense. I am an old man. I should probably not expect to successfully defend myself with my fists against a younger and more robust person. Nor can I reasonably expect to successfully flee. I have a pistol. I can carry my pistol under my coat. Having been a soldier for a couple of decades I am very good with my pistol.

My alternatives in the case of a perceived OR real threat from another person are to produce my pistol and a warning if there is time and space for the warning. If my perceived assailant even faints toward me to kill him instantly.

Your notion of self defense is idiotic. Just silly.

My notion of self defense? What would that be? Defending myself?

[Mercenary]

You like Aristotle Mercenary?

You should actually read him some time.

Because I shared a theory by Aristotle that I explicitly stated I disagree with, that somehow means I worship the guy? I do not worship men.

[billabong]

Mercenary wrote:
Aggression isn't pragmatic. It is self destructive.

It is dogmatic to say you will never use aggression. You can hold that view by all means. However, when your child is being forcibly abducted it is surely pragmatic to put that view to one side for a second and punch the abductor?

Or is it not Mercenary?

[Mercenary]

Non-aggression ≠ pacifism

[Drlee]

The non-aggression principle is an unnecessary distinction. To those with well developed principles, no matter how they are attained, it should be greeted with, "Right. Soooo?

I completely understand that it is a term that libertarians revel in pulling like a sword. It is the statement of a principle completely unnecessary to groups such as, well, Christians. Especially Christians who from birth have been taught:

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

For one following these three rules a mere principle of deciding to not steal another's property by force or coercion and not doing violence against them is obvious.

Of course the more evolved Christian would consider these: "

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

or

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

as going even further than the debatable requirements of the non-aggression principle as recognized by libertarians.

For example. There is debate among those who believe they follow the non-aggression pact about intellectual property. There would be no debate among Christians following the rule about covetousness or stealing, or simply doing for the author what you would have him do for you. And if a Christian were conflicted one would realize that regardless of the rule, the "love your neighbor" principle would compel him/her to err in favor of the author.

I am frankly surprised that more libertarians and anarchists do not follow the teachings of Jesus whose message was right in their wheelhouse. Strip away the Judaic traditional beliefs and the words of Jesus more profoundly state their principles than do the words (oh so many words) of folks like Rand. One need not adopt an organized religious group to be a Christian.

My experience is that these libertards as some call them, are simply unwilling to limit their selfishness.