Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Violence is justified when it’s needed to protect yourself or someone else from violence. That’s about it, honestly.

    I am not a fan of pre-emptive violence.

    • Tamo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Surely protecting is by definition preemptive since it means you are not allowing the violence against yourself or someone else to occur? Not saying your first point is wrong just doesn’t seem consistent to me.

      Only revenge/retribution would not be preemptive which imo is not better.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Preemptive is a different word from defending because they mean different things. Preemptive violence is violence that happens before a threat exists because of the possibility of a threat.

        So shooting your neighbor on Tuesday because think he might be violent on Wednesday. If on Wednesday he shows up and makes verbal threats of imminent violence, responding to the threat of violence by being violent first would be self defense and not preemptive because the threat actually exists at the time. Timing and context matter, not who literally who gets off the first shot/punch/violent act.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are situations where people have created a situation where you don’t have total knowledge of the future, but acting in defense seems justified.

        I think we can quibble over the specifics about what’s reasonable, but you don’t have to wait until you’re bleeding out to defend yourself.

        • Tamo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For me personally, the answer to the original question would be “only once no other non-violent means are available”.

          Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personally, I’d prefer non-violent over violent means for myself. If other people are involved it would depend - I won’t risk someone else’s life if I can avoid it. I tell my niece that she’s allowed to stab dudes that don’t respond to “no”.