When is violence justified?

Violence is a part of human behavior that has always been present in society and probably always will be. Although there seems to be a general consensus that violence is, in essence, bad, there are also those who maintain that it is an intrinsic part of our nature as human beings and that it is also, to some extent, necessary for the development and proper functioning of the company.

For some schools of philosophical thought, which include great thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, human beings have the natural tendency to solve all our conflicts through the use of force and violence, just as many animals do.

But are we human beings just mere animals following our baser instincts, thus justifying any violent behavior? Where are then ethics, morality and the values ​​of kindness and equality? Or, are we perhaps good beings by nature among whom violence is never justified and in whom all violent behavior must be consequently discouraged and punished?

The answer to these questions is not easy. The ethical dilemma of violence is not new and, as you can imagine, it is not a subject that can be seen in black and white, or at least it is not that simple for everyone. In this article we will explore the meaning of violence, human nature, and under what conditions, if any, its use against others can be justified.

What is violence?

The Royal Spanish Academy defines violence as “violent action or against the natural way of proceeding” and as the action and effect of applying violent means to things or people to overcome their resistance. On the other hand, violence can also be understood as a type of interaction between human beings or between human beings and animals or objects, in which physical force or other means are used with the intention of injuring, damaging, killing or destroy someone or something

Furthermore, from a legal point of view, violence is defined as the unlawful use of intimidation through the display of physical force or the unlawful use of such force.

Although this gives us a clear idea of ​​what violent behavior means, we must also understand that these definitions open up the possibility of the existence of different types of violence. They also tell us that justifying the use of one type of violence does not necessarily justify the use of another.

types of violence

When thinking of violence, most of us imagine someone hitting, injuring, or killing another person. However, there are different types of violence and beatings are an example of only one of them. The five main types of violence are presented below.

physical violence

Physical violence is one of the most obvious forms of violence, since it implies visible damage to the physical integrity of another person, an animal or something. It can be exercised through physical force or through instruments or objects used as weapons.

psychological violence

It consists of an intentional conduct or behavior that seriously and negatively affects the mental and psychological integrity of another person without the need to use physical force. Psychological “blows” can be delivered in the form of threats, coercion, slander, or harassment, keeping the other person in a constant state of fear, anxiety, or despair.

emotional violence

This type of violence seeks to degrade a person’s self-esteem, subjecting them to verbal abuse, despising or diminishing their abilities, constantly criticizing them, etc. It is also considered emotional violence to forcibly prevent or prohibit access to emotional support from family, friends or other third parties.

sexual violence

It consists of forcing another person to participate in a sexual act without their consent. From a legal point of view, it is also considered sexual violence when an adult manipulates a minor to have sexual relations, even if the minor agrees.

economic violence

Economic violence is generally defined within the scope of gender violence, particularly against women. These are actions taken with the purpose of ensuring the economic dependence of another person, with the objective of controlling it through financial and subsistence resources. This type of violence consists of preventing the other from working or even preparing or educating himself in order to obtain a job and thus support himself.

As we can see, violence can take many forms. When discerning whether violence can be justified or not, we must take these types of violence into account. Additionally, if we intend to justify violence on a moral basis, we must also consider whether human beings are inherently good or evil, that is, whether violence is part of our being.

Is human being violent by nature?

If violence is part of our nature, then denying violence as legitimate and fully justified behavior is contradictory. For example, Scientific American published that the honey badger is the most violent and aggressive animal in the world. This aggressiveness is part of their nature, so no one questions whether their violence is justified or not.

For this reason, questions about human nature are closely linked to questions about the justification of violence.

The problem is not simple at all, nor is it solved. Throughout thousands of years, entire books have been written that analyze the problem of human nature from the philosophical, theological, psychological, sociological and scientific, and in all cases there are arguments in favor of one position or another.

The best we can say is that human beings are not inherently good or bad, they are not naturally violent or peaceful, but rather a complex being whose behavior depends on the context and particular circumstances of each individual . This implies that there are situations in which violent behavior could be justified, but not always.

What violence can be justified and in what context?

Having said the above, it is worth asking ourselves, first of all, if any type of violence is justified in a certain context. The answer is undoubtedly no. It is not possible to imagine any real context that ethically and morally justifies emotional, psychological, economic or sexual violence. At least it is not justified under socio-cultural systems that do not belong to some form of religious extremism or to some sect, as has been reported in the case of the Church of Scientology or in the case of the Taliban extremist groups.

These types of violence only seem to be the expression of the purest evil and cruelty, seeking nothing more than the dominance or destruction of the other for personal pleasure or some other selfish end.

However, there are situations in which physical violence can be justified and even defended from a moral and ethical point of view, even if its consequence is the death of another human being.

Physical violence as self defense

Although it is never desired, the first context in which violence is accepted by most of society is when it is used in self-defense against another person’s attack and violence towards us. In this type of situation, two different expressions of violence are involved, one that is generating violence (that of the attacker) and another that is violence in response to the attack (that of the victim).

By virtue of the fact that we all enjoy the right to life, we then have the right to defend our life when someone acts against it. That is, when someone tries to violate our right to life, that gives us the moral authority to violate theirs.

Proof of the fact that society in general accepts the use of violence in this context as justified is that the use of violence in legitimate self-defense is a figure that exists in most of the world’s judicial systems.

Physical violence in defense of others

Another context in which many justify the use of violence is when we defend the lives of other people. For example, if a criminal tries to murder a defenseless child, no one will misjudge the child’s parent (or anyone else) for using violence against the criminal to save the child’s life.

State violence against the individual

The current society and the emergence of the State is a consequence of the need of the weak to protect themselves from the stronger through the support of more people. It can be argued that the strongest people, if they lack scruples, will always use their strength to subjugate the weakest. One of the functions of the State is to use violence against individuals who believe they are stronger than others, in defense of the weakest. It is then about the institutionalization of the use of physical violence in defense of others. This forms the basis of justification for the power of law enforcement and police forces in modern societies.

Violence of the individual against the state

The State sometimes loses its direction and its mission to protect the weakest, using its power to take advantage of them, as happens in countries with autocratic governments, such as the current North Korea or Nazi Germany. In these cases, there is the unjustified use of violence by the State, which in turn can justify the uprising of the people in defense of their rights. While in some countries there are legal instruments to resolve these types of cases without the use of violence, history has shown that, many times, only an armed revolution is capable of generating the change that people need.

However, if Mahatma Gandhi’s pacifist revolution, which achieved India’s independence from the English empire, showed us anything, it is that violence is not always essential. Thus, if the same objective can be achieved without the need for violence, the latter may not be justified.

War: the violence of one state against another

In last place we have war, the scourge that has defined the history of humanity. It has been said that the history of humanity is the history of its wars and this seems to be true. However, we can ask ourselves, is so much violence on such a large scale as that observed during the two world wars and so many others justified?

As in the individual case, wars often begin with an apparently unjustified act of violence by one nation against another, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This first act authorizes the attacked state. in the eyes of the rest of the international community, to respond proportionately with more violence. However, after this response, it often happens that the first aggressor nation responds with even more extreme violence, morally authorizing the second nation to also respond with a higher level of violence.

This is known in warlike terms as the escalation of the war and can eventually involve other countries, cause thousands and even millions of deaths and, ultimately, produce no positive result for any of the nations involved.

In conclusion

In most cases, the use of violence, whatever it may be, is not justified, especially when it only seeks to demonstrate the supremacy of one person or a group of people over others. However, in some very specific situations it can be justified as the only means of self-defense or to defend others. In these cases, the justification for the use of violence is based on the idea that the other used it first and that, therefore, we have the right to respond in the same way. However, it is often difficult to determine for sure who cast the first stone. This is particularly difficult in the case of war, especially considering the media manipulation suffered by information from both sides.

On the other hand, although they are few, there are examples of cases in which the non-violent response to violent aggression has achieved better results than those that would have been obtained through justified violence. That is why, in general terms, what is desirable is to break the vicious circle of violence that breeds more violence, even if our ethical and moral values ​​dictate that we have the right to respond violently.

References

Beller Taboada, W. (2010). Is violence justified?: what science and philosophy say . Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 19(38). 19–52. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/859/85920311002.pdf

Diaz, F. (2015, February 24). When is the use of violence justified? I read and write, therefore I am. https://diazfranklin.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/when-it-justifies-the-use-of-violence/

CHOOSE. (nd). psychological violence . European Institute for Gender Equality. https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1334

Muller, J.M. (nd). Violence | peace . Background arguments. https://biblio.upmx.mx/Estudios/Documentos/violenciapaz026.asp

UN Women. (nd). Frequently Asked Questions: Types of Violence Against Women and Girls . https://www.unwomen.org/es/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/faqs/types-of-violence

Quo, R. (2019, August 23). What is the most aggressive mammal in the world? esquire. https://www.esquire.com/es/actualidad/a27301617/animal-most-aggressive-in-the-world/

RAE. (2021). Violence . «Dictionary of the Spanish language» – Tercentenary Edition. https://dle.rae.es/violencia