Violence

I have some thoughts about Star Wars, but those will have to wait—I’m still absorbing the new movie!

I’ve just finished re-reading (for perhaps the eighth time) the Matador Trilogy by Steve Perry. The essential idea behind them is that initiating violence is morally wrong. There is a problem with this idea—but getting to it will take some explaining.

Isaac Asimov wrote that "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." If you must resort to violence, then you’ve done something wrong. I can’t buy this. I agree that violence should (typically) be the last option, but I do not believe that it means that you’ve failed somewhere else along the line. I believe that there are situations where two parties have mutually exclusive needs, and the only possible resolution is violence.

Some (very few, I think) would argue at this point, saying that death is the preferable option to violence. I’m not that good; I hold closer to Robert Heinlein’s moral code, which begins with survival: "Morals— all correct moral laws— derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

So—violence may be necessary.

Is there ever a case where it must be initiated? I think so.

It is possible that an enemy will bide his time, waiting to strike until success is certain. In this case, waiting (failing to initiate violence) is really suicide, which is immoral (does not promote survival). If violence is necessary, and waiting to react is suicide, then the only moral choice is to be proactive.

Note that I am not condoning or encouraging violence—there is far too much of that as it is. The problem is with people’s minds and beliefs—their minds are too narrow; their "needs" too great. Many people are painting themselves into mental corners so that violence will eventually become the only option.

Summary on violence: use only when needed—and you never need as much as you think.

Page last updated 2012-03-29