argument top image

Is violence always wrong? Show more Show less
Back to question

Violence is the use of force or power. According to the World Health Organization, it is divided into three broad categories: self-directed violence, interpersonal violence, and collective violence. The question of why violence is inflicted upon oneself or someone else is open to question. Could we categorize all violence as bad, or is some violence necessary to prevent people from committing punishable crimes?

Yes, violence is always wrong Show more Show less

The idealistic approach to ethics of violence is that no matter its reason, it can never be justified, which is why it is always wrong.
(1 of 3) Next position >

Collective, politically or economically motivated violence is unjust

Economic violence is two-faced, direct, and indirect. Political violence is when a political party is against your basic interests and uses you as a political violence tool.

The Argument

One of the examples of politically motivated violence is war. War is a political power product to gain land, exercise authority over other people, and increase fear. War is one of the products of collective violence, and the WHO attributes great importance to dealing with the psychological traumas of war. According to their estimation, armed conflicts will result in 10% with serious mental health issues, and another 10% will develop behaviors that will hinder their ability to function normally. In Palestine, 32.7% of children from 9-10 years suffered from symptoms of PTSD. Children in camps showed higher rates than children living in towns. [1] Collective violence due to climate change is also one of the ways that contribute to social control. It causes displacement, indirect damage to the health-supporting infrastructure of society, damaging the environment, etc. The cost of economic violence cannot be fully estimated. Still, economic violence is divided into direct costs (rising immediately to the violent event) and indirect costs (result as a consequence or a loss of opportunity). Based on a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), elder abuse-related spending in 2009 included $1.1 million by the National Institutes of Health, $50,000 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $5.9 million by the Administration on Aging, $0.75 million by the Department of Justice Civic Division, and $1.2 million by the National Institute of Justice. The Office of Victims of Crimes and the Office on Violence Against Women spent $520,000 and $4.9 million. [2] Such economic facts arise from the violence that takes place in our society. The costs of meeting the victims' needs are expensive but not satisfactory. The political power over the people in giving them access to facilities and yet creating disruptions within countries such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Cambodia, etc., is how collective violence takes place.

Counter arguments

Violence plays a huge role in moving the economy forward. As patients in hospitals increase, so does the demand for nurses, doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Without mentally or physically ill people, there would be no demand for such professionals. Collective violence isn't necessarily wrong because it provides the means for people to survive and take care of themselves. In America, during World War II, 17 million new civilian jobs were created, and the flow in industrial productivity increased by 96%. The war created new technologies, industries, and human skills. War is a prominent example of how a violent event can revitalize a country. [3]

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472271/#:~:text=War%20destroys%20communities%20and%20families,in%20material%20and%20human%20capital.
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK189992/
  3. https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 20 Oct 2020 at 20:27 UTC

Explore related arguments