**TL;DR - There is a place for violence. Violence isn’t wrong when used in self-defence. NOR is it wrong when used in a controlled manner in physical sports** - As an avid watcher and supporter of Rugby Union, I can understand how some view the sport as violent. However, just because is it a physical game that can sometimes cause violence on the pitch, doesn’t mean that the violence is wrong. - There is something quite satisfying by seeing a shove or a push in a game like Rugby, as it ignites a passion for the game as well as entertainment for the audience. Violence under sporting circumstances is something that people enjoy watching as it is controlled and, within context, enjoyable. Just take a look at the popularity of Boxing, Judo or Karate. Even if we look back to Roman times, a more extreme version would be gladiatorial events. - In addition to this, I don’t think we should say all violence is wrong. In the act of self-defence it seems perfectly legitimate in my opinion. It would be against our innate human nature to be attacked and not retaliate as a reflex. This doesn’t mean that you have to fight back, just instinctively I think most people would understand why you did. [Fighting back means you contribute to the fight] (https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2006-1-page-323.htm), however sometimes it is a necessity or an instinct. - To mention, I don’t think violence is an answer to the worlds problems, and I am not condoning anarchy. However, what I am trying to explain is that violence can be justified in certain circumstances. We see throughout human history an inclination to fight in wars and battles. I am of the opinion that sometimes violence shouldn't always be referred to as “never the answer”.

**TL;DR Violence is necessary for social change** • Violence is wrong because it causes harm to others. However, violence against violence that is intended to reduce this overall harm can be justified. This is particularly true in totalitarian regimes, where the dominant power exerts their force through violence upon its subjects. • Even Nelson Mandela, known for his peaceful approach in his fight to end apartheid in South Africa, recognised that [“Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."](https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/1962-nelson-mandela-address-conference-pan-african-freedom-movement-east-and-central-africa/). From his own experience, he argues that violence is the only form of protest that induces a reaction from oppressive powers. • The political philosopher Frantz Fanon, who wrote extensively on Algeria’s fight for independence, explains that [“decolonization is always a violent phenomenon”](http://hyle.mobi/Reading_Groups/Concerning%20Violence,%20Frantz%20Fanon/); destruction is a necessity in all social change, as to rebuild you must first destroy. [Colonization](https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-1750/xcabef9ed3fc7da7b:unit-5-imperialism-colonialism-and-responses/xcabef9ed3fc7da7b:5-2-colonialism/a/read-colonial-violence-beta) itself sets this tone for violence: colonizers took territories from native people by killing them and ripping apart their pre-established systems of governance; they then maintained control through corporal punishment and forced labour. The violence necessary for decolonization can therefore be justified because it is enacted in order to end these violent and oppressive regimes.

Sometimes, violence is fun. Watching MMA folks do their thing is just fascinating

Aggression is not always wrong, violence isn't always necessary but sometimes can be useful

While violence is destructive and tragic, it isn’t inherently wrong in every context. In cases of self-defense, protecting others, or resisting systemic oppression, the use of force can be morally justified — even necessary. Historical examples like the fight against fascism or the defense of civil rights show that strategic, restrained violence can sometimes serve justice. That said, glorifying or defaulting to violence is dangerous. It should always be the last resort after all peaceful options have been exhausted. The morality of violence depends on intent, proportionality, and the absence of better alternatives.

Violence is generally harmful and undesirable, but in some contexts, it may be justified or even necessary. For example, self-defense, protection of others, and fighting against oppression can involve violence that serves a moral purpose. Historical struggles for justice have sometimes relied on violence to dismantle unjust systems. That said, violence should always be a last resort. Nonviolent solutions are preferable whenever possible, and indiscriminate or excessive violence is clearly wrong.