Justification of Violence
Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the
world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject,
many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I
believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe
that in others, it cannot be.
In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is
self-defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason
and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save
themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help
themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are plenty
of situations that fit this example. One of them is rape. If a woman is being
attacked and sexually forced to do something she did not consent on doing, she
has the right to fight back and prevent it from happening. Rape does not only
involve sexual assault; there is much physical assault involved, also. Many
women are held at gunpoint, knife, tied or beaten by their attackers, and this
is not right. Any woman under these circumstances should fight back and do what
they have to do to save themselves before it's too late. Other situations which
call for justifiable violence, in my opinion, are robbery at gunpoint and any
other type of unprovoked violence.
Other than self-defense, I do not believe violence should be tolerated at
any cost. Hitting children when they do something "wrong" is not justifiable.
I believe that if a child does something their parents don't want them to do,
they should be taught not to do it anymore simply because their parents don't
want them to do it. But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do
something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the
consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It
gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay
if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their
lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken.
War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses
the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that
before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away
half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think.
I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful
manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of
their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're
in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not
only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and
women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less
about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many
of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't want to be there in
the first place. The government declares war, yet the citizens suffer their
decision. Why don't the Congressmen strap on some uniforms and get out on the
field and fight? If they're the ones making the decision to fight, they should
be subject to the same consequences we are. They are determining the fate of
millions of people, yet keeping themselves safe. It's unfair.
Though I think that war isn't justifiable, I still hold to my belief that
if we must fight in our self-defense, then we should. However, I don't believe
we should ever provoke another country to start a war, nor should we declare war
on another country unless they have already started attacking and killing our
Two acts of violence that I have a split opinion on are both the death
penalty and abortion. I don't believe that both are either totally wrong or
totally right. I think the death penalty is a good concept, because I think it
might scare some people away from committing any crime that would require its
use. However, I don't think it's very effective because it doesn't really teach
the person a lesson; they never have a chance to change. I think a life-long
jail term would be much more effective, because the person would be forced to
live in a bad environment and suffer and realize that what they did was wrong,
and this is how they have to pay for it. Death doesn't really teach them
anything. I don't support abortions, but I do understand that in some cases it
is better to not have the child than have it and let it grow up in bad
conditions. Most teens who get pregnant consider abortions because they are too
young, too irresponsible, and don't have the time or money to raise a child.
And most of all, they don't want the child. If they were to have the child and
raise it themselves, it wouldn't grow up in very good care. The mother wouldn't
necessarily put her child first, and it would probably end up getting raised by
grandparents. I think having the child and giving it up for adoption is better
than abortion in most cases. It avoids the violence of abortions and gives the
child a chance to live in the world.
Overall, I do not condone violence. However, I do believe that it is
justifiable in some very few cases, mainly, self-defense. All other times, I
feel it is unnecessary and differences can be worked out in other ways.
Source: Essay UK - http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/justification-of-violence-6.php