I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were about police brutality, I couldn’t help but question the seemingly popular notion that the violence wasn’t justified. Why wasn’t it justified? Because the police had not officially declared war on black people and other minority groups, but instead continue as an authority figure to protect and uplift their own members who do punch down on people belonging to minority groups? Because the protesters had yet to exhaust their non-violent routes? Were these protests in 2020 a retaliation or a first strike? Even if they were a first strike, was it justified?

What about Hamas? Palestine has suffered from genocide in all but name for over 70 years so does that make Hamas the aggressor or are they the ones acting in self-defense?

What about the issues with income inequality that have previously around the world led to uprisings and revolutions like in France and Russia? Were they justified even though the poor were not being constantly physically oppressed?

What about the issues with representation in government that led to the American revolution? Did those justify violence? Was the American revolution justified simply because of violent moments like the Boston massacre?

Is there a line that a group in power crosses that justifies violent revolt, or is it never justified?

  • @Everythingispenguins
    link
    31 year ago

    Wow that is extremely well written. Here I was going to say only in self defense but I think you changed my mind. The nuance of necessity and justification is interesting and one I will have to think about.

    • @nyar
      link
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is no nuance. If it is necessary, it is justified.

      The only nuance that exists is for acts you can create justifications for that aren’t necessary.

      The only argument to be had is whether an action is necessary or not. If not necessary, then justification is required. Otherwise, they’re functionally synonymous.

      • @kromem
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        Bob needed a new heart to survive, but the waiting list was too long.

        Bob killed his next door neighbor Jane, cutting out her heart and taking it to a back alley surgeon in order to survive.

        Bob was justified in doing this, because whatever is necessary is justified.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean that is sort of the definition of justified but it’s being misused here, it just means having a good reason. Everyone is ignoring how subjective it is though. Bob may consider his life above others, so for him staying alive is a good enough reason to commit murder. Jane and a jury are very likely to disagree.

          Different language needs to be used I think to avoid the issues people have with the concept of violent resistance.

          Peace isn’t an option because injustice still happens under peace time. Liberation is a better solution for the oppressed.

          So now we’ve got:

          Liberation of oppressed peoples from oppression is always justified.

          This focuses more on the end goal than the action that resistance implies. Liberation can still involve violent resistance and that’s okay. You can be on the side of righteousness and still do what is morally wrong, this is true of all movements.

          We have to agree that liberation from oppression is always morally good and we have to apply it to all cases. So if we don’t look at the Palestinian struggle the same way we’d look at indigenous issues in north America or apartheid SA, we’d be hypocrites.

          • @kromem
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re close to the crux of the issue.

            The real issue at hand is whether or not we’re talking about moral relativism or absolutism.

            If we are endorsing relativism, then all actions have a relative frame of reference by which they are justified (i.e. Bob’s killing Jane).

            My stance is that in terms of absolutism, there is no such thing as justified mass violence, and that while it is certainly possible for mass violence to be a lesser evil absolutely, and thus easily argued as a moral good relative to the alternative, that ultimately it remains an evil under all circumstances objectively, and at best can be a lesser evil regarded absolutely.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I would have to disagree on the absolutism bit.

              I would consider that the Haitian slave rebellion or Warsaw ghetto uprisings were intrinsically good.

              I would wish to see liberation of oppressed peoples be a universal law. I would wish for this to be applied to all and I wish for everyone to act on this.

              I believe the above fits under Kantian ethics.

              • @kromem
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                Do you include the 1804 massacres of the French with the mass rape of women and killing of children by Dessalines which followed the Haitian revolt in that intrinsic good?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  I find it hard to consider that as part of the liberation since it happened after independence. Looks more like state violence aimed at a minority to me.