INTRODUCTION
I am utterly amazed at the negative connotations today associated with the words violent and violence. In the world of the 21st Century, it is unpolitically correct to have these words associated with you, or any of your doings. It seems to me that more often than not, the terms are used in a loaded sense in an attempt to dehumanize, and marginalize any sort of resistance to aggression from one acting in the name of the status quo. But this too is violence, for violence is not limited to physical action; and using the terms violent and violence as an ad hominem makes the attacker no different than the thing attacked. Rather than dismissing it as barbaric, it seems that we should strive for better understanding of it, and its relation to each of us personally. It is only through this understanding that we save ourselves from being conquered by it.
So what exactly are we talking about here? From Merriam Webster online:
violent (adj.)-
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity violent attack>
2 a: notably furious or vehement violent denunciation> b: extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3: caused by force : not natural violent death>
4 a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control
violence (noun) -
1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
From reading the definitions above, we can see that the word violent is a measure or description of force, and the word violence represents force itself; but only when that force is unjustly applied, or results in injury to another. So the issue of violence then ultimately comes down to a moral case of right and wrong, and only is it wrong when used unjustly.
IN NATURE
Without a doubt, the actions of nature are certainly violent, but who is to determine if they constitute violence? Who can I curse and accuse of violence if I'm swept away in a hurricane, or if I fall through the earth immediately following a violent earthquake? It would be silly of me to say that a violent storm is unjust, and should not have occurred; for who knows the secret intricacies of the works of nature? And if the natural cannot be explained, then no determination of right and wrong can be assigned to any of its violent workings.
THE ANIMALS
Likewise, predatory animals exist in abundance throughout nature, and prey on weaker or unsuspecting animals for their very survival. Bacteria, fungi, and other parasites owe their entire existence to the leeching of minerals from the bodies of their respective hosts. So are these creatures violent, and of violence? Can we fault the alligator as immoral for devouring his fellow sea inhabitants, or even a wandering human in his swamps?
As with natural phenomenon, the intricacies of the animals are beyond the scope of human understanding, in as far as they being morally acceptable or not. It follows then, that morality is a human construct, and the happenings of the natural world and wildlife may be violent, but they are not of violence, and are necessary events that contribute to our ultimate understanding of the world.
THE ROOT OF ALL LAWS
So given our definitions of violence, we have deduced that it is essentially force. And since force is energy, it must follow that violence is at the root of all things. It is oxymoronic for people to use the term, and to refer to themselves as nonviolent; for to be nonviolent is to not be alive. I desire not to engage in semantics here, and I understand what people are trying to say when they refer to themselves as nonviolent, and some others as violent, or of violence. But the issue at hand in such arguments is a sidebar case for morality, which will be discussed in detail below. But at this juncture I'd like to dissect exactly what violence is before preceding with discussions of other seemingly unrelated matters, but which somehow or another invoke the usage of the term violence.
We live in a world full of violence - It has been that way since the beginning of time, and will remain that way until the end of time. Whenever the wind blows, it is engaging in violence. A crop growing without the soil is violent, and the man or animal snatching that crop from its roots is engaging in violence. We all have violent hearts, for it beats with wrath and fury all the days of our lives; even as we sleep at night in a subconscious state of mind. Violence is essential for our survival, and thus must be exercised if we are to remain as functional human beings. Barring any restrictions, we are to do whatever is necessary to obtain whatever is necessary to be obtained. In short, "might makes right."
FORMS OF VIOLENCE
Violence takes on many forms, and can be either direct, i.e., having an obvious direct linear cause and effect connection, or indirect with a not so obvious link. An example of a direct act of violence is the killing of another person, animal, or some mechanical or natural process. Probably a lighter form of violence would be the assaulting of the aforementioned, and a different form, the appropriating of the same. The universality in each case is the transfer of matter or energy from one entity to another, the difference being only the degree and style of the exchange.
Slightly more complicated is the indirect case of which the cause and effect of violence, or a violent act, is not directly observable. In our human experience, this is probably the most prominent style of violence. Examples include lying, defrauding, and instigating. How often do people lie to obtain the things that yielding the truth will not provide for them? How many creditors have been swindled by promises to pay back from sincere-eyed opportunists? A monetary transaction takes place, where we have direct violence in the form of the appropriation of assets, and this transaction owes its existence to the "promise to repay" of the debtor. Continuing with this analogy, indirect violence in the form of instigating may occur if a third party informs the creditor that the debtor has skipped town with the loaned cash, but has failed to fasten the lock upon the entrance door to his home. If the creditor acts on this information, and enters the borrowers house in order to make restitution, we can say that the information provided him by the third party individual was violent, for it was the cause of action which would not have occurred in its absence.
Hopefully, I've explained clearly what it is we're dealing with, i.e., violence, and shall now touch upon our civil management of the same.
CONTROL OF VIOLENCE
From what is explained above, you may have the impression that violence is a chaotic state where things simply happen with no rhyme or reason, or without any regard to rhyme and reason. This is a true assessment perceived from the outside looking in, when and if violence is left unchecked. But many checks on it exists, the foremost of importance being provided by nature itself. Nature has rules, which I posit that nobody understands in their full vainglory. These rules restrict certain forms of violence from occurring at any given moment. For example, a man in a desert longing for water cannot will the clouds to produce rain. He can not ascend into the heavens and shake the clouds for water, nor can he turn them upside down to oblige himself. Likewise, a ship which is at sea cannot will the wind to blow from behind it, neither can it regulate the force of it. In other words, nature as a control on violence can be looked at as a physical (or other) limitation that will not allow for the occurrence of some violent act. In a human sense, a man may desire to kill another man, but may be unsuccessful due to his inability to locate him if he's in hiding, or if the man is uncooperative; i.e., defending himself from a would be taken of his life.
But aside from the natural limitations, humans have a need and desire to control violence for their mutual benefits. As humans, we construct societies with rules to our likening, which can only function if it adheres to those rules. The rules are based on right and wrong, i.e., morality, and what is right and wrong is whatever the members of the society agree upon. Morality itself is an individual construct, for what's right for one man is wrong for the next. The rules of the society then, reflect the morality of the members as a whole. A society at its most basic form is the traditional family unit, and its most complex being the establishment of nations and superstates.
The more complex the society, the less morality we can assume is in the rules; for if rules, i.e., those determined to regulate that which is right and wrong, extend from the morality of the individuals, then only where unanimous moral consent exist can a rule be formed. This is why the traditional family unit, and smaller societies tend to have a better check on violence. They have more in common in the way of morality, and thus can have more laws to regulate their society. But in such well functioning and voluntary societies, an abundance of laws should mean nothing to the individual for it reflects his own morality, or moral code. As per the Bible:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1 Tim. 1:9-10, KJV)
It follows then that the civil law is a subset of the moral law, for the civil law is only that portion of the moral law where harmonic consensus exists among the individual members. It is from this where the wrongful taking of one's life crosses the threshold from "killing" to "murdering," the wrongful appropriation of assets becomes "stealing," and lying within the context of a material, or lawful nature, becomes "fraud." This harmony, known as the law, is necessary for any society's well-being, and is harder to blossom to fruition the more complex the society; complex meaning a great number of individual members, or a more variant moral code amongst the midst of them. Thus, complex societies would logically have a smaller body of civil law. But too often complex societies seek to implement more laws than those that are just, and the forcing of a law upon an individual which conflicts with his moral code is tyranny plain and simple; for such a law should have never made it onto the books of common law. It is no more than violence masquerading under the cover of law.
WHY CONTROL VIOLENCE?
It should be obvious why there would be a desire to control violence. All men desire peace, and this peace is obtained via the control of violence. Even a serial killer, or a slayer of nations desires peace; i.e., the peace to continue unabated their murdering and pillaging. But in the case of the common man, the placement of a fence around his yard to protect his crops expresses his desire to avoid a potential conflict with a would be "thief." Likewise, a man who desires crops behind that fence may decide to "appropriate" them for himself at a time when the man of the yard is far away from it. In both instances, the men are seeking to obtain what they desire while avoiding violence; the one seeking to deter the competition away from his crops via deterrence, the other obtainment via cunning. And if and when actual engagement occurs, the motives of both the aggressor and the defender would be the control of violence, the aggressor seeking to eliminate a future threat, and the defender a present one.
Violence is also sought to be controlled because synergy is created via the cooperation of men, and destruction is realized via the lack thereof. When people work together, the competition element is reduced, which in turn reduces the damage to person and property, which competition inevitably brings. More is obtained for doing, or risking less in the way of cooperation, thus we are left with the maxim that people will seek to maximize their level of peace, while simultaneously seeking to minimize the use of violence in obtaining it. Societies attempt to better themselves by the exploitation of this maxim.
OF EXTERNAL SOCIETIES
Societies have traditionally been formed via geographical location, and consisted of tribes of individuals who have banded together for their common goals. The emphasis on geography is due to the physical limitations of people that are of like-mind, but who reside in diverse locations, working together. Thus, for the reasons outlined above, we attempt to cooperate with our neighbors to the best of our ability, and form societies based upon our collective agreed upon moralities. This is not to say that geography is a requirement for societies, but rather a strong determining factor of cooperation.
As to external societies, the bonds of cooperation may exist, but they are less formal than internal societies, thus the threat of violence among the two is greater than from within the two by their respective individual members. Country X, having no moral ties to Country Y, may seek to attack it with violence to further some end, and vice versa for Country Y with respect to Country X. In this case, the superior country will overtake the weaker, but if the countries are equal in power, they will each have a stronger incentive to cooperate with each other via the risk of violence upon itself. An appeal to morality of a weaker nation will only work in the event that there is harmony with a stronger nation seeking to bring violence upon it; for shared morality, as we have said, is a check against violence. But absent the morality, violence itself must defend against, or offset violence.
Geographical realities or limitations, which result in different societies and cultures, will often lead to greater moral differences between them. Nevertheless, some shared morality exists among them, and the nations will act brotherly amongst themselves to the extent of this morality. These nations may form peace treaties and agreements among themselves, which is essentially the civil law between societies, as opposed to within them, and is lesser in scope externally than internally. But strong and competitive nations with little or no shared morality will have peace treaties and agreements amongst themselves as well, for the two may respect each other as formidable competitors; thus the risk of engaging may outweigh what they each can gain by cooperation. So here, we have a strategic interest of not engaging in violence, backed by the threat of using violence, whereas in the former case the interest is of a moral nature. It should be noted that an assumed morality of honesty exists by all who would make any agreements.
WHEN SOCIETIES FAIL
Societies are often turbulent during their lifetime, reflecting man's quest to better himself, while at the same time seeking to retain his independence over his actions. Man, first with violence as his tool, is sure to maintain this independence; and coupled with morality he betters himself (and his fellow man) through cooperation. While the former can be blamed for the turbulence, the latter we can attribute to peace. However, this peace is often compromised, and when so, morality as a control on violence begins to loosen its grip. Where morality is the weakest is where you see the most turbulence, thus strife between two independent societies is fairly common. And though physical confrontation may not always occur as a result, the threat of violence creates tension among the parties which otherwise do not exist where morality is present.
But the more complicated case is where there is civil unrest internally for a society. This is because people are greedy and seek to maximize their interests, and often their own moral code fails to serve as a check against this desire. How many times have state legislators attempted to legislate beyond the agreed upon morality? How many kickbacks have found their way into the pockets of those who purport to judge the law? How many church pastors have told lies concerning the church's finances, and how many households does the spirit of adultery inhabit? When one party breaks an agreement or understanding he has with another, the other side is justified in using violence to compensate for the morality breach. In other words, a brother via some kind of civil or other bond proves not to be such when he acts contrary to his brethren while purporting to be just as they in moral character. Such person is a stranger, and thus must be treated as such by the people's whose trust he's breached. And violence, or the threat of the use of violence, is necessary when dealing with strangers in order to keep the peace. As Niccolo Machiavelli writes in 'The Prince': "it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking;" though I would argue that one who exercises violence upon you, whether direct or indirect, neither fears nor loves you.
Often, people will say that we should agree to disagree. This may be okay for dealing with those external to yourself, but this sort of mantra is unacceptable within societies. We've established earlier that a society cannot be harmonious unless people's morality merge on all levels; and by morality, what is meant is what is right and wrong. In societies, politicians and government officials are the most notorious for touting this contradiction; don't buy it when they try to sell it to you, and accept with pride denouncements of you or your disagreeable actions as being violent. It would be wise to create an atmosphere where such rhetoric or doings that are contrary to the law are feared (including physically) by all. We'd then have perfectly functioning societies, but never can there be a non-violent society or a non-violent person.
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion, it has been determined that violence is a natural as the sunrise, and violent may be how fast or slow, or how hard or soft it rises. Violence, being of nature, exists within nature and everything stemming from nature. This includes wildlife and us humans. How nature regulates it, nobody knows; but as for humans, we are endowed with morality and reason which helps us to manage this savage beast that exist within all of us. Morality is that which is determined by the individual to be that which best sustains or uplifts his being, and he will thus attempt to associate with others who share in these sentiments with him. On the other hand, reason is the root level instinct or learned behavior necessary for man's basic survival. It is objective analysis, whereas morality, or the individual's morality code is subjective. Violence is something that all would do well to seek, understand and embrace, and absolutely must not allow themselves to be controlled by violence via their fear or ignorance of it.
Common law copyright. For non-commercial use only.
0 comments:
Post a Comment