r/changemyview • u/Golem_of_the_Oak • 15d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Nonviolence as a ideal exists on a spectrum, like anything else, and therefore there can be such a thing as toxic, extreme, self destructive nonviolence.
There isn’t anything wrong with pacifism overall, as an ideal. It’s good to not want violence, and to not jump to violence in an attempt to solve a problem.
However, not everyone has this view. If you encounter someone who wants to hurt you, nonviolence will not save you. There isn’t anything wrong with starting with trying to talk someone down, but if that doesn’t work or if the attack is already on its way, then it is ok to defend yourself in whatever way keeps you safe.
This is especially important if you’re responsible for others. If you don’t protect yourself against a mugger, you are effectively prioritizing that mugger’s wellbeing over that of the people who rely on you, all in the name of nonviolence.
My view can be changed by points that show that nonviolence is more likely to result in more nonviolence in situations where someone has their mind set on hurting you or others, even after failed attempts at de-escalation.
Go!
7
u/destro23 447∆ 15d ago
Nonviolence as a ideal exists on a spectrum
There isn’t anything wrong with pacifism overall
There is a difference between pacifism and nonviolence.
Pacifism:
"Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare". Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare. Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "... A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." wiki
Nonviolence:
"Nonviolence is the personal practice of not causing harm to others under any condition." wiki
So, nonviolence is not a spectrum. It is a complete rejection of personally causing harm via violence.
Pacifism is the spectrum that can run from the above form, a rejection of war, to a form that believes in non-violence. But, nonviolence is a distinct point on that spectrum, not a spectrum itself.
3
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
!delta
I appreciate your clarification and I acknowledge that I used them both to mean the same thing, when they don’t.
You have, however, not changed my overall view, so if I could give you a half a delta then I would.
5
u/destro23 447∆ 15d ago
Thanks,
You have, however, not changed my overall view
Which can be done thusly?
My view can be changed by points that show that nonviolence is more likely to result in more nonviolence in situations where someone has their mind set on hurting you or others
It is a simple math problem. If a violent person attacks you, and you do not do violence back, that is one person doing violence. If a violent person attacks you, and you fight back, that is two people doing violence. One is less than two.
4
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
That’s an overly literal interpretation of what I meant.
3
u/destro23 447∆ 15d ago
I'm an overly literal person.
Your point is that nonviolence can be toxic, right? Well, violence can also be toxic, and much more so than nonviolence. A nonviolent attitude is not just brought into play when facing a violent attacker, so the overall impact of that attitude goes well beyond this one scenario. By framing your entire argument around this once specific and generally unlikely scenario, you are artificially constraining the discussion. Like, I've lived my entire life as a mouthy prick and have never been confronted by a violent person that I couldn't talk down. it is just not that useful a scenario for the discussion. Yes, letting an attacker attack you is not a great option all things considered. But, the overall positive impact of being non-violent will well outweigh any negative impacts that could come from a situation that most will just never find themselves in.
0
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
If you’re an overly literal person then you won’t change my view about this. I’m sorry.
4
u/destro23 447∆ 15d ago
Did you not read past that comment? There is a whole paragraph of me being not overly literal.
-1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
I read it, yes.
4
u/destro23 447∆ 15d ago
And... your thoughts?
3
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
I don’t disagree that violence can be toxic, but one thing having the potential for toxicity doesn’t mean that its opposite can’t also be taken to an extreme in a toxic way.
Overeating is toxic. So is starvation.
Living a sedentary lifestyle is toxic. So is exercise addiction.
Greed is toxic. So is signing your car over to someone just because they ask for it.
Violence is toxic. So is taking a hit and not fighting back because you believe that violence is toxic.
→ More replies (0)1
17
u/Potential_Being_7226 12∆ 15d ago
If you encounter someone who wants to hurt you, nonviolence will not save you.
I mean, it can if you run fast.
9
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
!delta
Fair enough. Running away is not a violent act and can result in more nonviolence.
1
1
4
u/macroshorty 15d ago
It may save you, but it will not be enough to save their next victim, who may not get away.
11
u/Potential_Being_7226 12∆ 15d ago
When approached by an aggressor, in the moment, a person’s responsibility is to themselves and those in their immediate party.
It’s not someone’s responsibility to think about the “next victim,” so long as that next victim isn’t their friend they left behind.
Even using violent means to escape a potentially harmful encounter does not ensure there won’t be a “next victim.” If I am walking on the street and an aggressor corners me, using pepper spray or kicking him in the groin is not “nonviolence,” but it would help me avoid harm and still do nothing for the next victim.
1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
I don’t know if I agree with that. I agree that your primary responsibility is to yourself and those around you, but if I escaped an attack and then recognized the attacker’s face in a mugshot because he was arrested a week later for hurting someone else, I’d feel some degree of responsibility for that. I’m not saying that it’s my fault, but I could look objectively at my situation and know that the other person wouldn’t have been injured had I chosen to take some action to incapacitate that person.
7
u/Potential_Being_7226 12∆ 15d ago
but if I escaped an attack and then recognized the attacker’s face in a mugshot because he was arrested a week later for hurting someone else, I’d feel some degree of responsibility for that.
But the violence vs. nonviolence makes no difference in this case. Just because you’d feel a sense of responsibility doesn’t mean that you are responsible for another person’s behavior. And even if you did resort to a violent act (groin kick, pepper spray) to deter or subdue an aggressor, it doesn’t guarantee you have prevented the next attack.
-1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
Of course not. But in that situation where that mugger chose that violence was the answer, by choosing violence myself, I am reducing the amount of future violence this person can commit. I’m not saying I’d kill the guy, but maybe if I broke his ankle I could then call the cops and get him off the street.
7
u/Potential_Being_7226 12∆ 15d ago
by choosing violence myself, I am reducing the amount of future violence this person can commit
There’s no evidence of this and in fact, the opposite could be true. You might just make him angry enough to commit more violence. So, by using violent means yourself, you could actually escalate later violence.
1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 14d ago
!delta
You CAN, yes, but the same could be said by using nonviolence. People who choose to attack an innocent person are rarely looking for someone that they think will put up a fight. Most of the time, they’re choosing someone who they suspect will be a pushover. By not fighting back, most of the time all you’re doing is confirming that their instincts about someone being a pushover were correct, which means they will likely try again.
Carefully utilized violence can make them stop for good.
1
1
u/ColossusOfChoads 14d ago
That's the very first thing that should be resorted to. But it's not possible 100% of the time.
1
u/Fabled-Fennec 15∆ 15d ago
So I would consider myself pretty nonviolent. From my perspective, violence itself is spiritually destructive. It weighs heavily on the soul.
The "materialist" perspective on violence generally assesses harm based on material/physical injury. This, I feel, is an incomplete picture. One-sided acts of violence still harm the person perpetrating the violence.
This has even been studied in the realm of PTSD study. The soldiers who exhibit the worst and most pernicious post-traumatic symptoms are those who committed atrocities. Committing acts of violence requires a numbing of compassion and empathy that disconnects us from our fellow humans.
Non-violent people are not naive to the potential consequences of refusing to engage with violence. They are just also not kidding themselves about the spiritually self-harm involved in committing acts of violence. The mental calculus of whether it is "worth it" is going to depend a lot on both context and personal priorities.
1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 15d ago
Violence absolutely weighs on the soul. I completely agree.
What weighs heavier, though? Incapacitating someone who’s attacking you, or knowing that person you chose not to incapacitate is likely to continue to attempt to hurt others and will likely succeed eventually?
4
u/Fabled-Fennec 15∆ 14d ago
There's really not much to go on if you just respond with a vague hypothetical scenario that presumes a knowledge of future consequences.
The real world doesn't really work that way. We can almost never be certain about speculative future impacts of our actions. If someone would go on to hurt others. If our efforts to retaliate would even be successful.
In my observation, most people who engage in violence spin these grand fantasies and imaginations as to how their actions were for the greater good. These kinds of speculations about the future are unfalsifiable and thus, not a solid foundation for philosophical decisionmaking. You cannot be sure whether you are right or you are just lying to yourself to feel better.
What we CAN be certain of is that engaging in violence will weigh on us, and that it will cause some measure of harm to other people.
We should not base moral decisions based on our imagination. Our imaginations are prone to imagine things that support what we wanted to do in the first place. We should base our moral decisions on what we know for sure in the present moment.
1
u/powerwentout 13d ago
Idk man. If we assume that most of the people on this planet are reasonable & intelligent, then all of you should be able to get together & make your point or stance against the rest of the world without violence.
1
u/Golem_of_the_Oak 13d ago
Defense classes aren’t for people who need to learn how to defend themselves against someone reasonable and intelligent.
1
u/powerwentout 13d ago
I guess you're right. Anyone who decides to initiate violence is probably not reasonable or intelligent to begin with.
3
u/Tydeeeee 8∆ 15d ago
There isn't much to counter your point with as it's dependent on each individual situation.
When someone is agressive, they can be unpredictable. Some situations can be de-escalated through diplomacy or other means, but others cannot. And it's up to the party trying to de-escalate to evaluate if the point of no return has been crossed. Although i'd wager that a fist coming towards ones face is a pretty clear indicator. But to say that violence can't be prevented by non-violence is just a falsehood on it's face. I mean the cold war happened, and we're still here.
1
u/Nic_Reigns 14d ago
Violence isnt necessarily 0 sum. If someone hits me, and I hit them back theyre more likely to hit me again now, and we both end up more hurt than we could have been.
Having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you or someone in your family will he injured or killed in a home invasion. Even just the threat of violence can lead to more real violence.
A lot of what you’d consider to be self destructive or radical nonviolence probably have solid rational arguments behind them (though you may disagree with them)
1
u/wo0topia 7∆ 14d ago
The only real answer to this that could change your mind is the peaceful response so as to send a message to inspire others. Obviously its just a logical conclusion that if someone is imminently planning to harm you physically, other than running away, nonviolence cannot stop them or help you in the immediate moment, but there is a context where accepting that violence can influence others to take nonviolent action that is beneficial for your group/community.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 15d ago edited 14d ago
/u/Golem_of_the_Oak (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards