Consensus Between Violence And Argument - Essay Example

Consensus Between Violence And Argument The right argument is morally better than violence; all conflicts should and must be settled in a peaceful way. Most people are pacifist due to their religious faith, belief that war is wasteful and unproductive and a non-religious belief in the sacredness of life. The right argument is opposition to war and includes actions that encourage fairness and human rights. Right argument or argumentation includes debate, conversation, persuasion, and negotiation for the conclusion to be arrived at through coherent reasoning. Aristotle’s approach to the subject matter shows that he believed not entirely on capital punishment. He suggests that rule of law be the baseline in any society to allow deliberation as a way of avoiding violence. In that sense, no death is justifiable and as such only homicide should be direct capitally punished by death. On the other hand, Plato's view is exposure to violence leads to one act in a similar manner hence tries to justify the human character. Plato never came out clearly concerning violence and the argument aspects to bring about peace in society. Yet the teacher-student relationship that existed between Plato and Aristotle yielded much in the discussion of violence and argument. Argumentation puts in place logic, inference, and procedural rules in the artificial and real world. Eristic dialogue covers argumentation, a social debate where victory over an antagonist is the primary goal. This art of right argument protects their self-interest incoherent dialogue and in the process of dialogue. The art of argumentation is used in law, in trials when preparing arguments for court presentation and in the testing legitimacy of evidence. Right argument comprises identifying premises where conclusions are derived, the establishment of “burden of proof” to determine the person who made an initial claim and identifying goals of contributors in dialogue. At the end of an argument, a valid conclusion must be given with good reason explaining the same. A good argument must be built with two premises and one concluding remark. Argumentation is good in a situation where evidence does not exist especially in handling scientific, epistemic, nature, and moral where science cannot apply. Violence is good in handling dispute like border disputes, insurgency, and hostility. In politics, some kinds of argumentation are morally wrong, and some kinds of violence are morally right. Argumentation is never a solution in many nations since it only works when there is peace in the nation, and no other nation wants to attack the nation in question. Argumentation is morally upright only if the nations under conflict also handle disputes through argumentation. However, if the nations under disagreement handle the dispute in different angles, then violence is morally right for a nation to defend itself from intrusion. Argumentation will be morally wrong if it will lead to the country being under the control of the enemy (The Times Literary Supplement). Since the world is never perfect, many people believe that violence is never wrong. A state has a mandatory obligation to protect their citizens violently or through argument depending on the situation on the ground. Citizens have a right to defend the nation at all cost, in the case of war. They must retaliate with violent means and in this reason, argumentation will be wrong keeping in mind life and resources being lost to the enemy. It will be morally wrong if a nation that upholds argumentation fails to carry out important moral responsibility because of their stand for peace and respect for human life. Refusal to participate in war is wrong since the citizen's life will be at stake thus going against respect for human life. In the case of extreme evil, violence is morally right but argumentation becomes morally wrong. In Nazi Germany war, for example, extreme wickedness prevailed, and retaliation was impeccable, all affected parties were to defend themselves. The war according to the time's literary supplement wrote that they had discovered killing of spirit in the body was more horrible than actual war. “The world reeks ... a Dark Age has begun a new” (The Times Literary Supplement). Most nations’ belief that going to war is a moral duty and must be fulfilled as far as their citizens are concerned. Almost all nations take it as an ethical duty to honor those who died during war especially the soldiers. Every year, a date is set for remembrance to celebrate their contribution in fighting for their country. Countries are encouraged to follow the rules of war to avoid misconception by its citizens and other nations participating in the war. If violence is morally wrong, then soldiers who in the line of duty killed that takes away human life, raped women and girls for defense could have been jailed and prosecuted for such crimes. Instead, these soldiers are honored as heroes of the country (The Times Literary Supplement). Some countries send soldiers to unjust wars but at long run, they are justified to fight kill and even abduct the enemy. Arbitration and violence do happen for a reason. Many times, criminals act violently people thus in many contexts violence is never an option carry on thus breaking morals and this negative belief on violence. Research carried out in California showed that many acts of violence were due to desire to do the right thing, those who commit the crime feel a right to commit it. It is true that violent attacks are because of aggression and for vengeance. According to Professor Alan Fiske of the University of California in America, some people do things to hurt others even themselves because of the belief that they have to. The moral requirement of violence is that violence is right and should be done. Professor Tage Rai of the northwest university argues that “killing and physical attack are committed for vengeance of wrongs both real and the perceived attacks.” Violence is perceived as a way of instilling obedience and to correct a relationship gone sour (The Times Literary Supplement). Immorality is a root cause of evil socially and politically. Violence is immoral, but politically it is justifiable, violence for self-defense. When a person initiates violence and argument fails, violence is justified for the defense of property and life. The government has an obligation to defend the citizens; through violence, they are able to punish the perpetrators. Most governments are granted a monopoly to use violence to ensure order prevails and to avoid oppression of the weak by the strong in the society. It is true that government use of force will never exceed the private entity using force, the united nations have an obligation to ensure excessive violence is never subjected to the public. Violence is also terror and in the current situation “war on terror”. This “war on terror” is fought and defended in equal measures by world leaders. Terror according to “moral clarity” is morally equal to war, rebellion by a group of fanatics whom negotiation or dialogue is unfruitful; therefore, terrorism should never be rejected. Terrorism work according to reason, circumstances surrounding it and the consequences of rejecting it must be put into considerations before rejecting it. Terrorism is a political and moral discussion especially in the west, it is a confusing subject filled with political passion and moral emotions, and it is filled with relativism and double standards (The Times Literary Supplement). This has led to moral choice and deliberation. Terrorism as a form of violence, it instills fear and terror to innocent civilians, government officials, and military personnel. Many nations especially the Muslims have successfully used terror to get what they want from the larger Christian nations. They instill fear and terror to Christian nations and governments to act in favor of their proposals. To my conclusion, arguments work better and are morally right given a situation a person or a nation is in. Therefore, if a person or a nation chooses violence, it should not be intimidated instead the circumstances are to be observed that led to the choice. Since argumentation involves individual and an opponent who can engage in dialogue trying to reach a consensus, it can only work best in a peaceful environment. In a situation where one party is using right argument while another is hostile, violence is the way to go. This is the reason I end by saying, violence is morally right, and argumentation is morally right. Work Cited The Times Literary Supplement. 'VIOLENCE AND THE USE OF VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY.' The Ecumenical Review 25.4 (1973): 455-467. Web. Read More