Violence in Moral Society - Essay Example

Is violence necessary to maintain or have a moral society? Introduction Whether violence is or is not necessary to maintain a moral society remains a contentious issue for most individuals. The disparity in people’s perception of violence results from their subjective conceptualization of its necessity. There are those who view violence as immoral and unnecessary whereas, their counterparts view it as necessary only if it translates into benefits for the entire society. However, some individuals remain torn between both sides because of their mixed feelings towards violence whereby, they condemn and support different forms of violence depending on their dispositional appraisal of its necessity. Discussed in this paper are the differing standpoints with regard to the role of violence in maintaining a moral society. Violence is an immoral act Throughout the years, scholars struggled to explain the concept of morality. They tackled issues such as, “good and evil”, “origin of sin” among others in attempt to understand the complexity of morality. Pacifists view violence as an immoral act that results in further degradation of the society. Individuals with this standpoint believe in amicable resolution of conflicts whereby, opposing sides set their differences aside and work towards reaching a compromise. The process of conflict resolution is lengthy and riddled with many barriers; therefore, ensuring proper communication channels exist proves crucial in mitigating the conflict. Effective communication hinges on both parties listening to each other’s grievances without passing any judgment or exuding verbal or non-verbal mockery. It also entails developing sensitivity to each other’s cultural background whereby, each party must make a conscious effort to avoid using language and actions that are automatically perceived by the other party as overt disregard for their culture. For example, throwing a shoe at person in the Arab culture symbolizes the highest level of disrespect; in 2008, a journalist threw his show at the former president G.W. Bush during his visit to Iraq for conflict resolution talks. The presence of a neutral third party charged with the responsibility of mediating the conflict enable feuding parties to address their concerns in a rational manner. For example, feuding countries rely on peace delegates to mediate their amicable conflict resolution talks in order to prevent the onset of war, which is likely to result in civilian casualty and immense destruction of property. Pacifists encourage the use of non-violent methods, which entail preventing the infliction of injury or harming others. These methods negate the use of physical force or verbal threats by encouraging the use of peaceful methods to foster lasting, positive political and social change. Pacifists bear in mind the negative repercussions of resorting to violence such as counter-violence. The vengeful nature of majority of humans compels them to engage in counter-violence aimed at retaliating against instigators of preceding violent acts. This perpetuates enmity failing to address initial problems that triggered violent outbursts. Individuals using non-violent methods have greater control over their message making these methods an effective form of protest. For example, in Mahtma Ghandi led the Non Cooperation Movement in 1920s, which entailed resignation from nominated positions in the legislative government and surrendering of titles with the sole intention of protesting oppression by the government. The media provides a platform for these protestors to express their grievances. However, dealing with the media might result in complications especially when conflicts exist between a minority group and large institutions such as the government. The latter have the power to censure the media; for example, the government might pass absurd statutes that restrict the freedom of the media. Such circumstances are responsible for triggering violent outbursts, which result in degradation of morality within the society. Non-violence is the first course of action taken by aggrieved individuals and it functions to prevent further erosion of morality within the society by limiting destruction of property, loss of lives and continued counter-violence. Moreover, there exist different avenues for individuals to seek justice for their grievances such as the courts. A country’s constitution outlines legal expectations of each citizen and the consequences for failing to follow these laws to the latter. The constitution prohibits the aggrieved from taking matters into their own hands. This helps to create order within the society. Violence is necessary and maintains morality Conversely, individuals with a utilitarian standpoint approve of violence only if it proves beneficial for the entire society. In a materialist society defined by inequality and oppression of minority groups, non-violence proves redundant in achieving desired change. Through violence, the oppressed voice their concerns knowing that they have the full attention of their oppressors. It is impossible for the latter to ignore these concerns because of the destructive nature of the violent acts. For example, revolutions such as the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution aimed to end oppression fueled by inequality. Those of this viewpoint focus on societal needs disregarding the needs of minority groups. Moreover, they also assess the urgency of these needs in order to determine the magnitude of the violent protests. Controversial issues such as homosexual rights does not gain precedence over important issues such as racial or gender discrimination because they only affect a handful of the society unlike the latter. Power is a major cause of conflicts in society, whereby, leaders resort to unsavory tactics with the aim of holding on to their powerful positions. Different leaders adopt different leadership styles, which include; dictatorship, aristocratic, democracy or laissez fare (delegation). The style chosen by a leader either engages the subjects or disregards them whereby, the latter stirs up feelings of dejection and rejection that might trigger violent outbursts. Dictatorial regimes such as Hitler’s regime in Germany and Mussolini’s regime in Italy disregard the opinions of the public preventing them from making major decisions pertaining to their country. The Italians and Germans under their dictators failed to prevent the outbreak of war while blindly following the commands of their leaders. Moreover, democratic regimes are not perfect entirely. The few leaders elected by the public to represent their needs sometimes overstay their welcome, engage in corruption, and fail to address the needs of the electorate. Such circumstances instigate violent outbursts; for example, coups are consequences of underperforming, elected leaders. Amicable resolution of conflicts through mediation does not work for all conflicts. Terrorism is one such conflict whereby, counter-violence proves efficient and necessary. Terrorists interpret failure to retaliate as a sign of weakness, which might fuel their desire to launch another attack. For example, the US government instituted measures in place to safeguard its civilians against future terror attacks and deployed military convoys to hunt down members of the terrorist faction responsible for the attack. Terrorism is an inhumane act that negates all things moral making it punishable by brutal force. The civilians caught in the crossfire and the financial losses resulting from the destruction of property are viewed as necessary collateral damage. Moreover, utilitarianism excuses violence against terrorists because it benefits the entire society. On a smaller scale, some criminal offences attract violent punitive measures such as the death sentence. For example, serial killers often receive the death sentence when charged in a state that constitutionally approves it. Violent legal punishments help to deter prevalence of violent offences such as murder or armed robbery. Many human rights activists lobby against such punishments rendering them a violation of the inherent right to life. In spite of this, different states in the US view it as an inevitable cost of maintaining morality. The above illustrations show that violence is necessary for maintaining a moral society. Mixed view; role of reasoning in supporting or condemning violence Finally, there are those torn between both sides characterized by their reliance on their dispositional appraisal of the violent actions before supporting or condemning perpetrators. Those of this view acknowledge their ability to think and choose freely the course of action that best reflects their internal thoughts, feelings and beliefs. They condemn violence that is incongruent with their internal beliefs whereas they support violence that is synonymous to their internal beliefs. Their inability to remain loyal to one viewpoint renders them incapable of considering the interests of the society in its entirety. More often than not, their reasons for supporting or condemning violence are subjective aimed at advancing their personal interests. As a result, it is hard for the masses to sway the opinion of individuals with this viewpoint; meaning, they do not concede to societal pressures. This might prove detrimental to their wellbeing; for example, if arrested for participating in violent acts against the public, the court might rule against them after viewing their actions as predetermined, not caused by peer influence. Humans are innately born with the self-preservation instinct. This instinct compels them to engage in behaviors that will not result in their demise. A person will resort to violence if it stands to preserve their life whereas a person will avoid violence if it results in their demise. Individual’s views on gun control policies help explain the concept of self-preservation. Individuals remain torn between whether or not it is necessary to institute gun control policies. Those for the institution of gun control policies are aware of the plight of majority of average citizens living in constant fear for their lives. They argue that the implementation of legislative policies seeking to limit ownership and sale of firearms would go a long way in boosting the level of security via reducing crime rates in the country. In spite of this, their efforts to lobby for support yield unfruitful results because they lack unequivocal support from majority of Congressmen. However, this might soon change after the recent mass killings witnessed in the country; whereby, innocent children lost their lives to armed gunmen. Individuals who were pro gun control policies might find themselves purchasing guns in order to protect themselves. The instinct to stay alive compels them to opt for a violent solution in the absence of non-violent solutions. Social problems such as poverty also influence an individual’s decision to support or condemn violence in the society. Stratifications based on social economic status exist in the present society. The highest stratum is the privileged class equipped with resources and the power to define morality in its entirety. The lowest stratum, which is the underprivileged or subordinate class, finds itself slaves to the directives issued by the privileged class. As a result, they harbor feelings of resentment towards the privileged class perpetrating violent criminal acts against them. Young children growing up in low-income neighborhoods find themselves entrenched in criminal lifestyles because of their limited access to self-improvement opportunities. However, through outreach programs, some manage to make a better life for themselves consciously choosing to stay away from crime. This shows that it is within the power of an individual to decide whether they engage in violent acts. The ability to reason enables individuals to distinguish between violent acts that will cause further degradation of the society and those that will result in positive change; therefore, opt for the latter guaranteed to maintain morality in the society. Conclusion In conclusion, distinguishing between whether violence is a necessary or unnecessary tool for maintaining morality in the society solely depends on an individual’s appraisal of the causes and consequences of violent acts. Freewill enables individuals to analyze situations and choose options that appeal to their sense of morality. Violence born out of oppression of stigmatized or minority groups garner the support of many because it functions to liberate the oppressed. On the other hand, violence resulting from wounded egos, failure to communicate receives condemnation because it only seeks to advance the needs of the minority. The negative consequences of violence such as loss of property and death make it a costly affair preventing feuding sides from unnecessarily resorting to it. Violence is necessary in maintaining a moral society; however, it must result in the good of the entire society and not seek to fuel inequality. Moreover, it is the responsibility of individuals to analyze the consequences of violence opting for the positive ones. Read More