When and how - if ever
"Although Uncle Sam wouldn't and God couldn't and the UN just didn't, Ken and I might have stopped this. I know that ridiculous - he's a lawyer and I'm a doctor - but the more time I spend thinking about it, the harder it is to escape the feeling that it's partly our fault. We should have been here to protect these people and we didn't show up. We would have been capable of changing just this tiny sliver of Rwandan history, but we didn't."
The quote is from one of the forensic specialists who provided evidence of genocide for the Special UN tribunal for Rwanda in the 1990s (From the book: Emergency Sex [and other desperate measures] - True Stories from a War Zone by Cain, Postlewait and Thomson. Read this book, it's a great read and not your typical job description for someone in their 20s).
As someone who wants to work within the framework of international organizations and international development work, a Peace Studies student in college, non-violence advocate, and most certainly influenced by my identity as a German, I constantly struggle with the following question: When - if ever - can the use of violence be justified. This question becomes immensely more difficult when it is applied to situation in which the violence is the means to the reduction of human suffering and death.
Here's a couple examples: Were the German generals who attempted to kill Hitler justified to do so? If a Jewish inmate had killed Hitler in prison after the publication of his book Mein Kampf been justified to do so as a preemptive measure? Is peace enforcement part of the UN's mission when it is there under a peace keeping mandate?
Different authors weigh in differently on this important question regarding the legitimacy. What many people do not realize is how the two most famous proponents of non-violent direct action weigh in on the issue: While both MLK and Gandhi reject violence as a means to an end - most importantly political ends - both accept violence, or the threat thereof, as necessary for the functioning of society. Gandhi uses the example of a mentally ill man brandishing a sword and threatening one's family for no reason, that is to say without a purpose. He defends the policeman or head of family using violence to subdue the mentally ill man. And MLK believed in the enforcement of individual rights by force, as long as the force was brandished by those with the legitimacy and authority to do so.
I think this is an important issue in our time, and not only for me. Even those of you working in an office without interest in the world beyond the 50 states are involved. For instance:
Can the end justify the means of military action? If so, where do we draw the line?
If another person violates certain accepted behavioural norms, does that action disenfranchise the perpetrator from the same action?
Is there a threshold of marginalization and desperation that justifies calling attention to the problem through a singular violent act or campaign of violence?
Does our response to any of the above questions change depending on the character involved? In other words, what if the violence is directed not at other humans, but at material objects and symbols?
Let's get the discussion started. I don't think political or social ends can be attained through violence because all apparent gains are actually losses once you factor in the cycle of violence and it's psychological implication. However, I'm beginning to waver when it comes to protecting targeted groups from violence like genocide. I'm not sure we can ever condone violence, but can we accept it as a necessary tool while still rejecting it intellectually, or does that make us hypocrites? To give you a framework for the quote I started the post with, it is the thoughts a physician who went into UN work to save lives of patients has when viewing a mass grave from a tower above the church where it occurred. Even though the Hippocratic oath binds doctors to the sanctity of life, he speaks freely of his desire to have used violence to end the life of those who took that of so many others. I think this should give pause to anyone who takes a totally dogmatic approach to .... well, anything, really.
8 comments:
Sorry, I forgot to mention that by saying that he and Ken should have, the author is talking about standing in the church beltower armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, precision firearms, and grenades in order to kill the would-be mass murderers congregating around their victims below....
turns out that's kind of relevant for the resxt of my post.
I can't stop myself from getting in a fight when someone makes a bad foul call so I can't really be of any help in this situation.
I would have kicked hitler's ass, I'm taking out the crazy dude, and I'm using any force necessary to preserve the greater good. The issue as it stands to international relations is that I disagree the war in Iraq (for example) was in order to preserve the greater good. Its also more frusturating that it was carried out under those pretenses.
Just about every other sentence ends in a question mark, which shows how convoluted the justification of (or inability to justify) violence is.
My initial thought is that violence can be justified if it is used to protect those who are innocent and defenseless. I say this while thinking of it in a personal situation. For example, if I saw a child being kidnapped or molested I would run out and punch the guys face in. That is, using violence as a means to an end, but I still feel okay with that fact.
Willis,
great post. I was just reading about this the other day and questioning my own judgment of the uses of violence (and the 'perpetrators' of violence).
I agree, apprehensively, with Lisa and just about everyone else here. I'm pretty sure that violence (and maybe even killing) can be justified when someone threatens more people than themselves.
But the philosophy of non-violence, which I much prefer because of the great legacy of American (and global) social movements attributed to it, holds that no soul deserves to be destroyed... whether that soul has been guilty or innocent in the past.
What I'm saying is, I've only recently thought seriously about the difference between violence against the innocent and violence against the beligerent (sp?). In a situation where the beligerent (read: violent) will violate the rights of the innocent, a governing body may have (and use) their force to protect the good.
But even that has been hard for me to arrive at because the use of violence so directly offends the dignity of every human being.
Lisa and Ben,
I simply don't feel comfortable using end-based justification, regardless of case. It's too much of a slippery slope to step onto, as I don't believe that human ethical judgement is sufficiently or universaly developed to prevent abuse of the concept. After all, at this point we move from objective to subjective evaluations and judgements, meaning that cultural and religious biases begin to factor in.
However, here is another concept you will find in non-violence and peace studies literature that might sged some light on the issue: "reject violence as a means when the other actor(s) is/are rational beings and entities." What does this mean? It suggests that all rational actors have tha ability to think ahead and recognize how to best utilize their resources to achieve their objectives. Since we assume all actors as rational, we also assume that they can recognize that violence ultimatly is detrimental to all parties involved (even when short term achievments make it seem different, but this does not account for the psychological affect on the perpetrators of violence Ben mentioned above). Thus, non-violence is a platform for interaction between the various actors.
Regarding the example of abuse and kidnapping you use Lisa, I have some thoughts:
First, if this person or persons is/are strong enough to abuse or abduct another person, are you really strong enough to stop them, or are you essentially inciting violence against yourself as you can't win anyway?
I think it depends on what is driving the perpetrator of the action. If it is rational (kidnapping for money) pointing out the risks, the witnesses, and the so forth may convince the perp to stop, particularly if you make it clear to him that you will not let him take the child/person without hurting you first, adding to his risks. If however the person is driven to abuse/kidnapping by amental malfunction, violence may be justified.
And if you don't believe the first of those two options is possible, it's something the Peace Studies professor at GW once did, and it worked.
Willis,
These are all worthwhile points. I agree and disagree with both.
Firstly, I like that you oppose violence. I think violence is nearly always synonymous with evil and should be avoided. Therefore, ends can seldom ever justify violent means. Diedrich Lund continues this thought: "We must never be misled into believing that the end justifies the means, but realize that with evil means the best intentions will come to nothing."
On the other hand, we are human. And what makes us human is our ability to judge based on ethics. If we were robots, we might be able to be objective; but that's not what/who we are. In fact, its your own ethics and subjectivity that tells you to oppose violence. Do you disagree?
Secondly, I completely agree that its very important to understand the motives of a violent actor, whether it be a beligerent nation or criminal. I would rather someone ask me for my wallet than put a gun to my head for it; but either way, injustice often begets violence. And that can be largely avoided with a better system for social, economic, and other justice.
But I doubt sincerely the practicality of a conversation with a criminal. I guess I need more optimism for the potential of relations between people, even between those acting rashly and those acting defensively.
Ben, sorry for the belated response.
Regarding your first question, I believe it is rational thought and not subjective experience that leads me to believe violence is wrong. Ethics are based on reason, morality on beliefs: the former is theoretically objective while the latter is inherently subjective.
I've gotten into fights (especially when I was in high school) and I generally won. In fact, I was once suspended from school for a number of hazy reasons. Despite the fact that I had disavowed violence in that situation, I was told that my suspension was warranted due to my "unusual and diquieting understanding of the use of fear" (paraphrase), but overall, the whole thing was about violence.
Regarding your second point, the idea of nonviolence - as I understand it - is to change the dynamic between actors, not simply to not commit violence oneself. Not commiting violence but doing nothing to change others use of it might as well be called what it is: acquiescence and cowardice. I have friends who's response to violent confrontation has been so unusual that those threatening them desisted. Take this example:
My friend Lorenz was in the subway home after going Christmas shopping in Frankfurt. He's not very big or strong (I look like a beast next to him), and he's a very mildmannered guy. A bunch of thugs walked up to him (they were the only 4 people in the carriage) and demanded his money/wallet. He was so upset he jumped up and yelled "Are you bloody kidding me? It's FUCKING CHRISTMAS!!!!" before he could even think of what he was doing. He later told me he never would have done this had he thought about it first. To his surprise, the guys kind of stared at him, blinked, and their leader said "you're right." They spent the rest of the subway trip talking about favorite memories from Christmas vacations. Here's the kicker though: the three thugs were all muslim.
Another friend was rolling a joint under an underpass when some guys approached him and wanted to jump him. He turned around when he heard them, realized he was about to be punched, held up his roling paper with weed in it between them and said "No! I'm rolling a joint and don't want to spill the bud." The guy stopped, my friend finished rolling, smoked with them and they talked for 30 minutes. Then everyone headed their own way.
In both cases, the would be victim responded intuitively, appealing to the shared humanity between him and those threatening him. Similarly, a smile can be a very disarming weapon and get you a long way. If you're interested in more examples, I strongly suggest reading "What would you do?" by Yoder, a book that tackles examples similar to these and examines some moral ramifications withing the context of Christian non-violence. (Not my kind, but better than religious violence, I'd say.) Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836136039/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-5992596-3640819?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183569914&sr=1-2
It's a small book, so check if your local library has it instead of buying it; Shelf may still have my copy (he was the beneficiary of me moving and having to give away almost all my books), he can probably hook you up with it.
willis,
i see your examples about transforming behavior (and maybe even the heart) with some conversation, bridge-building, and love. in fact, i have thought for a while about the potential for love in society and politics.
share more resources if you get the chance. and good luck in Laos.
Post a Comment