Yes I exist
Ok I know its been ages. I don't really have a reason other then lack of interest I suppose. I did an essay awhile back for philosophy on my theory of violence. I just thought I'd publish it for all of you (nobody) to enjoy. Hey maybe somebody will copy it somewhere out there and get a good mark. Lets hope so =). To learn more about the amazing Mr. Garver go
here. I selected to agree with Mr. Garver for this essay, for the most part.
I agree with Newton Garver that violence is a violation which can come in many forms, and that it is better to resolve conflict through passive means whenever possible. In my essay I will look at what is considered violence, and in what different forms violence can exist. I will also look at what factors contribute to acts of violence, and argue how different views of pacifism are realistic.
It would be easy to sum up violence as a physical act against another being, but its not that simple. Violence is often associated with physical force, but violence and force are not the same thing. As an example, if someone is choking and you administer the heimlich manoeuver, you are using your force against another person. This is quite the opposite of violence as you are using your force to try and save this person from harm. So it can be said that we cannot limit violence to physical actions.
Violence is better understood to be actions in which a person is violated. There is a wide spectrum in which a person can be violated, so to understand what is considered a violation we must understand what basic principals you are entitled to as a person. The right to one's body is an obvious principle. That is to say, a person is entitled to decide what their body does and what is done to it. The french philosopher, Descartes said a being is made up the body and the mind and without both of these a person ceases to exist. That brings us to our second principal- the right to autonomy, that is to say you have the right to make your own decisions, and be in control of your actions. When a human has lost the right to his autonomy, whether it be by drugs or a disease of the mind they in some incidents can be found not responsible for their actions. Take for example sleepwalking, this is a state of automatism, an act which is done without conscious control by the mind. In the case of R. vs Parks. The accused was charged with first degree murder. At the trial he advanced a defense of non-insane automatism. The evidence was that the accused was sleepwalking and that sleepwalking is not a neurological, psychiatric or other illness. The trial judge put the defense of automatism to the jury, which acquitted the accused of both murder and attempted murder. The accused was not held responsible for an action which he did not consciously make.
If we considered ones property to be an extension of ones person, then this adds a new form of possible violence. The destruction, theft, or tampering with a persons property is a considerable act of violence. The right to control of ones body, mind, actions and possessions are the most fundamental features we have as humans. Any action that violates one of these fundamental freedoms is considered violence.
Now that we have an understanding of what violence is we will discuss four different forms of violence . Violence for the most part is classified in four different forms, they are whether the violence is personal or institutionalized, and if the violence is overt or covert.
Overt personal violence is easy to define. It requires an act of force against someone. Most cases we hear on the news such as assault, murder, and rape are all illegal forms of overt violence. But there exist legal forms of overt person violence such as capital punishment. In this case society deems that an act of violence is required to administer justice. People such as prison guards, police officers, and some parents use socially acceptable forms of violence like spanking and handcuffing. These people have social and legal rights in which their use of violence is justified by law, this has overtones of institutionalized overt violence. Another example of institutionalized overt violence is during war is when a group of people are being attacked not as persons but for belonging to a certain group like the Nazi's did to the Jews in World War Two.
Quiet or covert violence begins with the idea that someone is harmed through psychological attacks. This violence cab be either institutional or personal. For example, if when you were young you had a teacher who constantly belittled your math skills you might grow up feeling inadequate in the area of math. In the South, only whites could sit at the front of a bus. This psychologically, made the black people associate being black with being inferior. Dating back to earlier times when slavery was legal the black people were so controlled they did little to try and prevent this slavery and sort of excepted this way of life. This was a form of covert psychological violence. Overt violence was used in terms of shackles, whips and hangings. In many ways this overt violence was also institutional as the law either allowed it or looked the other way in order to maintain control of the slaves.
I will now turn to the second half of my essay in which we examine what is pacifism and how realistic is it. Pacifism is a way of life in which a person seeks conflict resolution by first trying to understand the threat or challenge then seeks a solution which is nonviolent and agreeable to both parties. Pugnacity is the opposite where a person will use any means to defend what they believe is inherent interest without concern for the challenger. People who are pugnacious are simple, goal orientated, and see things black and white. Pacifists see the world in a more understanding manner and preach tolerance.
People who object to pacifism would say that nothing would be accomplished, because there can be no single shared view. Some say the pacifist's view of the world is unrealistic. Their belief is that violence would have to not exist but that violence is an inevitable part of human nature. But what if the worlds was completely pugnacious? What if the old "eye for an eye" belief was our effective form of justice? As Ghandi puts its "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind".
I consider myself a realistic pacifist like Newton Garver. That is I would seek a non-violent solution whenever possible, but should the need arise I would save my own existence through the least violent solution.
I hope I have helped to broaden your view on possible forms of violence, and given you a better understanding of it. I hope some day we can have peace on earth and as John Lennon put it "Imagine there's no heaven...Imagine all the people living for today...Nothing to kill or to die for...Imagine all the people living life in peace" a true pacifist.
Peace and Love.
