I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were about police brutality, I couldn’t help but question the seemingly popular notion that the violence wasn’t justified. Why wasn’t it justified? Because the police had not officially declared war on black people and other minority groups, but instead continue as an authority figure to protect and uplift their own members who do punch down on people belonging to minority groups? Because the protesters had yet to exhaust their non-violent routes? Were these protests in 2020 a retaliation or a first strike? Even if they were a first strike, was it justified?
What about Hamas? Palestine has suffered from genocide in all but name for over 70 years so does that make Hamas the aggressor or are they the ones acting in self-defense?
What about the issues with income inequality that have previously around the world led to uprisings and revolutions like in France and Russia? Were they justified even though the poor were not being constantly physically oppressed?
What about the issues with representation in government that led to the American revolution? Did those justify violence? Was the American revolution justified simply because of violent moments like the Boston massacre?
Is there a line that a group in power crosses that justifies violent revolt, or is it never justified?
It's not ever justified.
Which is kind of the point. If it's a last resort of self-preservation or to prevent an unacceptable alternative outcome, inherent to the choice to engage or endorse large scale violence is the underlying reality of choosing between two evils.
It's not noble or good. It's never justified.
Yet in certain situations it may be regarded as necessary.
But a necessary evil is not made good by virtue of its necessity.
And attempts to undermine the absolutism by which large scale violence is inherently unjustifiable, to turn atrocity into Micky Mouse heroism or patriotism, ultimately creates a moral tapestry wherein all atrocities can thus be justified by the relative perspectives of what is good.
So no, there is no measure by which large scale violence transforms into justifiable behavior, under any circumstances.
And a wise society would always regard its adoption as a stain upon its history, irrespective of what other horrors it was brought in to clear out.
You seem to think necessary !-> justified.
However, if something is necessary, it is justified.
While you may quibble, "it's necessary to defend myself in life or death situations, but it isn't justified", this part "it's necessary to defend myself in life or death situations" IS the justification of the action. It's justified definitionally.
As such, your argument crumbles.
If you want a diamond necklace that you can't afford, it is necessary to steal it in order to have it.
It is not justified to steal it simply because it was necessary to meet your goals.
You are implicitly assuming that the necessity of self-preservation equates justification on the premise that self-preservation is a just result.
I don't agree.
If two soldiers are fighting for their lives against each other, it may be necessary for each to survive to kill the other.
But the family of the one that dies may not see their loved one's death as justified even if the family of the one that survived sees it that way.
Your self-preservation is worthless to me, and thus justifies nothing. My own self-preservation is literally worth everything to me - and yet if still does not justify my taking everything from you, even if I deem it necessary to achieve my own desires and goals, any more than my desire for a necklace I cannot afford justifies its theft.
There is a distinction between things like stealing bread to save a life where a necessary action is justified by the good that comes out of it and stealing bread to throw away in order to achieve a thrill. Both are necessary to their goals, but one has a goal that justifies the necessary action while the other does not.
I'm saying that there is no goal or good in existence that justifies the inherit evil of mass violence, even if there are a myriad of ways in which mass violence might be necessary to one's goals, with those ranging from ethnic cleansing to fighting tyranny.
Ok, let's stay within the confines of individual self-preservation.
If it is necessary for you to have a new organ to survive, but not enough are available through organ donation programs, does the fact that it is necessary to your survival mean that acquiring an organ from an unwilling donor (directly or though black market proxy) is a justified action?
How about a murderer that killed someone and left witnesses? If they are caught, it would mean they are sentenced to death. So it is necessary for their continued self-preservation to minimize the chances of being caught. Does that make their murder of the witnesses of their earlier crime justified?
Your pithy take on necessity = justification is BS at even a cursory examination.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have freed the slaves. Just that neither the Union nor the Confederate killing of each other was justified. I'm not saying that the US shouldn't have fought in WW2. Just that bombing Hiroshima wasn't justified.
You are the one conflating necessity with justification. And as such you seem to not be able to wrap your head around that while I'm saying mass violence is never justified, that doesn't mean I'm saying the relative necessity for admirable goals means it was in the best interest of the US to have had a show of overwhelming force at the end of the WW2 conflict in mind of Stalin's USSR post-war or that Sherman was wise to burn crops as he marched through the South to reduce supplies for Confederate opposition.
Edit: Also, thank you for making my point about how the notion of justified violence is a slippery slope that can easily end up justifying atrocities by relativist moralizing there with the whole "by any means necessary."
Wow that is extremely well written. Here I was going to say only in self defense but I think you changed my mind. The nuance of necessity and justification is interesting and one I will have to think about.
There is no nuance. If it is necessary, it is justified.
The only nuance that exists is for acts you can create justifications for that aren't necessary.
The only argument to be had is whether an action is necessary or not. If not necessary, then justification is required. Otherwise, they're functionally synonymous.
Bob needed a new heart to survive, but the waiting list was too long.
Bob killed his next door neighbor Jane, cutting out her heart and taking it to a back alley surgeon in order to survive.
Bob was justified in doing this, because whatever is necessary is justified.
I mean that is sort of the definition of justified but it's being misused here, it just means having a good reason. Everyone is ignoring how subjective it is though. Bob may consider his life above others, so for him staying alive is a good enough reason to commit murder. Jane and a jury are very likely to disagree.
Different language needs to be used I think to avoid the issues people have with the concept of violent resistance.
Peace isn't an option because injustice still happens under peace time. Liberation is a better solution for the oppressed.
So now we've got:
Liberation of oppressed peoples from oppression is always justified.
This focuses more on the end goal than the action that resistance implies. Liberation can still involve violent resistance and that's okay. You can be on the side of righteousness and still do what is morally wrong, this is true of all movements.
We have to agree that liberation from oppression is always morally good and we have to apply it to all cases. So if we don't look at the Palestinian struggle the same way we'd look at indigenous issues in north America or apartheid SA, we'd be hypocrites.
You're close to the crux of the issue.
The real issue at hand is whether or not we're talking about moral relativism or absolutism.
If we are endorsing relativism, then all actions have a relative frame of reference by which they are justified (i.e. Bob's killing Jane).
My stance is that in terms of absolutism, there is no such thing as justified mass violence, and that while it is certainly possible for mass violence to be a lesser evil absolutely, and thus easily argued as a moral good relative to the alternative, that ultimately it remains an evil under all circumstances objectively, and at best can be a lesser evil regarded absolutely.
I would have to disagree on the absolutism bit.
I would consider that the Haitian slave rebellion or Warsaw ghetto uprisings were intrinsically good.
I would wish to see liberation of oppressed peoples be a universal law. I would wish for this to be applied to all and I wish for everyone to act on this.
I believe the above fits under Kantian ethics.
Do you include the 1804 massacres of the French with the mass rape of women and killing of children by Dessalines which followed the Haitian revolt in that intrinsic good?
I find it hard to consider that as part of the liberation since it happened after independence. Looks more like state violence aimed at a minority to me.