Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

  • arthur@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Use of some violence is justified to stop another bigger, ongoing violence.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue to stop other violence, not necessarily bigger, is also justified. It’s never allowed unrestricted, especially as the bigger entity, but a tactical or measured response to prevent further violence can make sense.

          • arthur@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?

            PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.

            • MimicJar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              My point is that it’s an absurd argument.

              Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?

              I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.

              • arthur@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.

                The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )