A perineal question that has haunted civilisation for several millennia is one that concerns the justification of war. Aristotle’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “we make war so that we may live in peace”, Aristotle implies that war, and thus violence, is justifiable due to its noble cause of sustaining a period of relative stability and harmony. It is commonplace in today’s modern society that violence is frequently abhorred; violence itself refers to extreme physical or mental harm inflicted upon another group, consequently leading to anguish or the fear of death. Aristotle implies that there is a possibility in which violence can lead to peace. However, is this implied message by such a revered philosopher begs the question of can violence ever be justified? In my opinion, violence is indeed justifiable under certain circumstances. In fact, it is more justifiable than ever as we consider the state of our modern paradigm; nevertheless, such borders for the justification of violence are limited.
In order for violence to be justified, its overt and aggressive disposition has to be administered within pre-determined guidelines. Laws regulate the borders of violence and ensure that every action has a reason for it to have taken place. For instance, murder is allowed as a form of defence; manslaughter itself administers a lighter punishment when compared to first-degree murder. Such situations are due to the fact that certain forms of violence are considered more justifiable than others. The United Nations (UN) itself has regulations concerning the practices of war. For instances, non-combatants should not be attacked; if they were attacked without any specific reason, the war would not have been justified.
However, there are certain circumstances in which violence may be justified despite it being against pre-determined guidelines. Such situations are typical in Orwellian societies in which individualism is ‘prohibited’ and conformists are moulded. In the former USSR, Stalin did not allow any form of opposition against his government. Under his authoritative, repressive rule, millions of Russians were slaughtered. They were not even allowed to defend their own rights; they were being watched very carefully. The cult of Stalin was extremely dominant such that any form of violence against his leaders or soldiers was unjustifiable. However, any form of violence by his army was justified. Such a point proves the fact that certain forms of violence, despite being permitted, may be unjustified based on their intentions; similarly, certain forms of violence, despite being illegal, may be justified. In the former USSR, the violence depicted by civilians as a form of defence was considered opposition and was not tolerated; sudden death was ensured- purgery thrived. Thus, the law is only limited in justifying the boundaries of violence to ensure its justification.
Besides legislation and jurisdiction, ethics also plays a crucial role in explaining the justification of war. More often than not, the enemy is dehumanised. He is looked upon as inferior and undeserving of life. However, people with such mindsets have failed to consider the fact that everyone is made equal. We have no mutual right to claim superiority over others. We live in an interconnected, globalised world in which we are heavily interdependent on other countries in ensuring the standards of our quality of life. Dehumanisation has been a huge problem that our human race has experienced. In the 1940s, leading up to World War 2, Hitler gave the orders for racial and religious cleansing, especially through his quiet, yet overt, the policy of anti-Semitism in which he wanted to build his Third Reich only consisting of the Aryan race. The Aryans were apparently superior; other races were dehumanised both physically and mentally. Such violence depicted by the Germans was uncivilised, inhumane and unjustified.
Ethics and law tend to work hand in hand. If laws were pre-determined conscientiously, they would have been created based on ethics, values beliefs and rights. Laws are pre-determined for the betterment and success of the country. When we discuss ethics, we should not merely consider the well-being of victims. We should consider the well-being of those who participate in the violence as well as observers of the violence. It was noted that only 15 per cent of American soldiers actually fired during World War 2, according to a survey carried out by S.A. Marshall. Such astonishing figures were due to ethics and trauma. The soldiers realised that they had the power to take away the life of others. However, they also realised that the triggering of their weapons went against their moral values. Ethics and moral values clearly played a major role in determining the success of the Americans in the war. Nevertheless, it could be concluded that violence carried out by such individuals would be justified since they possessed a moral compass that helped them differentiate right from wrong.
However, under such a circumstance, the law did not work hand in hand with ethics. The military, catching wind of such astounding statistics, changed its laws; they realised that the moral compass of soldiers was too detrimental to the success of the United States of America (USA) in its military pursuits. The military began dehumanising the enemy and implementing laws such that non-firers would be punished. There was also a change in the form of combat. Long-distance combat was preferred over mid-range combat; psychologically, this assisted in the dehumanisation of the enemy. Such alterations to the laws and strategies were deemed successful. In the Korean War, 55% of the soldiers fired. In the Vietnam War, that statistics became 85%. However, were these alterations ethical? Soldiers were made to fire by making them go against their personal beliefs and values. In the long term, such implementations resulted in increased psychiatric disorders as well as trauma illnesses further proving the absence of the ability to justify violence through the penetration of ethics.
According to Hobson, a respectable psychologist, the man was made to be aggressive. He would fight selfishly to ensure what he got. It was the innate characteristic of man to become violent once he did not satisfy his selfish demands. However, Jean Rousseau states that man is mature and civilised such that violence and aggressiveness are only provoked under certain conditions and is atypical of the character and behaviour of man. Indeed, both school of thoughts conflict and contradict each other. However, as man has evolved, we have tended to move towards Rousseau’s perception of the innate behaviour of man. We have become mature enough to understand and appreciate the implications of our aggressive nature and have attempted to reduce all levels of violence. However, claiming that man is mature enough to understand violence, Rousseau intricately implies that violence is justifiable based on the fact that man appreciates the implications of his actions.
Many times, violence is justified based on its intentions. As Aristotle implied, war is present for peace in the future. This may not be the only noble cause for violence. Ernesto Che Guevara, a famous Argentinean medical student, participated in violence for a noble cause. Touring South America alongside his friend, Alberto, he appreciated the sufferings of those around him having been exposed to live outside his elitist comfort zone. Consequently, he pledged to fight for the rights of such people as revolutionaries; his intentions were noble- to unite the people of the divided Americas. Indeed, such violence is justifiable. Abraham Lincoln’s involvement in the American civil war was justifiable as well; his intention was to abolish slavery in America. In today’s modern paradigm, as Rousseau clearly stated, man is mature enough to understand his actions. Today, many acts of violence have positive intentions thus making them justifiable.
However, just like any other theories, Rousseau’s claim has its incontrovertible anomalies and limitations. It clearly cannot explain everyday crimes from bullying all the way to murder. Within families, spouse violence is ever increasing consequently leading to exponentially growing divorce rates. Has Hobson been proven right? Whatever the case is, the number of unjustified acts of violence continues to increase alongside the number of justified acts of violence. We are experiencing a new problem. Violence, although abhorred, is increasing uncontrollably. The root cause of such an insatiable trend is the ubiquitous presence of the media that penetrates through the lives of many individuals. Such omnipresence has resulted in a homogenous culture and a loss of traditional, local culture. Consequently, the moral compasses of many youths have been eroded. They find it a challenge to differentiate the right from the wrong. Action-packed scenes from various movies have inculcated into them undesirable traits. Both the erosion of moral compasses and the inculcation of undesirable traits have resulted in the media playing a pivotal role in the disapproval of violence.
In conclusion, I believe that there have been instances in which violence ranging from the societal all the way to the international perspective has been justified. However, the problem is not whether violence is justifiable or not. We are facing a larger problem- the increasing trend of violent activity and behaviour. Thus, the aim of society should not be to attempt to justify violence. It should be to reduce violence. Only then can we focus on the justification of violence. It is obvious that laws have not been stringent enough to discourage violence; the presence of jurisdiction is merely to justify violence. Hence, we should move away from our conventional thinking concerning the justification of war and think about attempting to reduce violence for the betterment of our societies which are so innately interlinked. Only then can we claim that we are mature enough to move on to controlling our animal instincts of ‘random violence’.