This is the first entry in which I will attempt to tackle the problem of violence in human civilisation. Here I will lay out the framework for what I perceive to be the problem, and I will in future be able to come to some concrete solutions.
Above all, apart from freedom of speech (but not necessarily action; this will be covered below), we must strive for and protect freedom from violence and involuntary, imposed death.
Perhaps I need to back-track just a little and set out a simplified hierarchy of concepts ordered by human worth:
Freedom of Speech - The most valuable concept we possess as a species is that of freedom of speech. Without it we are incapable of the continuous revolution against dogma and stagnancy necessary to progress as a civilisation. It allows us to apply the scientific method to ourselves; to seek out faults in logic, justice, purview etc and to attempt solutions. These solutions will themselves always be imperfect, of course. There is no logos towards which we can, or should, aspire. Such a thing would itself only be defined dogmatically and should therefore be rejected outright in the interests of protecting freedom of speech. Imperfection is acceptable with this in mind.
I will go into this in further length in the future, and there are obviously hugely varied and detailed arguments which must be made for and against freedom of speech being held paramount by our species, but for now, this is as much as needs to be said.
Freedom from Violence and Imposed Death - The reason this is second in my hierarchy and not first is simply because there may come times in the future, as there have been in the past, where violence is the only remaining method of protecting freedom of speech. Logically, therefore, freedom of speech takes primacy. Freedom from violence and imposed death does not need much of an explanation here as I will talk about it later.
Freedom of Action - This comes last in this small and simplified list as, whilst freedom of action is exquisitely important, it must also be tempered by speech should things be taken too far, i.e. attempts at totalitarian, theocratic or otherwise suppressive and oppressive behaviour. In the worst and most lamentable cases, malign action must be ceased with violence, but a responsible civilisation must always see this as a last resort and the abject failure of speech.
In reality I think this hierarchy should be seen as a small pyramid, with Freedom of Action and Freedom from Violence and Imposed Death being seen as equally weighted underneath Freedom of Speech. The two are so intricately connected as to be continuous from a distance, separated by a shifting fault-line of social normality.
In reality I think this hierarchy should be seen as a small pyramid, with Freedom of Action and Freedom from Violence and Imposed Death being seen as equally weighted underneath Freedom of Speech. The two are so intricately connected as to be continuous from a distance, separated by a shifting fault-line of social normality.
This is a subject I will return to, and hopefully with more clarity; I appreciate it is a little rushed here, it is simply because it is not what I wish to discuss.
Back on topic: Freedom from violence and death; the why and possibilities of the how.
Now when I talk about violence here, I am not talking bar brawls, playground fights, pugilistic ripostes; I am not advocating a society with repressed expression. These forms of violence are modes of social interaction and are mostly looked down upon or straightforwardly outlawed as it is.
What I am talking about is violence as a means of political persuasion.
The main forms of this are as follows::
Violence as a Means Toward Social Order: This includes police brutality as a blatant method of control, but extends organically towards the problems of Russia, China, not to mention other, apparently democratic nations.. Russia and China have both become the poster-children for violent suppression of freedom of speech and the troubling echoes of their behaviour are now becoming manifest in supposedly liberal societies.
The simple counter-argument to violence as a means toward social order is this:
If social stability or social power is gained through the use of violence, that social stability/power is not legitimate as it has been gained through straight-forward ignorance of important sociological problems. The ends do not justify the means and, perhaps more importantly, the perpetuation of said sociological problems will necessitate the use of the same unjustifiable violence. This problem either snowballs towards full-on revolution or the society in which it occurs becomes so superficially stable that the majority of the populace become ignorant, willfully or not, of social problems until far after they needed dealing with. I would argue this is the situation in which Western civilisation now finds itself.
If social stability or social power is gained through the use of violence, that social stability/power is not legitimate as it has been gained through straight-forward ignorance of important sociological problems. The ends do not justify the means and, perhaps more importantly, the perpetuation of said sociological problems will necessitate the use of the same unjustifiable violence. This problem either snowballs towards full-on revolution or the society in which it occurs becomes so superficially stable that the majority of the populace become ignorant, willfully or not, of social problems until far after they needed dealing with. I would argue this is the situation in which Western civilisation now finds itself.
Capital Punishment: It cannot be overstated. There is no ethical justification for capital punishment. The argument for capital punishment is simple and utilitarian; it is the removal of a problem. A man murdered by the state can do no more harm and costs the state no more money to maintain, unlike other prisoners. There is also an emotional argument for capital punishment. It provides revenge for aggrieved family, for instance. It scares criminals away from committing extreme crimes. There is a biblical argument: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The problem with many, if not all of these arguments is that they are, to put it diplomatically, hubris, ex post facto.
The bible was written to govern another world, another era of humanity. The Great Amender, Jesus Christ Himself, actively disagreed with much of the violent old testament. The emotional arguments hold no water as they are failed logical connections wrapped in rhetoric. The fact that after our species existing for 250,000 years there are still societies with the death penalty presents quite a neat counter-argument against capital punishment as a preventative measure. Those who demand vengeance should never be allowed it. It is that simple. The pathology of vengeance is self-sustaining.
The utilitarian arguments for capital punishment fall to pieces upon the mildest scrutiny. Money never measures against the actual worth of human rights; something enshrined in America with the emancipation proclamation. You cannot measure a man's death as a preemptive debt relief.
The only argument listed here (I will approach this subject in length in the future) which holds up to any extent is that regarding potential future crime. If a man commits homicide, he has a higher likelihood of committing again. This is a fact which cannot be avoided. Apart from in the cases of provably innocent men put to death.
The arguments against capital punishment become long-winded and complicated quickly and will be dealt with by me in the future but at the moment I will simplify: The government murder of a human does not prevent or solve anything on any scale larger than the individual. On the individual scale, there will always be a responsibility thrust upon a person to actually conduct execution. Even if it is a computer which does the deed, that computer needs programming. It is not acceptable to allow for the responsibility of murder to be put on a person's shoulders, however willing they may be.
The arguments against capital punishment become long-winded and complicated quickly and will be dealt with by me in the future but at the moment I will simplify: The government murder of a human does not prevent or solve anything on any scale larger than the individual. On the individual scale, there will always be a responsibility thrust upon a person to actually conduct execution. Even if it is a computer which does the deed, that computer needs programming. It is not acceptable to allow for the responsibility of murder to be put on a person's shoulders, however willing they may be.
War: The case of war is one I have spoken about at length with people in the past and it is one difficult to bring to a conclusive solution. As a pacifist, my feelings are plain: murder is unacceptable. There is, however an argument for Just War and I would be remiss if I didn't spend considerable time on it.
A statement which demonstrates my feeling which would be difficult for most modern humans to disagree with is this:
War is the failure of politics.
If it is being used as a tool of politics, then that polity can no longer claim absolute right. This statement would, logically, justify at the very least the aims of the Allies during the Second World War. Political peace had been attempted and failed, spectacularly.
Any war waged to prevent further war is a gamble on potentiality, however, and few are as clean cut as the war against fascism. War is a colossal subject which I will cover in length, but here I will simply repeat the phrase: War is the failure of politics.
A world without any of these three forms of political violence will most likely never exist. A world without war, for instance, sees a gradual increase in governmental obsession with observing its own citizens; a situation which could feasibly lead to increased police brutality and social repression. War will always be waged, whether by men or their proxy robot replacements. Societies will always murder their own for political reasons. There are, however, ideals towards which we must strive. We must marginalise war. We must pour scorn on government oppression. We must whole-heartedly reject any claims to credibility made by an institution which believes crimes can be solved by something as simple as symmetry.
Any comments/arguments/suggestions would be more than welcome. I hope I can give some satisfactory answers.
A statement which demonstrates my feeling which would be difficult for most modern humans to disagree with is this:
War is the failure of politics.
If it is being used as a tool of politics, then that polity can no longer claim absolute right. This statement would, logically, justify at the very least the aims of the Allies during the Second World War. Political peace had been attempted and failed, spectacularly.
Any war waged to prevent further war is a gamble on potentiality, however, and few are as clean cut as the war against fascism. War is a colossal subject which I will cover in length, but here I will simply repeat the phrase: War is the failure of politics.
A world without any of these three forms of political violence will most likely never exist. A world without war, for instance, sees a gradual increase in governmental obsession with observing its own citizens; a situation which could feasibly lead to increased police brutality and social repression. War will always be waged, whether by men or their proxy robot replacements. Societies will always murder their own for political reasons. There are, however, ideals towards which we must strive. We must marginalise war. We must pour scorn on government oppression. We must whole-heartedly reject any claims to credibility made by an institution which believes crimes can be solved by something as simple as symmetry.
Any comments/arguments/suggestions would be more than welcome. I hope I can give some satisfactory answers.
