Condoning violence?

[sawthelight]

Is it considered as condoning violence if you choose to arm yourself and learn how to defend yourself?

It seems like a black and white answer with no grey in-between. The grey answer seems like a paradox-contradiction: saying it's okay to use violence when necessary but is not necessarily considered to be really violent - thus condoning just violence as a defender as opposed to being the attacker.

Because to use force-for-force is technically using violence to defend yourself - which is very legal in Canada.

Do others consider the most basic of self defense to equate to violence? Why or why not?

I'm starting to think it actually does mean you condone violence if you learn to defend yourself and then exercise that right to do so. Violence is still violence after all isn't it? As a punch is still a punch.

[sawthelight]

You are using a mixed terminology that has caused you the concern. I've been involved in violent encounters and use of force issues since the later 1970s.

Violence is best used for an illegal use of force. "Use of force" is best used for the legal management of someone's violence. Use of force for self defence from violence is indeed lawful in Canada and the US.

Use of force has a moral base and follows legal niceties.
Violence has neither.
Writing about them as if they had the same definitions and distinctions destroys the morality of use of force and and causes it to be accused of being unrestricted by moral and legal limits, that is, as evil as violence as if it was violence.

Nice nice. That makes more sense actually. I was trying to find the correct wording as you provided ttruscott. Thanks for that.

Yes use of force would be more acceptable and widely accepted as acceptable use of force.

Nice one!

So basically you condone use of force. Lol. Nice.

[bluethread]

I agree with ttrusscott. Philosophers should not be afraid to take some semantic liberties.

Violence = immoral use of force.
Enforcement = moral use of force.

By simply being careful to define our terms meticulously we can fix many apparent philosophical problems.

In this way we can support "enforcement of peaceful behavior" without any need to "condone violence".

Goebbels and Alinsky would no doubt approve. "Keeping the peace" has been used throughout history as a way to justify all degrees of violence. I think that adding a moral component to the term, just encourages it's misuse. I think that the values neutral "use of physical force to cause injury, damage or death" is more appropriate. The morality or immorality is best handled through the use of appropriate adjectives.

Enforcement is also best left values neutral, IMO, because, being a derivation of "force", it need not be morally positive. However, being force to do good against one's will is not a bad thing.