violence and incompetence
Hi, my name is plonkee, and I’m a science fiction geek.
I’m a big fan of science fiction novels, and I particularly like the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov. One of the major characters in the series Salvor Hardin lives by the maxim that
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
It’s funny, but I’ve always heard that you get more conservative, traditional and right wing as you get older, whereas I seem to be getting more pacifist.
There rarely seem to be reasons to justify personal violence - maybe self-defence is one. In general, I think “do as you would be done by” is a good idea, and so I dislike the hitting of small children in much the same way as I dislike them hitting anyone else.
I am also of the opinion that if the state does not approve of private citizens killing each other, then it shouldn’t do the same. This means that I am strongly against the death penalty and would be even if death row sentences were never overturned.
But, I haven’t quite got to the conclusion that conflict between countries is always unnecessary. I mean, often it is - I’m not a fan of some of the latest conflicts that the British armed forces have been involved in - but I don’t know that I can say that it always is.
I wonder whether my thoughts on violence will alter further as I get older. Have anyone else’s views changed gradually in this way, and if so, how do you feel about it?
Popularity: 22% [?]
Comments
5 Responses to “violence and incompetence”
Got something to say?
I was quite conservative when I was in college and have grown more liberal as I’ve actually lived life and matured. I also oppose the death penalty. For one thing, I really do value life and believe it is a grave matter to kill another human being.
I am pro-choice because I believe women have rights to self-determination and resent the patronizing patriarchy made women’s decisions for them, usually on the basis of what worked best for the patriarchs. Having said that, I believe that society could put some structures in place to make abortion less necessary in some cases. Sometimes, abortion is just a sad necessity. But those decisions should be up to the women involved, not me. The common thread in both of these positions is a commitment to the value of life. Sometimes, the interests of different beings conflict and balance needs to be achieved. It’s not easy, but it is necessary.
As for warfare, it’s probably necessary sometimes, but I think most wars are exercises in adventurism. The current American-incited conflict in Iraq is totally senseless and unnecessary and never should have happened.
I’ve always been a pacifist and that hasn’t changed with age.
Capital punishment is barbaric.
Countries don’t have conflicts; leaders have conflicts. If there’s a border between them we call it a war. If there are two or more groups of leaders within the same border, we call it a civil war. If there are two or more groups of people within the same border, but without leaders, we call it American politics.
Seriously, though, freedom (notice that I didn’t say “democracy”) is ALWAYS worth fighting for, particularly by those who don’t have it.
I agree that freedom is definitely worth fighting for, I’m just not sure what type of freedom you get by killing people.
I think I really do believe that non-violent protest is the only acceptable way to go. And it works, at least sometimes.
On the other hand, there are instances where I think that maybe being non-violent isn’t enough, but then I’m still not sure what kind of freedom is bought. And maybe it does cause more problems than it solves. I guess at least they’re different problems.
Same here. As a “young’un” I was a lot more pro-force in various situations. As I have matured and learned more about life, I have come to see that it was just an adolescent approach. I now look at the police use of force as a bad thing etc.
I have, however, been opposed to capital punishment 100% of my life.