In response to Question No.1: UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, CAN VIOLENCE BE CONSIDERED MORALLY ACCEPTABLE OR NECESSARY?
This is such a wooly question. Define violence..Violence is entropy in action. Morally acceptable? Under whose terms? Morals are not set in stone. That which may, by one culture be considered moral, indeed possess the very opposite and contradictory effect in another. Morals are mutable concepts, sculpted and formed by physical forces. Topography, seismology, equidistance all have their part to play. Resistance to force is the real moral arbiter.
Surely, any reasonable mind can concede to the point that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Would you hesitate to kill one human life if it meant saving 10 billion? You'd probably hesitate but quickly come to the realisation that the one life would be a reasonable sacrifice.
As regards necessary. Violence will always be necessary. It just doesn't have to be framed with such bias.
Regarding quote number2...One side tries to portray itself as more ethical than the other side in war. Usually, this is done by claiming to be the democratic one and labelling the other side as tyrannical. At other times, one side is accused of being a terrorist or committing war crimes. The side that is accused first must then play defense and explain why they're not the "bad guys." This is where the power of media projection in warfare is of extreme importance.
❓#1~ Violence is a protection mechanism or an anger reaction. Defense wins championships can be extrapolated. Consensual combat does not classify as violence to me. Any other reason seem justifiable, you may need professional help. Instant, honest opinion...I be a lover tho😍
In response to Question No.1: UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, CAN VIOLENCE BE CONSIDERED MORALLY ACCEPTABLE OR NECESSARY?
This is such a wooly question. Define violence..Violence is entropy in action. Morally acceptable? Under whose terms? Morals are not set in stone. That which may, by one culture be considered moral, indeed possess the very opposite and contradictory effect in another. Morals are mutable concepts, sculpted and formed by physical forces. Topography, seismology, equidistance all have their part to play. Resistance to force is the real moral arbiter.
Surely, any reasonable mind can concede to the point that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Would you hesitate to kill one human life if it meant saving 10 billion? You'd probably hesitate but quickly come to the realisation that the one life would be a reasonable sacrifice.
As regards necessary. Violence will always be necessary. It just doesn't have to be framed with such bias.
#1 can you justify the violent practices undertaken for the contents of your dinner ?
Regarding quote number2...One side tries to portray itself as more ethical than the other side in war. Usually, this is done by claiming to be the democratic one and labelling the other side as tyrannical. At other times, one side is accused of being a terrorist or committing war crimes. The side that is accused first must then play defense and explain why they're not the "bad guys." This is where the power of media projection in warfare is of extreme importance.
❓#1~ Violence is a protection mechanism or an anger reaction. Defense wins championships can be extrapolated. Consensual combat does not classify as violence to me. Any other reason seem justifiable, you may need professional help. Instant, honest opinion...I be a lover tho😍
Mentally ill woman
How ill though?