I’m not sure this is true, but even if it is, there’s no way to reliably judge wether you are facing such a person. Unless you are omniscient, acting violently upon such a judgement puts everyone inder the threat that they may be the next one you judge as requiring violence to persuade, which makes them as justified as you are if they claim that you will only be persuaded by retaliatory violence.
Can I ask you to please define “illusion”?
There would have been no “magic” involved had a cop showed up. It was a pretty rough neighborhood and the cops patrolled that spot frequently. There may have been a threat of force, but it did not necessarily have to end with a violent act (punching) or a fatal shot. The police presence alone could have stopped any further harm to the woman.
While you may have saved her from an immediate beating, you still added to the violence of the situation, which may have backfired on her.
But there was a threat of violence.
Yes. Clearly it would have been better for the universe to allow the guy to drag her off the bus and do what he was promising, which was to add to the bruises she and the kid were already sporting. This would have allowed him to improve his girlfriend-beating-technique. Subsequent beatings would have been accomplished more efficiently, with less outlay of energy on his part relative to the pain inflicted, thus, incrementally slowing the heat death of the universe. Moreover, absent anyone acting violently on her behalf, she would have more quickly grown accustomed to her lot in life as his punching bag, and thus would have stopped provoking him to commit acts of violence.
You are very wise.
Moreover, as Xan observed, even your scenario involves a threat of violence. But threats must be backed up with the willingness to act, or they swiftly become useless.
Well look at it from my perspective. As a small woman, physical violence is almost never an option for me. I’m not big enough or strong enough and I choose to live as non-violently as possible, so I don’t carry guns or knives. I’ve been in numerous situations in my life where size and strength would have been an advantage. But since violence wasn’t an option at the time, I dealt with the situation non-violently. I’m still here. No one died. No one was shot or stabbed. I can tell you that indeed, you can live your life this way. It is a choice.
No, there was a threat of authority stepping in.
Which is a threat of violence.
Personally, I think the violence vs threat of violence thing is meaningless semantics. The threat of violence is repeatedly used in this very thread as a justification for violence. If you attempt to solve a conflict through the threat of violence, you are, in the long term, making more violence likely. It looks like the ‘game theory’ mentioned by MrDibble offers proof of this.
As for this idea that my position requires avoiding harm altoghether, I think I’ve already adequately responded to that.
Even though you think you are preventing more harm than you cause, the person you percieve as a threat believes the very same thing. You can’t both be right, but you CAN both be wrong. Since you are both relying on the same justifcation, you probably are both wrong.
The ‘illusion’ I speak of is that the justification of ‘do harm to prevent harm’ is based on the assumption that your judgement is more valid than that of someone else who you disagree with despite the fact they rely on the same justification. Whenever you disagree with someone, it always seems like you’re right and they’re wrong, but that’s simply not the case.
You’re wrong. Police are not automatically violence. They are not interpreted as such. They are a threat to a person’s liberty and independence. If it were only violence that was the threat, there’d be a lot of dead cops around.
I don’t think a threat to a person’s liberty and independance is any better than a threat of physical violence.
All I’m saying is that it’s not the same thing. Better or worse, it’s not the same.
Kalhoun, I did not mean to imply that you should engage in violence yourself. I understand why your size and relative lack of strength cause you to feel violence is not an option for you. My argument was with what I perceived as your categorical dismissal of violence on ethical grounds.
I don’t think violence is always the right course of action, or even usually the right course. But it’s not something which responsible & ethical can say, altogether, that they will never use, because the irresponsible and unethical are not going to be willing to restrain themselves without the threat of it. As someone observed above, even calling the police is an implied threat of violence, because the part of the authority of the police lies in that they are sanctioned to use violence in ways that civilains are presumed not to be.
Okay. I am going to pretend that you are one of the common clay of the Old West and quote the dictionary:
Please define what you mean by the word illusion. What are the characteristics of an illusory phenomenon that distinguish it from a real one?
Oh, balls. Life is full of contrary examples, of cases where there is a clear villain and a clear victim. I’ll give one starring, again, me–this time an instance in which I was acting very badly. I used to have a girlfriend whom I cheated on routinely and repeatedly. We would have arguments when she became suspicious of me, arguments in which I would lie, manipulate, and intimidate her into questioning the evidence that I was, in fact, being a jerk. In those discussions, she was right and I was wrong.
If police were forbidden to use any kind of violence in the performance of their duties, do you think your strategy would have been as successful?
You obviously have access to a dictionary, and I have explained what I meant when I used the word ‘illusion’. I can’t imagine what else you could want.
Life is also full of illusions. 
And how exactly do you think this justifies you in using violence to resolve that situation?
I didn’t mention using violence to resolve that situation. I was responding to your contention that
I didn’t say you did.
But if you know you’re wrong, how is that a disagreement?
I’m against violence all the time for ethical reasons. The point I was making is that you said it’s sometimes the only choice, and I was making a point that that can’t possibly be true if a person such as myself can live a non-violent life by not carrying weapons and also having no option due to physical size and strength limitations.
I already stated that I’m not sure I can be as certain as MrDibble regarding my reaction in every situation. The point is that I don’t consider it an option; therefore I don’t think in terms of how I would kill someone if a situation arose where others might shoot someone or punch someone out. Would I have tried to stop the dude who was beating the shit out of the woman in my scenario? Who knows? I may have tried to get between him and her so she could run. I may have jumped on his back. All I know is that I stopped him with words; not violence. I purposely think in those terms because thinking of how I would kill someone should the situation present itself is not how I want to occupy my thoughts; not the person I want to be.
Re: the police – that is most certainly not my outlook on police. They can take away my freedom. Being physically harmed by a cop is way down on the list of things they do to people. They don’t even carry guns in some countries. They may be “allowed” to use violence, but that is not their primary function. I have been threatened by civilians with regard to violence, but never a cop.
Well I can only tell you how I’d feel about losing my liberty for a lengthy period of time. The thought of incarceration terrifies me. I would not want to go to jail. I assume most people feel the same way. The police do not generally pull a weapon first; they exercise their authority to lock someone up. I’m willing to bet that most people who are behind bars never once feared for their physical safety; only their physical freedom.