The Non-violent Alternative

One of the philosophical ideals that I cherish the most is that of non-violent human interaction. I am not a pacifist, but I think that violence should be used as a means to an end only if there are no reasonable non-violent means available and only if the end is extraordinarily compelling.

Since government is institutionalized violence, I oppose the use of the state to achieve even noble ends. There are times where the state, in my view, does justifiably employ violence, but in these situations I believe that anyone would be justified in using violence (e.g. self-defense, or defense of another). In other words, your status in relation to a state has no effect on whether your use of violence is 'right' or 'wrong' because there's simply no reason beyond "might makes right" to make morality relative to the existence of a particular social institution. Unfortunately, I think that most people's moral compasses are sadly tuned in such away that it does revolve around the state as an inherently "super-moral" institution (even if it would be immoral for you or I to do it - it's still moral if the state does it). I'd call this state mythology.

For those of you who do believe that the state has rights greater than any other institution, or that the state has the moral right to use violence in situations where "regular humans" do not, I'd at least like you to reconsider the necessity of utilizing violence through the state to achieve positive social goals.

My first argument against the use of the state to promote justice can be inferred from what I've already said. If the state's use of violence does not actually comport to our own personal views on violence (upon close examination of the criteria that inform our judgments of whether violence is justified), then it is most likely acting unjustly when it uses violence as a means to promoting justice. So even if the violence is effective in achieving the goal, it might just be wrong in a purely moral sense.

Second, the use of violence is a pretty ineffective way of bringing about a better world, as we have all witnessed with respect to Iraq over the last decade. In fact, the use of violence to achieve a noble goal often backfires and ends up causing a greater harm than the harm intended to be corrected. This is because violence is the crudest tool of social interaction and social control. It is the use of physical power to submit the will of another to your own. Rarely, I would argue, is there a net "social gain" from engaging in violent behavior. The further we get from a "might makes right" mentality (that predominates the social structure of most primates and interactions between children) the closer we get towards a more peaceful society that benefits all.

Third, there are plenty of effective and innovative ways of achieving goals without employing violence. These rely on individuals acting for mutual benefit, which in turn cultivates relationships based on empathy and friendship. Not all non-violent human behaviors are necessarily constructive or even positive. Some actually have negative effects. But the beauty of non-violent social systems is that anti-social or questionable non-violent behavior can be combated using non-violent means. You can encourage people to leave appropriate tips at restaurants by attaching a social stigma to bad tipping practices. I don't think that there are any macro social problems facing our society that can't be effectively addressed through non-violent means. Even problems that might theoretically be solved through violence can also be addressed non-violently. Promoting an ethical norm of non-violence is also secondary social good produced by non-violent behavior.

Fourth, like the side effect of refraining from violence (promoting a culture of non-violence), the use of violence legitimizes an expanded role of violence in society. Although state mythology attempts to create separate moral norms for the "citizenry" as opposed to the state, there's still likely to be a spillover effect on the rest of society when the state expands the use of violence. It sends the message that "only the state can use violence - not because of some specific philosophical principle, but because might makes right. And if might makes right, you should use violence whenever you can get away with it." In addition, allowing an institution to have an exclusive moral right to use violence is extremely dangerous if, for some strange reason, that institution comes to be controlled by a self-interested strata of the population. Setting a precedent of more state violence is not likely to promote the wellbeing of all.

Last, what if the "end" or goal turns out to be negative rather than positive? If we used non-violent means to achieve the goal, we can always use non-violent means to correct the mistake. But if we've gone and used violence we can't put that kind of toothpaste back in the roll. What if tipping really isn't a good practice for some undiscovered reason? How can you give someone back 2 months of their life that they spent in jail for failing to tip? The unjust use of violence incites more violence in return. An eye for an eye...

Using violence is a dangerous and significant threshold that should not be taken lightly. Every political discussion involving government policy necessarily involves the moral question of violence. Both the practical and moral consequences of employing violence to achieve certain objectives must be considered. Each of us should think about the criteria that determine whether the use of violence is appropriate in a given situation. What is the proper role of government in society? What is the proper role of violence?