Violence is force, which is ethically neutral.
Aggression is initiated force, which is something I promise not to use against you.
If you use aggression against me, I may use violence in defense.
Also, I’m skeptical of “proportional response” because it’s subjective.
Like you I'm skeptical of "proportional response."
ReplyDeleteIf I'm being aggressed against, my first priority is halting the aggression, and it may not be clear precisely how much force is required to do that.
If I use what someone considers "too much" force, it still comes down to the fact that I was acting in defense against someone who initiated it.
If I believe I can halt the aggression without killing the aggressor, I'm happy to do so, and to let an arbitration panel sort out what I'm owed in restitution. But if it's escalated to a point where I MAY have to kill the aggressor to stop the aggression, I don't see that I should be penalized for erring on that side rather than on the other, more risky to me, side of the equation. I'm still not the one who created the situation that had to be resolved by imperfect me. The aggressor is. Or was.
That's exactly how I see it.
DeleteI tend to think that ‘proportional response’ is a valid concern but I fully agree that it is subjective and also that this is especially true for the defending party whose judgement on the matter carries more relevance than any complaint raised by the aggressor or their apologists.
ReplyDeleteYep.
Delete