md0 wrote: vijayjohn wrote:
md0 wrote:But it's always something you have to think long and hard about, and take responsibility for in its aftermath, when the threat goes away.
What if the threat never goes away?
Are you talking about so-called intractable conflicts like Syria and Israel-Palestine?
Fights still have end points and periods of ceasefire.
I'm not talking about anything in particular, although I actually had something more like gang violence in mind, or I suppose lower-level conflicts in general; caste war in India might actually be a better example. Fights may have endpoints, but that doesn't necessarily mean we live to see them. Do people necessarily have the luxury to think so much about moral dilemmas they directly face?
For example, suppose you lived in a bad neighborhood and were directly threatened by gang violence. Let's also suppose that you decide at some point to resort to violence - to protect yourself, your family, or whoever - and you don't have enough money to move out, and at some point, people from the gang kill you. When are you supposed to think about whether it was right to resort to violence?
Or in the case of caste war: Not so very long ago, in the state of Bihar in North India, many low-caste women couldn't (and probably many still can't) step out of their own houses without a high-caste man raping them. This was such a regular occurrence that some of these women began arming themselves and training other low-caste women on using guns to defend themselves. This ended the rapes until the high-caste men bribed the police to basically go on pogroms against the villages where low-caste people lived. Obviously, many of these women died. Were they really supposed to think about whether they should have resorted to violence or not?