Employment of Violence

Employment of Violence
Violence is the application of physical power or might, real or threatened against an individual, oneself, or against a society that causes or can potentially cause harm, deprivation, injury or psychological damage. It entails the infliction of harm on people or possessions thus it necessitates the need for justification. Different individuals and organizations use violent approaches for various reasons some of which tend to defend themselves by citing the overall act as justified. Throughout history, it is evident that acts of violence have been employed in various circumstances and societies by individuals and institutions at large. The contemporary world is not different either in that there is a continued occurrence of such instances where the use of violence is eminent including, homes, workplaces, and governments at large. More evidently is how political powers in various countries apply force for a seemingly logical course, or so they claim, that generally and ultimately affect the victims in one way or the other. This paper identifies situations in which there needs to be an employment of physical force to protect abstract principles or to protect moral agents. Additionally, this work determines whether the use of physical power is necessary for protecting moral patients.
Situations whereby Violence is Acceptable to Protect Abstract Ideals and Moral Agents
The matter of justifications for force employment among typical philosophies and political concepts among a majority of states around the world traditionally emphasize on political aggression.

Political aggression or violence involves activities and approaches to violence either perpetrated by individuals or political movements to reach particular policy objectives. Political attacks, nevertheless exclude acts of terrorism, assassination protests, and riots in demonstrations among others. Validation for aggression may argue that a particular violent behavior or activity of movement is the moral thing to do or is nevertheless acceptable. The characteristic of the focus on philosophical explorations towards the justifiability of hostility entail the universal conditions required by any valid ethical justification for any violent behavior. Although there are different areas where the use of force is practiced throughout the world, this part largely delves from a political perspective. A majority of philosophical arguments concerning political violence argue primarily on whether or not as well as the degree of violent activities can be validated as means to a plausible end.
Deontological ethics suggests the existence of limitations on justifiable acts in the quest for important and worthy ends. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that some actions tend to be justified depending on their valuable outcomes. However, some actions are naturally and instinctively wrong, based on the set values and norms within a society or individualistic principles. Immanuel Kant’s theory of morals suggested that telling an ultimate lie is wrong in spite of the end which may involve saving a life. Kamm points out that there is an extensive logic of or a moral status in which the definition of the theory can be what is allowable or disallowed to do to an individual or entities (227). Using this basis suggest that non-humans have the moral status of a unit to which they are morally allowed to perform any activity. Several deontologists may agree on the assertion that wrong actions can, in some instances, be validated in unfavorable or extreme conditions. For example, it would be justifiable to kill an innocent individual if it meant saving an entire country (Fried 10). However, Fried sustains that such behaviors are unlawful in a typical situation in spite of their significant consequences (10).
Therefore, deontologists agree that the use of such performances tends to be justifiable in grave circumstances involving war. Additionally, the use of power can be authenticated in situations entailing self-protection or the protection of other people from a wrongful assault. People have moral rights not to be murdered or harmed wrongfully and therefore have a right to shield themselves from unjustified physical attacks. It is also arguable that engaging in powerful attacks with a non-engaged individual or issuing violent threats is about attacking an innocent person. On the other hand, an individual that participates in invalidated hostility against another can be considered as having surrendered their universal rights of not to be assaulted. It is also worth noting that it is understandable to employ brutality against an assailant since one is required to defend themselves.
However, some actions such as poisoning a person assumed to have intentions of murder against them. Hence, protective violence is acceptable only when it is defensive; otherwise, it would be unlawful. For example, individuals from a given community may decide to oppose a government that denies freedom to power or exhibit inequality against some of its citizens. This action of opposition would be justly, but any illegal violent harassment by its representatives including authorities among other members of the justice system towards the protestors would not be defensive actions. Thus, many deontologists believe that any form of political hostility is only expected to be right in situations where its use was as a kind of defense against militia, police, or hostile nations.
On the other hand, actions such as the promotion of political aggression whereby activists readily die for religious purposes or individual purposes are not likely to receive a straight or persuasive validation. Claims by various deontologists posit that it is justifiable for hostility to be directed against parties that have a direct engagement in it or are otherwise the causes of its occurrence. It is important to note that a failure by a moral agent to stop the event of murder does not render a person liable for it. Nonetheless, some instances may make an individual responsible for a death they may fail to prevent. For example, a domestic worker that fails to report repeated violent acts against the lady owner by the husband.
Another example may involve failure citizens to report, pressurize or protest against the government when police and soldiers continually tortures and kill some persons residing at a particular turf or from a particular ethnic group. Nevertheless, the citizens would not be held responsible for the killings, beatings and torture the targeted group encounter for they are legally innocent of the perpetrated brutality. Additionally, the citizens’ contribution to paying the army or police force cannot incriminate these citizens for the soldiers’ brutal acts. However, if civilians would decide to use explosives to counteract the army or police force that would further terrorize the public are not defensive actions. Therefore, in as much as the use of force can be justifiable in various circumstances, it would be wrong in other instances.
Moral agents tend to operate sometimes based on their beliefs that are presumably rational though false in reality. Given the situation, agents tend to work in ways considered to be morally upright if their beliefs were accurate. On the other hand, these actors would find their actions incorrect if they perceived their beliefs as false. In a majority of cases, people tend to Sometimes our tendency is to assume that the decisions of these agents are viable. An example is the one suggested by Fried that it is right killing an innocent person if it meant saving an entire country (10).
Circumstances Viable to Defending a Moral Agent
A moral agent is a person that understands the moral values and principles and therefore can identify what is morally right or wrong (Pluhar 33). Following the above presumption, one may view the action as a viable means that justifies an evidently important end of saving millions of other people. Therefore, one may defend the moral agent, in this case, the government for apparently preventing a seemingly more catastrophic occurrence. And although the government is against violence against its citizens and its justice system devotes to protecting all citizens, its act to sacrifice this single person would be unethical but of a greater cause. Another instance of defending a moral agent would be where the actor engages in activities to protect or protest against the maltreatment of various individuals or parties. For example, abortion, a very controversial topic particularly in the contemporary world, is morally wrong as it is violence against an innocent and defenseless child. The mothers and medical practitioners that perpetrate the act are aware of and have a natural intuition that the action is ethically wrong.
Therefore, an agent engaging in violent behavior such as lynching or vandalizing these clinics can be defended because their deed is in protests to protecting the voiceless and defenseless in the community. And although he employed strategies are not ethical, however, if they are the only means available and efficient enough to get the required attention, then these agents’ acts are rational. In contrast, while using the same example of the abortion issue, an instance where both the mother and child are at a risk of losing their lives, then there is a possibility of a turn in events. For example, it would be arguable to protect a moral agent that uses harassment against a woman or a medical facility that only procures abortions necessary due to health conditions threatening both lives; the mothers’ and the children’s. In fact, the act would not be justifiable since the agent would be proposing the deaths of two individuals instead of one. Therefore, defending an agent would depend not only on whether or not they uphold a particular moral code but also if the consequences of the actions could be attained using other means other than violence.
The Use of Violence to Defend Moral Patients
Moral patients are people that lack necessary abilities required for managing their individual actions in ways that would make them ethically responsible for their deeds. In short, these people are not aware or what is morally right or wrong (Pluhar 33) thus may necessitate violent interventions from moral agents to prevent grave happening. Moral agents may include animals, infants and mentally unstable humans who cannot be held ethically responsible for their deeds. As a result, it is the obligation of moral agents to guide or exercise what is right towards these entities. Kamm allege that having an obligation to act and have a responsibility towards a particular body to act are varying concepts (230). Kamm expounds that when people are responsible for someone, it automatically forms a co-relational right for the entity from the individual owning it (230). Therefore, the person in charge of these entities of a moral patient such as a child or mentally impaired person can employ force to prevent them from engaging in unacceptable behaviors.
Works Cited
Fried, Charles. Right and Wrong. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U.P, 1978. Print.
Kamm, F M. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007. Internet resource.
Pluhar, Evelyn. “Moral agents and Moral Patients.” Pennsylvania State University. 1979: 30-35.
Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=bts” http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=bts