The Art of Violence and Justice

The key question to any philosophy of morality is "When, if at all, is it permissible to do violence to others?"

In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.

What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.

However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.

So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.

Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.

While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.

The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.

So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.

Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.

Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.