Is violent protest moral in certain circumstances

[Jannabear]

In what circumstances do you guys think violent protest is moral, personally I think that violent protest should be a last resort and only if your government has severe humanitarian issues.
Thoughts?

[Baruch]

Yes.  It worked for the American revolutionaries in the 1770s ... less well in the 1860s.  The South saw themselves as the true continuation of the American Revolution ... and Jefferson would have agreed.  The North was under ... English influence ... something suspect.

On the other hand, I am not a person to advocate violence, for protest or suppression of protest (see 1968 Demo convention in Chicago).  Any government, unless the protestors are secret agents of the government .. will naturally suppress, by violence if necessary, any protest that gets to far.

My POV is that of a religious humanist, who will ally with non-religious humanists.  Violence is ... questionably humanitarian.

[stromboli]

Violent protest in what context? If you say Ferguson anti racist protest involving destruction of businesses not in any way affiliated with racist behavior, I would say no because ultimately the result negates the desired outcome.

If you say the current situation in Oregon at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (implied violence because of the firearms) I would say no because the violent protest is far in excess of any point they are trying to make

If you say violent protest in terms of one nation forcing conditions on another nation that were punitive to the point of being dangerous to the people being forced to subjection under those rules, very possibly.

But violent protest ultimately has violent consequences. You can make the claim that Islamic terrorism is a form of protest. And some Muslims do.

Conclusion? Only within a limited set of circumstances wherein violence is justified would it make sense, and frankly I can think of very few.

[drunkenshoe]

I don't think violence contributes to anything than itself, but obviously it is the only way that 'counts'. History shows that no blood, no change.

Humans tend to act differently when their lives or property or territory is at stake. Like the animals we are.

[doorknob]

Violence should be a last desperate resort. But yes there are some cases where violence can not be avoided.

I agree that it is usually in situations where a government is out of control and or has humanitarian issues.

[stromboli]

Violence should be a last desperate resort. But yes there are some cases where violence can not be avoided.

I agree that it is usually in situations where a government is out of control and or has humanitarian issues.

"violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

Isaac Asimov

[Mr.Obvious]

Sadly though, we are an incompetent species. At least to some degree.

I don't like violence. But given the right context, I could see it as a valid form of protest.  I tend to view this in extreme, hypothetical cases to see if I'd agree with it or not. Say you have a dictator of some country who every single day has about 100 people under his rule executed for a triviality, like your sexual preference, because of a rule that he put in place. How many days and how many hundreds of people must die before you realize your peacefull protest doesn't work? If you could somehow kill the dictator or drive him out through violence and that way stop the senseless executions, would that not be more morally sound than letting a 100 die everyday?

A hypothetical situation sure. But one from which I must personally conclude that I find violent protest, given the right conditions, to be permissable and morally sound.

[pr126]

How can one protest against tyranny peacefully?

[Baruch]

How can one protest against tyranny peacefully?

Europeans left Europe, because it was a tyranny, and freed themselves once here, because it was a tyranny.  So one can peacefully emigrate .. provided you have official permission of course.  It is called voting with your feet.  If Europeans are unhappy with your governments, then you need to vote them out at the next election.  Not endlessly whine and keep re-electing incumbents like Americans do!

[The Skeletal Atheist]

What degree of violent protest are you talking about, and who is the target of the violence? Under what conditions is this violence being applied? I will say this: I don't support assassinations or murders except under the most extreme conditions.

Burning random cars? That's a no no for me. You don't know who's car it is, you don't know their story.

Assaulting riot police? In certain circumstances, yes. When the police decide to break up a peaceful protest with batons and guns it may be time for bricks and Molotovs. If defensive action is needed, so be it.

Against random cops not really doing anything? No. Cops may be at large an arm of the state, but at the individual they are just people doing a job.

Getting back to assassinations and murder:  there are people in the US I would love to see dead. If they died I would party. That being said assassination is a last resort. If the country was under risk of actual, 1940s style fascism I'd support assassination.

[Shiranu]

How can one protest against tyranny peacefully?

Ghandi and MLK did a pretty good job of it. Solidarity in Poland and the People Power Revolution of the Philippines as well. The Prague Spring... the Velvet Revolution... the Mongolian Revolution... the Bulldozer Revolution to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic. The Ceder Revolution in Lebanon that caused the Syrian's to leave.

Might need to open a history book sometime.

[Mr.Obvious]

But to be honest, taking ghandi as an example, his violentfree protest wasn't The only protest at play at The time, in India. Without diminishing his work, it's important to note The entire climate in that time and place. The others, including The violent protests, can be argued to have had their influence in The changes that followed.

[doorknob]

Every one knows that peace is preferable. And when ever something can be peacefully solved kudos to us all. But in many cases we are dealing with immature societies with immature leaders who only understand the language of violence.

There is no black and white in life. there are definitely situations I can think of where violence and even murder could be the moral choice for that specific situation.

I definitely will murder an attacker threatening my family out of self defense. I'm not risking my family the people I love and care about and keep me alive in this world for some one who dares to fuck with me. If I shoot it's to kill. I prefer not to because I hate violence but I can't risk that person coming back later for revenge. I'll do the jail time as long as my family is safe.

[Shiranu]

But to be honest, taking ghandi as an example, his violentfree protest wasn't The only protest at play at The time, in India. Without diminishing his work, it's important to note The entire climate in that time and place. The others, including The violent protests, can be argued to have had their influence in The changes that followed.

Perhaps not... but his protest was the one that gathered the most followers and put the most political pressure on England from the outside world to let India go. No one remembers the violent Indians because no one outside of Indian saw them as anything more than terrorists and criminals; today the whole world celebrates the birth of Ghandi and his actions have inspired numerous peaceful revolutions. A peaceful revolution can never have the man power to stop a tyranny by itself... that is why it is effective as it turns the rest of the world on the tyrant. Of course... that assumes the rest of the world isn't indifferent (which I think is becoming more and more the case) to the suffering of people outside their borders.

Likewise his methods inspired the people post-England to elect him as president... in the time when a country is at it's greatest risk of falling to a power-hungry and worse ruler than they had before. If India's freedom had been won predominately by violent revolutionists than a violent revolutionist would likely have been the one who took power. While India is a long way from being perfect... it is far better than what it would have been in that situation.

Everything has it's influence... and perhaps the violence has an important influence... but I could never argue that influence to be moral.

[Deidre32]

Only in self defense.