|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revolution
I'm not really all that sure if this is the right place for this question, but it seems to be more of a question of ethics.
Is Violent resistance acceptable if peaceful resistance is not working?
Is Violent resistance acceptable if peaceful resistance is not working?
In some cases yes, but in others no. If the resistance is morally right and the government morally wrong, then violent resistance might be morally right (depending on whether or not innocent people are killed during the violent revolution (and, if so, how many and how extreme the moral wrongness of the government), what happens after the revolution, etc.). I'd probably agree with the idea that if the government is not doing what it should for the people, the people can overthrow it, but then you have to decide what the government should be doing. I'm not sure how I'd vote in the poll.
| iZen wrote: |
| I'm not really all that sure if this is the right place for this question, but it seems to be more of a question of ethics.
Is Violent resistance acceptable if peaceful resistance is not working? |
You would have to consider: resistance against what? Whatever you are resisting against (and why) determines what lengths it is ethically acceptable to go to.
In South America, as in Canada there is something called 'True Defence'.
| polis wrote: |
| In South America, as in Canada there is something called 'True Defence'. |
please explain
| Quote: |
| A true defence arises when some circumstances affords the accused a partial or complete justification or excuse for committing the criminal act. In Canada, the defences are generally similar to standard and popularly understood defences of other common law jurisdictions such as the U.K., Australia and the United States. The true defences include duress[5], automatism[6], intoxication[7], or necessity[8]. There is also a partial defence of provocation, which has the effect of reducing what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter. This partial defence is provided by s.232 of the Criminal Code. |
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_in_Canada
i.e. If someone comes to my house and try to kill me or anyone of my familiy and I kill him first, that is true defence and I can't go to jail.
In case somebody threatens me, I'll try my best to not get violent but if he crosses his limits then I will bash him up.
But, at all costs I shall avoid killing him. Killing him would be a last resort.
But, at all costs I shall avoid killing him. Killing him would be a last resort.
I don't like violence as a general rule, but I would have to use violence fo save myself and my family if it was the only option open to me. Other than that, I honestly can't say. It would have to depend on what it was, but as of right now, I don't see me getting violent.
 |