71
When do you think violence is justified? (kbin.social)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a β€˜noble’ end?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I don't believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?

PS: "An eye for an eye" (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My point is that it's an absurd argument.

    Let's talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?

    I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It's a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I don't think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.

    The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent