Great post, but here is some food for tought:
Isn´t some times directed violence justified?
How can a group of people that suffered for a long time make a peaceful revolution if they don´t have means to obtain power?
I understand and agree with Ghandi philosphy that the true revolution is the peaceful revolution, but maybe there is some points in history that violence is justified to help tip the scale a bit towards those who can´t aquire enough power to make som changes on the society.
Think about America´s black movement of the 70s.
Martin Luther King should be viewed as one of the main actors of the social changes with his no-violence speeches, but doesn´t the Black Phanters movement deserve some credit in helping the movement?
This is a good philosophical topic that we definetly need to talk about.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
you have a point but friend what Gandhi taught was that peaceful revolution is an equally successful path if you believe in it. He gave the Indian Freedom struggle a mass movement based on satyagraha. There are successful voilent revolutions which helped nations but still they were shrouded in death of innocent people and larger atrocities. Gandhi gave that path where the same goals can be achieved with peace. and friend violence has no justification.
I agree that violence is something that is intrinsicaly bad, and no one should evere commit acts of violence, but what about and selfless acts of violence, like that buddist monk that set himself on fire in 63 as a protest against oppression in Vietnam?
And what about acts of violence as a result of your own life defense (or others life)? I am a peaceful person, but i would definetly do something violent if its the last option to preserve my family life or my own...
Yes you are right but self defense is different from atrocity. Atrocities are intentional not accidental. What you say is accidents not intentions.