of troy,

I do not think that violence should ever be the first reaction but there are times when violence becomes an unfortunate necessity.

Choosing non-violence is the best route in most cases, but not all. The real trick is defining for yourself those cases. It would be nice if these things were always clear and you could just tick off the right answer.

1. Someone trying to drag my child into a car. -- Automatic, do whatever it takes to stop him.

2. Someone assualting your neighbour. -- Intervene or just phone the police?

3. Someone assaulting that neighbour you really detest. --Well....

The idea of negotiation only works if the other person wants to negotiate.


"Yes.. but is it also not wrong for me to respond by blowing up town, airports and military bases? If my responce to a wrong is to commit my own wrong, what difference is there between me and my enemy? and if there is no difference, then why is he my enemy? "

I do not think that it is the same. Especially the military base. Airports are military targets and fair (as much as anything in war is ever fair) game. Random bombing of civilians or deliberately targeting them is a crime. The Geneva Convention also holds that combattants that deliberately set-up in civilian areas in an attempt to avoid an attack are the one who are responsible if any civilians are killed.

Again a really simple example: If a policeman comes upon a man shooting children in a school and kills him. Is the policeman no different than the shooter? Is this a wrong in response in response to a wrong?

I use what I feel to be such a clear example to point that sometimes I feel there are cases where violence is the only choice. There are only a few such cases but they do exist. Violence is, however, too often the first response.

Murder is wrong. Killing not necessarily so. To me, killing in a heated situation such as the school example above might be a necessity. However, I do not feel capital punishemnt is ever right, regardless of the crime.