Martial Artists: Is Violence ever a Virtue?

What's violent is actually a matter of perception. SWAT and army forces can perform actions deemed "violent" to some, but ethical and moral to others. Violence to stop violence. A cruel irony.

Violence on behalf of your own gain is not virtuous. Unselfish violence can be justified and possess some virtuous merit to it.

There's going to be SOME genuine disagreement on this issue, but I think a great deal of the differences in opinion are going to emerge from the fact that the question smuggles in what philosophers call a "category mistake".

It would be kind of like asking the question: "Are pillows healthy?"

- One person responds, "Absolutely not! At best, they're non-nutritive--at worst, many modern foam pillows have flame retardants that contain some serious neurotoxins--and these should never be consumed by humans."

- Another person says, "As a category, they can be beneficial. Whether they're good for one person or another depends on that person's build and what pillow we're talking about. It's mainly a matter of alignment of the spine."

- A third person answers, "The question is absurd. A pillow is an inert being, and can never be considered either healthy or unhealthy."

The first is answering the question, "do pillows confer health benefits in terms of nutrition?" the second "do pillows confer health benefits when used as intended?" and only the third answers, "are pillows themselves healthy?" Even though his answer is technically the most accurate, it seems absurd to us when we hear it. The second seems the most "common-sensical", though strictly speaking, it's got that category mistake built in. The first one sounds nutty too, but is technically as accurate and logical as the second. You see, none of these people actually disagree with each other. They're simply talking about entirely different things.

So let's look at the violence question. If we disregard the answers where people completely miss the point, for the most part, respondents seem to land in the same gray area where they say that sometimes a violent thing is the right thing to do, but that we should never "want" to be violent, something along those lines. Some responses seem more absolutist and analytical, others uncomfortably ambivalent.

"Virtue" usually refers to a morally positive trait of PERSONS. A person demonstrates their virtue when they act in a manner that exhibits a given virtue (patience, courage, etc.)

Violence certainly does NOT fit the bill here. An inclination to violence, a predilection to PREFER violence, is clearly not a virtue. The most literal answer is easily NO.

But it seems that respondents's willingness to answer unambivalently in this way is complicated by the fact that we all know that sometimes an act that is violent is also the right thing to do. The willingness to engage in violence at the right moment (this might have to do with courage or good judgment) is certainly important to one's personal virtue.

Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is--it's the ONLY answer.

This of course is just my personal opinion.

Violence is never a virtue depending on the definition that you are using for virtue.

If virtue is being used as a moral excellence or righteousness that answer is no.

I teach and martial arts not to be violent or to fight. I much rather avoid a fight if possible.

Contrary to that is if virtue is being defined as a beneficial force or necessary good the answer then would be yes.

There are times when violence becomes a necessary good or beneficial force. Most people desire peace. However there could be no peace with war or the threat of war. That being said violence on occasion has become the means to obtain peace. If someone were to break into my home I'm not going to attempt to negotiate a truce with them. I would use whatever force that is available to me to obtain peace and safety in my home. I'm not not against becoming violent and using deadly force. If I at anytime believed that my family's lives were in any danger violence could be a the tool that I used to eliminated that threat.

Controlled violence is and sometimes what is expected and required in dealing with some situations even. I at times during my military career had the responsibility for overseeing the immediate safety of others and carried a concealed weapon for this purpose. Being prepared to draw and fire that weapon if the situation required it was one of my chief duties. I use that example with students and fighters or one of a police officer's side arm. Not every situation calls for that type of action but that weapon is there for you if it does.

At the same time you also have to deal with other situations where the drawing and use of that weapon is not called for and justified and so you don't deal with every situation as if it required you to draw and fire that weapon. Instead you have to change the level you are on and type of interaction that you are having based to fit the situation and maybe not rely on or use that weapon.

A person's interaction and behavior should be much the same way I think in general. If a person is having to deal with situations in a violent, aggressive way all the time and when the situation does not call for it then it is their approach to things that needs to be modified. Not every situation in everyday life calls for interaction on a violent level. Misuse or overuse of it and overly relying on that type of action when the situation means that there is something wrong with you and your approach to things. Sometimes this can be changed within some violent people and they learn better copping skills and to feel empathy towards others and how to deal with situations in a more appropriate way.

Others never learn this very well and for them violence tends to be a constant in their life along with the misuse of it which then is never a virtue is what I believe and think.

What is true violence ?the answer is instinct, when you truly behave and fight like an animal,,We must realize virtues aren't something nature evolved they're something humans created as a means of stabilizing society around us, that being we recognize those that are virtuous and good as the pillars of society and those who aren't as destructors of society, Violence however is something inherent in nature a survival instinct, however if you mean violence in terms of sadist tendencies to destroy someone totally and take great pleasure in doing so , does that sound like a virtue?there's more to violence then just fighting, rape, vandalism, executions all of these are acts of violence ,while violence is a part of nature society's ineptitude to deal with it effectively forces us humans to label it as some sort of mental instability which it quite often is when ones own efforts to adjust to society have been fruitless and so their conscience is silenced,however we as martial artists and athletes find an outlet for our survival instinct given to us by nature in what is not a perfect manner but nothing ever is and to be honest we are closer than anyone else at dealing with violence effectively whether neutralizing the violent intentions of others our expressing our own and not causing much harm to anyone

Violence in defense of myself and those I love is a virtue.

Violence beyond the removal of an eminent threat could be a vice.

Violence as the last resort is a virtue.

When to use violence is a topic that philosophers have filled volumes with. I'm always thinking how to avoid violence in situations. On the other hand if necessary to defend a life I would not hesitate to consider it as a first option.

It depends upon the purpose of a person why he do it, but if such is the only option you can do to survive and make yourself out of the way and danger situation, then you have no choice but to strive in order to escape, we are aware that every actions has its purpose, and as long as you know the consequences of what you are doing, then you must accept whatever is the outcome of it, but in general effect, violence is not a virtue.

I always tell my students, that if they can extend their temper and be flexible then they must do it, if they has the time to escape, then they must do it, if they has an opportunity to run, then they must do it, if they has no way to go out on the situation, then they must use and do whatever they has up to the extreme of their skills and strength, if some want to take your life away, then they must not give it on easiest way, it is better to stay in jail than to stay on the ground that you has no chance to go back again.

But fate is really a joke sometimes, because there was a couple of times that we nearly get involve in trouble, they are with me but I never left them, I am so glad that there is no physical outcome happens, because before the clash occur, my minds didn't get block and they listen to me when I tell them to do it in peaceful way, I am so glad to show them that my patience is their according to what I remind them on the class, we left certain place that things been solve on diplomatic way.

………………………………………

Google:

violence: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Reference.com

virtue: Morally excellent

Your question: is it morally excellent to engage in behavior intending to hurt or kill?

My answer: Your question is broad, though you do say "ever" and not "always". So, in some cases, yes, absolutely. To hurt/kill in defense of the innocent - sure. To hurt/kill for sport - no. To hurt/kill for revenge - it depends. If done by the state (as in capital punishment) then yes. If done by the individual, then no (because it's the job of society, not the individual, to exact punishment).

But we are martial artists. Violence is a tool we are expected to use on occasion. Right about now, I'm thinking about Jack Nicholson's monologue when he was on the stand in "A Few Good Men":

"You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! "

And that is exactly the analogy with martial artists. Grotesque. But required. The martial artists doesn't look for violence. But s/he will respond to it.

I like this question....... violence to me is not a virtue....I train to better myself as a human not a killing machine, it is a ¨way of life¨ to live the civil art and to not make the art a martial art. we are no longer attacked by rouge people and there is no need to turn to violence I as a practitioner am at peace and the only enemy I have is myself, I only turn to violence as a last resort and I am never happy going there because it tells me I failed at everything else to prevent it. as you may know violence only brings about more violence which causes hate, grief,anger and pain.I rather get beat and stop it there than fight...... fighting is not the answer(I don't accept getting hit either but if I have to go there I will),and will get up and continue my way, and be happy with myself.

I don't see violence as a virtue..............Do you?

The virtue of martial art is not the violence, or potential for violence. That is but a necessary portion sometimes of the virtuous act of going home safe to family. You obviously know this.

I too shall watch this one.