Brave New World Violence Analysis
Evaluating Violence When deciding whether violence is ethical or justified, there are several factors that must be considered. There is not a simple answer to any scenario and each scenario must be evaluated carefully and thoroughly. Torture has proven to be an extremely effective tool so putting an all out ban on it would have quite a few repercussions, especially in the war on terror. Could the United States really justify losing access to terrorist information in order to be more humane? Each author brought up very good points for each side of the argument. Yoo explained how the Geneva Convention does not apply when dealing with the war on terrorism because Al Qaeda is not a nation nor do they have any interest in abiding by the
…show more content…
laws themselves. Their very purpose is to cause civilian casualties in surprise attacks. Civilian casualties is something that must be prevented at large costs in my opinion. There isn’t really a perfect choice in this situation. Either don’t allow torture and give up vital information that could save thousands of innocent lives, or allow the government to use torture on suspected terrorists and get the information to prevent an attack. While many people say this could open the gates for the government to use torture on whoever they want and when they want, maybe there could be restrictions put in place or some kind of regulation on who is tortured and for what if that is at all possible. A good question is, do we owe terrorists humane treatment when they want nothing more than to cause harm to us? Many people would say we don’t owe them anything while others would say we do. Personally, I don’t believe someone who has harmed other people deserves to be treated just like an innocent person. Plus the torture has a purpose behind it; not just to inflict pain on someone, but to save innocent lives put in danger by these people. A person cannot be allowed to walk all over you. If someone hits you, you’re going to hit them back or else they will hit you again and again until you do something about it. Some people say that is never the answer, but what is? You cannot politely ask a terrorist to hand over information. Sometimes things must be done in order to get what you want. As far as morality goes, I find actions with a good intent to be perfectly moral even if those actions could be immoral in a different context. For instance, torture would be immoral if it did not have a cause behind it in the best interest of the majority. Myer brings up a good point when he says, “I don’t think it’s honest to say that if someone you love was being held, and you had five minutes to save them, you wouldn’t do it. Tell me, what would you do? If someone had one of my children or my wife, I would hope I’d do it. There is nothing – nothing – I wouldn’t do.” Anyone can say that they are opposed to violence and torture, but if they put themselves in the position of it being one of their family member’s lives in danger, they probably would change their mind. Think about that, seeing someone you care about in danger and you have all the power to save them. All you have to do in order to save them is go against your beliefs. I know I would use torture if I were in a situation like that. I think anyone would. How could someone let their family member be harmed while they have the power to stop it? It just isn’t reasonable, no matter how strong your opinion on torture is. In the Benjamin text, he explains why violence cannot be sanctioned as it can get out of control. His explanation of natural law and positive law is very interesting. “This thesis of natural law, which regards violence as natural datum, is diametrically opposed to that of positive law, which sees violence as a product of history. If natural law can judge all existing law only in criticizing its ends, then positive law can judge all evolving law only in criticizing its means. If justice is the criterion of ends, legality is that of mean.” To put it simply, natural law uses the ends as a reason for the means. Meaning if the outcome is justice, the means to do so are justified. For positive law, using justified means results in justified ends. It’s hard to say which side is correct and I don’t think there really is a right or wrong answer. Both laws end up being just for different reasons. Some people might find one more just than the other but either way just ends are accomplished. When Benjamin says “Today organized labor is, apart from the state, probably the only legal subject entitled to exercise violence. Against this view there is certainly the objection that an omission of actions, a nonaction, which strike really is, cannot be described as violence. Such a consideration doubtless made it easier for a state power to concede the right to strike, once this was no longer avoidable. But truth is not unconditional, and therefore not unrestricted.” I do not think nonviolent protests should be considered violence. Some do get violent but without protest, the world would be much different from what it is today. Protest was a huge part of the civil rights movement and by doing so, all kinds of violence was eliminated. War is supposedly supposed to have just ends although their means are far from just. The ends themselves aren’t even always just. In this case positive law seems to be the more logical answer. Positive law states that the means must be just in order for the ends to be just. So if your actions are not ethical, then the results cannot be ethical because they were found in an unjust way. An example of natural law being the more logical answer is the interrogation of terrorists. The reason is because the purpose in interrogating a terrorist is to find just ends even though the means by themselves may not be just. Natural law states that if the ends are just, the means are just. This of course isn’t always the case. If this were always true then it would be ok for police officers to search your car without your consent as long as they found incriminating evidence in your car. That would not be fair, so in this case just means must be used for just ends. Is it possible for a society to completely eliminate violence?
I have been thinking about this question after reading the 3 texts and it seems the only way for violence to be completely eliminated would require every last person in the world to obey. Once one person shows violence, they must be stopped. Police must use violence in order to prevent someone else from using violence. If one person were to behave violently, then they would cause the police to behave violently which would meant the society isn’t violence free. Total utopia isn’t possible because humans have free will. The only way for a utopia to be accomplished is to control the population and take away their free will. In the book “Brave New World” they had a utopia society because every person was born to complete a specific task based on their intelligence level which was determine by the government. People with manual labor jobs were happy and people with higher level jobs were happy all because they knew nothing different from that way of life. People in the world know they have the freedom to choose what they want to do so a lifestyle like that cannot be created. Obviously in the real world this is not possible and it wouldn’t be right to do anyways. The only reason they had a utopia was because the citizens didn’t know any different and if they did, they definitely wouldn’t be happy with the government controlling every aspect of their lives. So my conclusion is no, a violence free society is not possible because people have free will as well as emotions. Anger is a natural human emotion that has a huge role in causing violence. Emotions cannot be removed from an entire society. Everyone gets angry for all kinds of reasons and violence is a product of anger therefore violence cannot be eliminated. Sure there’s plenty of excessive violence that could easily be avoided and even some that may be necessary to benefit the majority, but total elimination just isn’t going to
happen.
Works Cited
The Presence of Others, “Whatever It Takes” – Jane Myer p.252-273
The Presence of Others, “With All Necessary and Appropriate Force” – John Yoo p.275-277 “Critique of Violence” – Benjamin P.236-252
Works Cited
The Presence of Others, “Whatever It Takes” – Jane Myer p.252-273
The Presence of Others, “With All Necessary and Appropriate Force” – John Yoo p.275-277 “Critique of Violence” – Benjamin P.236-252
laws themselves. Their very purpose is to cause civilian casualties in surprise attacks. Civilian casualties is something that must be prevented at large costs in my opinion. There isn’t really a perfect choice in this situation. Either don’t allow torture and give up vital information that could save thousands of innocent lives, or allow the government to use torture on suspected terrorists and get the information to prevent an attack. While many people say this could open the gates for the government to use torture on whoever they want and when they want, maybe there could be restrictions put in place or some kind of regulation on who is tortured and for what if that is at all possible. A good question is, do we owe terrorists humane treatment when they want nothing more than to cause harm to us? Many people would say we don’t owe them anything while others would say we do. Personally, I don’t believe someone who has harmed other people deserves to be treated just like an innocent person. Plus the torture has a purpose behind it; not just to inflict pain on someone, but to save innocent lives put in danger by these people. A person cannot be allowed to walk all over you. If someone hits you, you’re going to hit them back or else they will hit you again and again until you do something about it. Some people say that is never the answer, but what is? You cannot politely ask a terrorist to hand over information. Sometimes things must be done in order to get what you want. As far as morality goes, I find actions with a good intent to be perfectly moral even if those actions could be immoral in a different context. For instance, torture would be immoral if it did not have a cause behind it in the best interest of the majority. Myer brings up a good point when he says, “I don’t think it’s honest to say that if someone you love was being held, and you had five minutes to save them, you wouldn’t do it. Tell me, what would you do? If someone had one of my children or my wife, I would hope I’d do it. There is nothing – nothing – I wouldn’t do.” Anyone can say that they are opposed to violence and torture, but if they put themselves in the position of it being one of their family member’s lives in danger, they probably would change their mind. Think about that, seeing someone you care about in danger and you have all the power to save them. All you have to do in order to save them is go against your beliefs. I know I would use torture if I were in a situation like that. I think anyone would. How could someone let their family member be harmed while they have the power to stop it? It just isn’t reasonable, no matter how strong your opinion on torture is. In the Benjamin text, he explains why violence cannot be sanctioned as it can get out of control. His explanation of natural law and positive law is very interesting. “This thesis of natural law, which regards violence as natural datum, is diametrically opposed to that of positive law, which sees violence as a product of history. If natural law can judge all existing law only in criticizing its ends, then positive law can judge all evolving law only in criticizing its means. If justice is the criterion of ends, legality is that of mean.” To put it simply, natural law uses the ends as a reason for the means. Meaning if the outcome is justice, the means to do so are justified. For positive law, using justified means results in justified ends. It’s hard to say which side is correct and I don’t think there really is a right or wrong answer. Both laws end up being just for different reasons. Some people might find one more just than the other but either way just ends are accomplished. When Benjamin says “Today organized labor is, apart from the state, probably the only legal subject entitled to exercise violence. Against this view there is certainly the objection that an omission of actions, a nonaction, which strike really is, cannot be described as violence. Such a consideration doubtless made it easier for a state power to concede the right to strike, once this was no longer avoidable. But truth is not unconditional, and therefore not unrestricted.” I do not think nonviolent protests should be considered violence. Some do get violent but without protest, the world would be much different from what it is today. Protest was a huge part of the civil rights movement and by doing so, all kinds of violence was eliminated. War is supposedly supposed to have just ends although their means are far from just. The ends themselves aren’t even always just. In this case positive law seems to be the more logical answer. Positive law states that the means must be just in order for the ends to be just. So if your actions are not ethical, then the results cannot be ethical because they were found in an unjust way. An example of natural law being the more logical answer is the interrogation of terrorists. The reason is because the purpose in interrogating a terrorist is to find just ends even though the means by themselves may not be just. Natural law states that if the ends are just, the means are just. This of course isn’t always the case. If this were always true then it would be ok for police officers to search your car without your consent as long as they found incriminating evidence in your car. That would not be fair, so in this case just means must be used for just ends. Is it possible for a society to completely eliminate violence?
I have been thinking about this question after reading the 3 texts and it seems the only way for violence to be completely eliminated would require every last person in the world to obey. Once one person shows violence, they must be stopped. Police must use violence in order to prevent someone else from using violence. If one person were to behave violently, then they would cause the police to behave violently which would meant the society isn’t violence free. Total utopia isn’t possible because humans have free will. The only way for a utopia to be accomplished is to control the population and take away their free will. In the book “Brave New World” they had a utopia society because every person was born to complete a specific task based on their intelligence level which was determine by the government. People with manual labor jobs were happy and people with higher level jobs were happy all because they knew nothing different from that way of life. People in the world know they have the freedom to choose what they want to do so a lifestyle like that cannot be created. Obviously in the real world this is not possible and it wouldn’t be right to do anyways. The only reason they had a utopia was because the citizens didn’t know any different and if they did, they definitely wouldn’t be happy with the government controlling every aspect of their lives. So my conclusion is no, a violence free society is not possible because people have free will as well as emotions. Anger is a natural human emotion that has a huge role in causing violence. Emotions cannot be removed from an entire society. Everyone gets angry for all kinds of reasons and violence is a product of anger therefore violence cannot be eliminated. Sure there’s plenty of excessive violence that could easily be avoided and even some that may be necessary to benefit the majority, but total elimination just isn’t going to
happen.
Works Cited
The Presence of Others, “Whatever It Takes” – Jane Myer p.252-273
The Presence of Others, “With All Necessary and Appropriate Force” – John Yoo p.275-277 “Critique of Violence” – Benjamin P.236-252
Works Cited
The Presence of Others, “Whatever It Takes” – Jane Myer p.252-273
The Presence of Others, “With All Necessary and Appropriate Force” – John Yoo p.275-277 “Critique of Violence” – Benjamin P.236-252