Is it right to use violence to prove a point
Answering a Philosophical Question.
Is it right to use violence to prove a point? =
People can have two different views on this question, and its one that can cause much debate. In my opinion, I believe it is completely wrong to use violence to prove something, since I think it makes every matter worse. Violence is always wrong, even in self-defense. Usually if someone is threatening you it's because that person feels threatened themself; if you make it clear you're no threat to that person they’ll probably stand down. And in the few cases where they don’t it's much better to die knowing that you have refrained from violence than to live knowing that you have hurt or killed another person. Another reason why I think violence isn’t right to prove a point is that it actually can kill more people than it can save. America and Germany fought for power even though some suggest it was to solve conflict. Yet after the war, Russia tried going after America, and since then, there as been unrest between the two. Now they have created weapons of mass destruction in order to scare each other off and try gain peace. But what happens when the time comes to use those weapons to "solve the conflict"? Will there be anyone left to save? Violence is the WORST way to solve conflict, and if you try to prove a point it only makes things worse. Overall, I believe violence is never good. It will never be good. Violence only causes a vicious cycle. Two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what happens, do not use violence, violence will only make matters worse, not better. There are many better ways of sorting out things, rather than violence.
However, some people may think differently to this. For example, while war is often blamed and frowned upon for causing many deaths, A number of those deaths are upon people deserving of it; such as Hitler, Bin-Laden, cruel soldiers, immoral fighters, narrow-minded killers. People see violence is the act. Only the reasons behind violence are
Is it right to use violence to prove a point? =
People can have two different views on this question, and its one that can cause much debate. In my opinion, I believe it is completely wrong to use violence to prove something, since I think it makes every matter worse. Violence is always wrong, even in self-defense. Usually if someone is threatening you it's because that person feels threatened themself; if you make it clear you're no threat to that person they’ll probably stand down. And in the few cases where they don’t it's much better to die knowing that you have refrained from violence than to live knowing that you have hurt or killed another person. Another reason why I think violence isn’t right to prove a point is that it actually can kill more people than it can save. America and Germany fought for power even though some suggest it was to solve conflict. Yet after the war, Russia tried going after America, and since then, there as been unrest between the two. Now they have created weapons of mass destruction in order to scare each other off and try gain peace. But what happens when the time comes to use those weapons to "solve the conflict"? Will there be anyone left to save? Violence is the WORST way to solve conflict, and if you try to prove a point it only makes things worse. Overall, I believe violence is never good. It will never be good. Violence only causes a vicious cycle. Two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what happens, do not use violence, violence will only make matters worse, not better. There are many better ways of sorting out things, rather than violence.
However, some people may think differently to this. For example, while war is often blamed and frowned upon for causing many deaths, A number of those deaths are upon people deserving of it; such as Hitler, Bin-Laden, cruel soldiers, immoral fighters, narrow-minded killers. People see violence is the act. Only the reasons behind violence are