Is violence ever justified?
The debate about the use of violence has been on going for the last decade. Violence, the act of causing physical harm to another person willingly, has often been categorized as being an uncivilized, unjustified act. It is mostly known, and commonsensical knowledge that attacking or inflicting harm upon another person is “wrong”. Most of us frown upon people who resort to such violent acts, and they are punishable by law. However, as we progress into the 21st century, the line of when the use of violence can ever be “right” or justified is getting increasingly blurred. The need for war, punishment, and even domestic violence can be said to deter further violence or stop present violence from exacerbating. However, the use of violence to stop violence is debatable. Some people feel that such methods just proliferate “an eye for an eye” mentalities, while others see it as a necessary evil. In my opinon, these situations are morally complex, and can be considered grey areas, there is no right or wrong where these situations are concerned.
One form of violence is capital punishment. This is a call for execution of criminals that have carried out the most severe crimes such as murder or drug trafficking. In a way, such violence is justified because it prevents dangerous beings from being free in their society. Eliminating such a person who has caused grevious harm to the society would surely make it a safer and better place for other citizens to live in. It also serves as a deterrent to other potential criminals. Singapore’s harsh laws of capital punishment for drug trafficking, while receiving much criticism from other countries, have allowed the country to remain relatively drug-free as compared to other countries. In this way, violence can be seen as justified as it serves the greater good of the community.
Yet, to compare the killing of a murderer with that of his victim is difficult. Taking the life of the perpetrator does...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document