h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A599295

A quick look at a bad phenomenon. Enjoy!
Tom

"Violence is a term describing the physical, psychological or structural abuse of power. The purpose of violence is to destroy, abuse or violate."

I would disagree with all of that.... Violence is not abuse by nature.... How is hitting someone in self-defense an attempt to "destroy, abuse or violate"? But that hit is certainly violence...

Nothing is "wrong" with violence.. the moral implication is on the motive for violence, not the act of violence itself.

Good points! Thanks, Will.

I'll try to put them in somehow, as questions, though. In cases like this, the questions are usually more interesting than the answers! (Since there aren't any definite ones.)

Surely violence could still be an attempt to destroy, abuse or violate even if it was in self defence? You could attempt to destroy that which had attacked you. Whether it would then be justified violence is a whole other debate.

I think this Entry is a brave attempt to tackle a vast subject, but the topic is so huge that it's going to be very hard indeed to do justice to it. Thus far, for instance, it doesn't really address the question of the most extreme form of state-sponsored violence: war.

All I can say is "good luck"!

First: The entry IS well written, and quite good, but in my oppinion the 'non-physical' violence part is a little too biased. Sorry if that sounds harsh, I don't mean it was *INTENDED* to be biased. I'll explain my point (feel free to stone me afterwards):

Take Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". I am not saying his philosophy is 'good' or that I am 'supporting' in any way what he says - Nietzsche *can* be very dangerous when misinterpreted... Anyways, there are some points in his philosophy that *are* well worth thinking about.

'Beyond Good and Evil' means that the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' are very subjective, they vary from individual to individual, you have a mean form of 'Good' and 'Evil' which are tied to the culture, in the form of tabus and ethics. But it's just an average.

It's the same with violence... As mentioned by Ormondroyd. Using violence to stop violence is not necessarily evil.... Some Anti-Globalization protesters can be violent, does that JUSTIFY violence from the police? That depends on which side you are. That question cannot simply be answered with 'yes' or 'no'. In the article you mention the banishing of homosexuality being an act of violence - I think so too - that please be very clear - Every individual should be free to do whatever he wants as long as I don't get hurt... BUT: Think of an average man in Iran... He thinks that homosexuality is a straight act violence against him. And according to his set of values he is probably being coherent and right... See? It depends on the way you see things. What about banishing Skinheads and Left-Wing-Extremists? It is sometimes right, but isn't it violent too?

What I wanted to say with all that, is that the concept of 'violence' (or at least 'non-physical violence') is 'beyond good and evil'. And here we come to the part why I think this part of the entry is biased.

This entry concentrates on 'our' 'PC' 'western' interpretation of good and evil, and on our view on this aspect of violence. There are words such as 'abuse of power', 'bad thing', 'exploiting third world countries'. Do you think that exploiting third world countries is a *bad* act of violence? Commited by whom? Is it the third world country's corrupt society? Is it us who should not treat these countries as black-boxes (I mean - not caring what happens IN these countries since the outcome is OK)? Shoud we interfere? If so how? Will that be violent? Are third world countries violent? What about revolutions?... These questions could go on forever. You'll almost always find a way to justify a violent act of exploitation. To put it bluntly: 'Why should I not try to get as much as I can from a third world country? Am I pointing a gun at them? If they don't want to do business, fine, they don't have to.' (Disclaimer: That is NOT my personal oppinion - but I know there are many people who think this way.)

A long time ago - i.e. in ancient times - it was totally OK and politically correct to have slaves and many mistresses. I don't know what people in 100 years will think of 'us'. The 'ethics', the 'good', the 'evil', the 'tabus' also change with time (and not just with geography).

--------------------------

Anyways. Apart from the 'non-physical' part I think it's agood start for an entry. Possibly culturally biased, but on the other hand - you cannot tackle all these subjects briefly.

The part on physical violence is clear and IMHO OK. The digressions above are more focussed on the 'non-physical' aspects of violence.

Feel free to discuss/throw stones.

HELL

"Surely violence could still be an attempt to destroy, abuse or violate even if it was in self defence? "

Um... It COULD be, but isn't necessarily (which was my point)

As to "beyond good and evil" I think all of that is a good point...

Another example of physcal violence from non-negative motivations: Two people want to wrestle in a friendly match... it's still violence certainly, but not an attempt to destroy, abuse or violate.

So why are they choosing such a violent sport, then, eh? Why not have, say, a game of pool instead?

Whim? Endorphins? Are you implying that they ARE trying to really damage one another? That seems silly... perhaps they are sparing in a self-defense class... Endless reasons big and small and none of them "abuse".

Aren't ALL games violent? I mean: It's always one person (or team) showing superiority over another. In all cultures being a good looser is a nice thing, but no one wants to be the looser.

I think every interaction can be seen as an act of violence then depending on each individual's threshold. Normally a game of backgammon won't be reckoned as being violent by the majority of people playing this game.... But there are some neurotic people out there, where loosing a backgammon game would only be the missing drop. I've seen that happen.

OK you may say it's a single abnormality... But then again: What is normal? Wouldn't it be more honest to accept that violence is out there, not necessarily being a 'bad' thing. And accepting that anyone is capable of being tremendously violent. (I used to think I was THE master in annoying the hell out of the patientest pacifistic people - until they got violent to prove my point.)

Anyways... I'll be around gathering further thoughts.

HELL

Hi all!

First of all: Thanks to everyone contributing to this debate. I really enjoyed seeing all the good points in here. I also love the fact that the entry raises an ethical debate, and I hope it does even more so if it makes it to the edited guide.

These are the changes since last time:
- I have added a passage about war, or "violence of the masses", as I've called it.
- I agree that it is biased, and that it hardly could be completely unbiased. Therefore, I have added a new paragraph at the end of the entry, titled "None of the above is true". I somehow believe that a completely unbiased wordbook style entry would fail to raise any debate.

What do you all think of the present version of the entry?

Nice entry,

I don't know about the "non of this is true" section, I think it is incomplete. Some examples as to where this form of violance or the other is acceptable might be nice.

Also, I think youre misusing i.e. in the footnote. i.e. is an abbreviation of the latin phrase "Id Est", which means "That Is". I think e.g. (Same for "Exampli Gratia" = "For example") is maybe more fitting.


dancer

>Nice entry

Thanks, Dancer!

The "i.e." is changed! Thanks for seeing that. *blush*

About the "non of this is true"-section, I see your points about the incompleteness. However, I think this entry always will remain incomplete, as an entry. The idea is that it will encourage discussion on violence.

Tom

The article is biased, sexist and preachy. Violence is not always abuse.

Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. The city was a military embarkation port and convoy assembly point with an army headquarters, railway yards, storage depots, and heavy industrial plants.

The text is very well written. I don't think I would have used OK, but otherwise it looked perfect.

I think encouraging discussion is good, but I don't know if the edited guide is the place to do it. Especially with an article that is this slanted.

From the *viewpoint* of the Americans Hiroshima was a valid military target. What about Pearl Harbor? What about the Bay of Pigs? What about Vietnam? Little Big Horn? The list could be endless. It's always the point of view.

Violence always serves a purpose. When you lose a battle or a war YOUR use of violence failed to serve the purpose and is then going into the annals as invalid and sometimes abusive. On the other hand if you win suddely all is OK.

Two bit: Why do you think that the article is sexist? Why is it preachy? (I agree with the 'article being biased' part, and certainly I don't think violence is bad or good, it's - as I said - beyond that, and just a part of life - I don't like it, but sometimes there's no other way.)

Let's talk.

HELL

When I say that Hiroshima was a legitimate target, I'm talking about the laws of war. It's an objective standard.

Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target of war. The only problem with the attack was that we weren't engaged in hostilities with the Empire of Japan. Sneak attacks are fine if you're already at war. The nation you're sneak attacking has to know that they're in the war. Of course, it's always good to make the other guy look bad when you're drumming up morale for the war.

I don't know enough about the Bay of Pigs to have an opinion. Vietnam was a war, and there were a lot of military targets. I don't really know all that much about Little Big Horn. The Indian Wars were all pretty dodgy affairs.

I thought it was obviously preachy. It states an opinion and the tone of the article makes it seem as if anyone who holds a different opinion is barbaric.

I thought aside about workplace violence being mostly committed by men was gratuitous and sexist.

Hmmm... I see you have a point there. There's a lot of psycho violence being committed by women in the workplace. I don't think though that the example was gratuitious - physical violence IS a male domain, and it sure happens in the workplace. Luckily there is a lot more awareness on this topic nowadays.

Preachy... Hmm. Don't know yet. The article is surely not objective and neutral, but then again violence is not a subject anyone can look at objectively, one always takes side - basically because violence is something noone wants to experience on his/her own skin. Furthermore noone would admit being violent - so for that reason most people tend to take the 'violence is a bad bad thing' side.

About the war stuff... OK so Hiroshima was a legitimate target, but there is also that old discussion about the A-bomb being a little too oversized, especially at that stage of the war. About sneak attacks: There have also been cases of nations just waiting to be sneak attacked (as a pretext) to engage at full power, or even forging a sneak attack for the same reason (Germany and Poland 1939).
Well, that might be a bit OT here...

Anyways, any battle is violent, this is also the reason why we pay some people to do it for us. Call it protection, call it defending interests call it what you want. It's just out there. Pacifism can be violent. Religion is violent - WOW: Religion and violence, that can go far.

Keep talking,

HELL

I think it can be approached objectively.

First off, in my opinion there are legitmate uses of violence. Heck, my user name is an indication of that, since it shows that I'm a veteran and a police officer.

That being said, I really don't care all that much about violence. Violence is part of being an animal (or even being alive for that matter). When it happens, I note it and move on. If it's not happening to me or one of my officers it's a pretty abstract concept. It's nothing to get all up in arms about.

Before this discussion gets to the point of how many uniforms and military objects within a city's limits warrant an attack with the big one...

you could mention 'mobbing' in one's office

Violence does indicate an attempt to do harm...saying that 2 people having a friendly wrestling match is violent is going a bit over the top, unless it gets unfriendly and they start trying to hurt each other...do you see what I mean? If you hit someone in self-defense, and the intention is not to do damage to that person, then what is the intention? to tickle them playfully? If you aren't trying to destroy something, then you aren't doing a very good job of "hitting". Violence is bad. Hurting people is wrong. If you must do it for reasons of self-defense or protecting someone else, then it is left to you to do as little damage as possible to bring the situation to an end.... If you overdo it then you are no better than they.... I will use as an example of this the Shao-lin monks of old...they are widely considered the greatest fighters of all time, but they were loathe to use their abilities unless they had to, and even then they refused to kill if it could be avoided... Peaceful resistance is the best way.... but when it comes down to it, you might just have to rough somebody up a bit.....
A final quote: "Fighting for Peace is like F***ing for Virginity"

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Violence'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!