Is violence nessecarry to respond to violence?

Answer 1

The traditional definition of non-violence may best be provided

by Jesus in Matthew 5: "That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall

smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. implemented

this approach to violence in grand fashion, assembling large

gatherings of people in parades and marches, which were greeted

by police violence. When this violence came, they did not

respond violently, and many were injured.

The Dalai Lama in Tibet offers another example. When his

temples were being overrun by the Chinese army, he chose

to flee rather than fight to preserve them.

But there is another approach to the concept of non-violence.

This approach comes from the martial art Aikido, as I was

taught it.

I was taught that each person has a right to a sacred space

around their body. If someone goes to punch you, you have

a right to prevent them from hurting you.

Aikido teaches you to meet an incoming attack with enough

force to redirect and neutralize the attack, doing the least

amount of damage to *yourself*, those around you, and

the attacker as well. This takes tremendous skill, practice,

and awareness.

How does this differ from the "turn the other cheek" approach

to non-violence? If we apply Jesus' philosophy, and the

attacker hits us twice, we are allowing violence to occur:

to ourselves! Is this truly non-violent?

In the Aiki example, we are meeting forceful energy with

forceful energy, and if it is done skillfully, *no-one* will

be injured. One will dissolve the violent energy before

it has a chance to create pain.

Every time I see violence, two images flash through

my mind: the Dalai Lama, and the Aikido master.

It is never clear to me which is the most non-violent.

In the short term, yes, violence can stop or end other violence. The use of force in opposition to violence can be both very effective, and possibly even less damaging than allowing the original violence to continue.

However, the major problem with violence is that it almost never solves the underlying issues which led to the original outbreak of violence in the first place. Absent a total annihilation of the opposition, violence cannot "solve" anything other than a temporary pause in violent behavior.

So, in the long term, violence cannot ever prevent future violence. Only directly addressing the root causes in society of the original violence can future violence be prevented. That is, to end violence, political, social and possibly religious reform is required; violence itself is no answer, only a temporary bandage which becomes less useful the more it is employed.

Answer 2

No, violence is not the answer.

Answer 3

No, see an adult.