Violence is necessary to maintain a moral society. However this statement remains a contentious issue for many individuals. There are those who view violence as immoral and unnecessary. On the other hand, others view it as necessary only if it translates into benefits for the entire society. However, some individuals remain divided between both sides due to the subjectivity of determining violence’s necessity.
Pacifists view violence as an immoral act that results in further degradation of the society. Individuals with this standpoint believe in amicable resolution of conflicts where opposing sides set their differences aside and work towards reaching a compromise. The process of conflict resolution is lengthy and riddled with many barriers; ensuring proper communication proves crucial in mitigating the conflict. Effective communication depends on both parties listening to each other’s arguments without passing any prior judgment. It also entails developing sensitivity to each other’s cultural background. The presence of a neutral third party charged with the responsibility of mediating the conflict enables feuding parties to address their concerns in a rational manner. For example, feuding countries rely on peace delegates to mediate their conflict resolution talks in order to prevent war.
Other non-violent methods can also preserve morality. These methods negate the use of physical force or verbal threats by encouraging the use of peaceful methods to foster lasting, positive political and social change. Pacifists also realize the negative repercussions of retaliating to violence with violence. The nature of the majority of humans compels them to engage in counter-violence aimed at instigators of preceding violent acts. This perpetuates hostility and fails to address the initial problems that triggered violence. Individuals using non-violent methods have greater control over their message, making these methods an effective form of protest.
Using the media can also help the non-violent methods. However, media can be used to stimulate violence as well. In a conflict between a minority group and a large institution such as the government, the latter have the power to censure the media. Such circumstances can be responsible for triggering violence, which may result in degradation of morality within the society. Non-violence is a course of action that prevents further erosion of morality within the society by limiting destruction of property, loss of lives and continued counter-violence.
Conversely, individuals with a utilitarian standpoint approve of violence only if it proves beneficial for the entire society. In a materialist society defined by inequality and oppression of minority groups, non-violence proves redundant in achieving desired change. Through violence, the oppressed voice their concerns knowing that they have the full attention of their oppressors. It is impossible for the latter to ignore these concerns because of the destructive...