Violence as a means of achieving justice is impractical and immoral. To what extent do you agree with this statement?


The use of violence had been extensive through the years ranging from the ancient times wars to modern day punishments. Violence is used in wars, riots, protests towards various target groups to achieve different means. More than often, the usage of violence is criticized as immoral and even impractical as a mean to right a wrong. Terrorism is an issue that sits on the fence; criminal prosecution may be effective in preventing crimes but also inhumane at times. Violence when used appropriately can be practical but not always moral but could also be used as a tool to invade other nations for unidentified reasons.

Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate and subsequently obtaining the submission of the targets. These acts of violence are normally used by people who have strong urge to change something in their country but has no authority to cause the change. For example, coups or uprising against corrupt governments which control the military are instances where peaceful protests does little impact. Hence they have to resort to unlawful means to “help” those bounded by the corrupted governments. More often than not, these acts result in high death toll and often do not reflect fairly of the cost of their grievances. Also the acts of justice do not have a 100% success rate of achieving their main objectives or persuading the government bodies to give in to their requests. One instance of such is the Tibetan protestors who attack innocent Chinese civilians to protest against the Chinese ruling. Hence the unfair tradeoff and the ineffective violence prove that violence is not a suitable approach of achieving justice while many other approaches could be found without causing massive death tolls.

In contrast, the use of violence to express objection is justified when there is a form of unfairness that could only be solved by violence. Terrorism is often quoted as an effective way of achieving justice as it could instill fear in the organizations involved and push for submission. For e.g., the protection of one’s civil rights, community and property (e.g. natives against their invaders) allows for the use. The Mau Mau independence movement in Kenya was one good example where the acts of terrorism are justified. The Mau Mau Movement began among the Kikuyu who shared the same grievances with all other Kenyan peoples. At the same time, land shortages among the Kikuyu were particularly bad. There were many settler farms in Kikuyu land and a lot of Kikuyu land had been taken for European settlement. The Mau Mau War put an end to the hopes of white settlers for independence under the white minority rule. As a result of Mau Mau, the British government began planning for Kenyan independence under majority rule. Hence the Mau Mau movement proved to be practical and moral as they were willing to fight for their rights without much death toll.

On top of that, the capital punishment is implemented as it serves as a form of deterrence to others due to the disgust and horror of it. Not only that, it also serves as a form of security to the society to remove a threat that might potentially take more victims with them. According to a research done by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, the results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. The capital punishment is entirely justified as according to the theory of retributive justice which considers that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits. Furthermore, the ruling of life imprisonment akin to capital punishment costs significantly more, thus wasting the taxpayers’ money. Executing the offender would reduce the burden of the person on the society. Hence anyone that kills another man should use his/her life to pay for the life he/she has taken.

On the contrary, Law is a system of rules which is enforced through a set of institutions. People who go against rules of the legal system are thus punishable by the system. The equality and impartiality of the law has been known to many and are hence respected by the majority. Some countries implement the capital punishment which allows severe crimes to be punishable by death penalty. However, one is unable to full understand the objective of utilizing the death sentence, whether to deter others or to serve as a retributive reflection. For example, a study conducted in US has produced evidence that the use of death penalty as a form of deterrence is adverse and inconclusive.Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this (whilst true for America) has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and there was only one appeal.From a moral perspective, the abolitionists believe state executions signal that violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts and thus actually contribute to a climate of increased violence.The innocent family and friends of criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution and which will often cause them serious trauma for years to come. Hence the indirect psychological damage to those related is high and the opposite effect it has on the society shown that is immoral.

Furthermore, the use of violence in prisons is also immoral. The abu ghraib prison is one fine example on how the punishment of Iraq prisoners has been controlled by humans’ emotions, leading to torture. Abuses of the prisoners range from shameful and mentally torturous acts to even life threatening ones like putting a vest of electric live wires. One can never bear to see how a human life is treated below the bare minimal rights of an animal.

In a world where the security of a country could be easily threatened by the existence of weapons of mass destruction, countries can apply for UN’s permission to allow for invasion to remove the threat. However, an exception to the case is US’s invasion into Iraq which was initially based on the threat that Iraq possessed WMDs. Soon there were intelligence reports that there were no WMD in Iraq but still American troops were still stationed there. It soon revealed that the main aim was for the oil supply in Iraq. The estimated amount of deaths and economic cost are 1,033,000 deaths and $501 billion, as of march 2008, as a result of the conflict. Hence the use of violence as an aim of removing WMDs are impractical as it caused many innocent lives and immoral and it was a deceiving act by US. The economic cost can be effectively used to remedy the more pressing climate change or internal problems.

‘Actions speak more than words’ as a proverb states. Hence the use of violence in a protest can amplify the amount of dissatisfaction or hatred the community feels towards the issue involved. Recently the South Korean protests has developed into a more violent protest as the president has not entirely undertake the safety precautions in ensuring the purity of the beef imported from USA. There were bans soon after on the cows that were over a certain age and on parts that were relatively vulnerable to the infection of the disease. Hence in order to protect their community of the deadly mad cow disease entirely, the South Koreans families have taken it to the streets to call for more preventive measures or even a full ban.

As a whole, violence is both a useful mean to achieve justice and there is a thin line which could cause disastrous damage if crossed over. One must be able to think through the practicality and morality of carrying out the actions, hence justifying the cause for violence. Also every problem in the world would definitely have alternatives to it although some may be easy to identify while for cases very rare.