blog

This video discusses when the use of violence is acceptable. This particular video relates to social movements such as the movement to dismiss the “stand your ground” law.  The justification tactics the speaker used include “the last resort” strategy, “ first you should try to disengage” by trying to disengage the speaker says you are trying to avoid violence, however if this does not work then resorting to violence may be acceptable. “Its very clear, you have to protect yourself” This is a “counterviolence” tactic. If someone is come at you aggressively the speaker uses counter-violence as a justification for using violence because the other person was violent first.

The act of violence I chose was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was a direct violence approach. Americans would frame this as an act of war, thus morally acceptable. Japan had already bombed Pearl Harbor and American thought it necessary for Japan to surrender before more damage could be done. The bomb, would cause the least amount of casualties for Americans yet the most amount for the Japanese. The Japanese; however would categories these events as an act of terror by saying “innocent” Japanese were killed in the bomb. That the bomb was the largest bombed to ever be dropped and that the dropping of it would was a crime.

I feel mixed opinioned on whether violence is sometimes the answer or not, an cases of self defense I feel it would be acceptable however I feel that it is very circumstantial and in some cases there are better possible solutions.