This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
“But then we’re no better than them!”
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
Given that the threat of violence did absolutely nothing to keep this violence at bay I’d love for you to expound upon this point further.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
We didn’t threaten her or any other serial killer in countries where there’s no death penalty with violence. But death is too swift a punishment.