In my experience, many people do not have a well thought out position regarding interpersonal violence and self defense. The prevalent attitude seems to vary between two extremes; a naive type of pacifism on one hand, or a let's get em’ type of aggression on the other. Both positions are unreasonable in different ways. This post provides a deeper examination of the ethics of violence and self defense. When properly understood, non-aggression and forceful self-defense are not morally incompatible.
A careful study reveals that even thinkers credited with advocating pacifism, including Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, and at least one Buddhist sect, advocate self-defensive force as moral, necessary and courageous. This makes sense, of course, because the need for self defense will persist until everyone in the world non-aggressive. Therefore, the most pragmatic and ethical position is one of conscious non-initiation of violence, which at the same time does not preclude forceful self-defense if necessary.
A careful study reveals that even thinkers credited with advocating pacifism, including Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, and at least one Buddhist sect, advocate self-defensive force as moral, necessary and courageous. This makes sense, of course, because the need for self defense will persist until everyone in the world non-aggressive. Therefore, the most pragmatic and ethical position is one of conscious non-initiation of violence, which at the same time does not preclude forceful self-defense if necessary.
