With the Richard Spencer incident in the news, I'm sure this is a topic being discussed elsewhere in the more page-heavy threads of this forum.
I want to discuss offensive political violence generally and from a perspective of moral/ethical theory. Instead of discussing Spencer, whether he deserved it, whether he promotes violence, whether he's a neo-nazi, etc, I'd like to discuss whether different meta-ethical philosophies justify or prohibit offensive political violence when the receiver is:
1) Not initiating violence
2) Not reasonably expected to initiate violence in the near future
3) Not actively soliciting others to engage in violence
What's everyone think? Can this ever be justified? If so, what logic did you use to conclude that? If not, what moral precepts prohibit it? Not overly interested in feel-y shit -- let's just discuss the ethical logic.
Political Violence from the Left:
Political Violence from the Right:
I want to discuss offensive political violence generally and from a perspective of moral/ethical theory. Instead of discussing Spencer, whether he deserved it, whether he promotes violence, whether he's a neo-nazi, etc, I'd like to discuss whether different meta-ethical philosophies justify or prohibit offensive political violence when the receiver is:
1) Not initiating violence
2) Not reasonably expected to initiate violence in the near future
3) Not actively soliciting others to engage in violence
What's everyone think? Can this ever be justified? If so, what logic did you use to conclude that? If not, what moral precepts prohibit it? Not overly interested in feel-y shit -- let's just discuss the ethical logic.
Political Violence from the Left:
Political Violence from the Right:
Last edited: