Is violence ever justified? argumentative essay


the play romeo and juliet was one of the most famous love tragedies ever written. this love story unfortunately had a fatal ending. many people argue over why the lovers had died, was it over free will or fate?  

the death of romeo and juliet was partially because of free will. the fact that romeo and juliet got married knowing that there was a bitter feud between their families, the montague and capulet’s. this feud brought on many problems, such as the murder of tybalt by romeo. juliet knew that this might be a problem for her and romeo. juliet had said: “what’s in a name”? which explains her ill fate of being a capulet and romeo being a montague. when romeo tells his servant “ ay, mine own…show more content…

i believe they had died over the love they had for each other, strong enough that their lives could end so suddenly if something horrible had come between them, and that was exactly how it happened. this tragedy occurred within five days of the two meeting, they experienced love at first sight, got married and quickly were dead. free will became a part of this when juliet decided to take friar laurence’s advise in inhaling a potion that will make people assume she is died but will awake in 42 hours prier to when she took it. when romeo had heard the news that juliet was dead, he assumed it was true, and responded with the line; “well juliet, i will lay with thee tonight”. to me this line indicated how he feels for juliet by dying in her will. the fact that free will didn’t take control of the story; it left fate to be the murder of the lovers. fate first kicked in when their eyes met at the capulet party. when romeo and juliet spoke, their words had powerful contentment; they had such a strong feeling for one another that they could lay in each other’s arms forever. their happiness didn’t last long; there were many reasons for this, for example; the marriage lord capulet arranged between paris and juliet. i believe that the plot of the play thus far leads the audience to believe that the deaths were a result of fate. the last act will determine once and for all if it is fate or free will. romeo again challenges fate.


answer: metaphor: because there is a comparison between the treasures spread on the ground and the evil seed of adam drifting from the shoreline  


Violence is a central concept for describing social relationships among humans, a concept loaded with ethical and political significance. In some, probably most, circumstances it is evident that violence is unjust; but, some cases appear more debatable to someone’s eyes: can violence ever be justified?

As Self-Defense

The most plausible justification of violence is when it is perpetrated in return of other violence. If a person punches you in the face and seems intentions to keep doing so, it may seem justified to try and respond to the physical violence.

It is important to notice that violence may come in different forms, including psychological violence and verbal violence. In its mildest form, the argument in favor of violence as self-defense claims that to violence of some sort, an equally violent response may be justified. Thus, for instance, to a punch you may be legitimate to respond with a punch; yet, to mobbing (a form of psychological, verbal violence, and institutional), you are not justified in replying with a punch (a form of physical violence).

In a more audacious version of the justification of violence in the name of self-defense, violence of any kind may be justified in reply to the violence of any other kind, provided there is a somewhat fair use of the violence exercised in self-defense. Thus, it may even be appropriate to respond to mobbing by using physical violence, provided the violence does not exceed that which seems a fair payoff, sufficient to ensure self-defense.

An even more audacious version of the justification of violence in the name of self-defense has it that the sole possibility that in the future violence will be perpetrated against you, gives you sufficient reason to exercise violence against the possible offender. While this scenario occurs repeatedly in everyday life, it is certainly the more difficult one to justify: How do you know, after all, that an offense would follow?

Violence and Just War

What we have just discussed at the level of individuals can be held also for the relationships between States. A State may be justified to respond violently to a violent attack – be it physical, psychological, or verbal violence to be at stake. Equally, according to some, it may be justifiable to respond with physical violence to some legal or institutional violence. Suppose, for instance, that State S1 imposes an embargo over another State S2 so that inhabitants of the latter will experience tremendous inflation, scarcity of primary goods, and consequent civil depression. While one may argue that S1 did not impart physical violence over S2, it seems that S2 may have some reasons for a physical reaction to S2.

Matters concerning the justification of war have been discussed at length in the history of Western philosophy, and beyond. While some have repeatedly supported a pacifist perspective, other author stressed that on some occasions it is unavoidable to wage wars against some offender.

Idealistic vs. Realistic Ethics


there u go

Do you know the answer?

Other questions on the subject: English

English, 22.06.2019, aperson05
18≥1.5x then you're going to want to divide 18 by 1.5. this equals 12. so the answer would be 12. aka, you can buy 12 peppers, at most....Read More
1 more answers
English, 22.06.2019, roseyy7245
everyman: morality play which phrase in this excerpt from the play everyman refers to god's judgment of people's souls after their death? messenger: . . ye think sin in the begi...Read More
1 more answers