Best Reaction to Violence Throughout Bond's plays there is an analysis, sometimes implicit, of the nature of violence, its causes and its consequences. Each of the plays takes the analysis a step further. I have chosen to concentrate on Lear because it is one of the most representative pieces of work about violence in our society. In this play Bond's humanistic philosophy is clear : "aggression is an ability but not a necessity".  He condemns our society which uses violence supposedly for the wellbeing of people, but without worrying about the disastrous consequences.
The first issue to be considered is what is war and what is its definition. The student of war needs to be careful in examining definitions of war, for like any social phenomena, definitions are varied, and often the proposed definition masks a particular political or philosophical stance paraded by the author. This is as true of dictionary definitions as well as of articles on military or political history. Cicero defines war broadly as "a contention by force"; Hugo Grotius adds that "war is the state of contending parties, considered as such"; Thomas Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: "By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued"; Denis Diderot comments that war is "a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic;" for Karl von Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", and so on. Each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, but often is the culmination of the writer's broader philosophical positions.
The film “Battle for Algiers” can be analyzed thoroughly through Frantz Fanon’s and Hannah Arendt’s polar opposite theories on violence. The implication of both theories is represented in the film that has captured the understanding of both insightful phenomena. Fanon’s views on violence are it unifies individuals into forming a complex unit organism that works together, rinses, in addition it is presented as an effective and productive mean that support the process of decolonization. In contract, Arendt’s theory detaches the concept of violence from power and emphasizes that the driven reasons for violence is anti-political. Both philosophers present distinctive theories upon the use of violence; Fanon elucidates his philosophy on violence that it’s a necessary journey to claim freedom, while as Arendt work degrades the use of violence in a modern political society that uses violence as a mean to sustain or accomplish a matter.
Both countries political agendas and perceptions caused significant complications affecting each state’s ability to handle the rising threat. Germany’s political setting suffered intense rivalry between the two levels of government: the Bund (national government) and the Lander (states). Italy had similar political struggles on the perception and ideology of terrorism impacting the country. The dominated Christian Democratic Party (DC), whose primary goal was to pleas the public opinion, viewed terrorism based off political interests. The two rival parties, whose strength grew towards the end of the 1970s, included the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the Movimento Sociale Italaino party (MSI).
‘Cultural violence’ refers to aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence, and may be exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science and thus follows “follows the footstep of structural violence” (Galtung, 1990). This essay tries to look into the concept of structural/everyday violence using the case study of caste system. The essay will make use of photographs to explain the notion of structural /everyday violence as a lens for understating violence and suffering. Structural violence can best explained in the wo... ... middle of paper ... ...Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists. First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails.
From this Bentham developed a deontic logic believing all laws to be either permissive or imperative. It is also necessary to mention Bentham did in the death penalty, as a form of punishment as he felt is was disproportionate to any
The battle on which this brief essay centers itself is the battle between freedom of speech and laws limiting that freedom; more specifically the ability to spread hate propaganda and the "hate laws". Included in the essay is a brief outline of one skirmish that has taken place (Keegstra). Those who fight on the side supporting freedom of speech do so for several reasons. Braun declares that it is a basic democratic right to voice your own opinion . Douglas Christie has gained notoriety for his vigorous representation of high- profile, controversial clients, charged under the hate laws.
In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice. After, I will critique Kant’s perspective and explain the benefits and flaws about it. Last, I will end off by stating my own personal opinion on Kant’s perspective and why I disagree with it. Overall, in this paper, I will explain my disagreement with Kant’s doctrine on punishment due to the fact that I believe some forms of Kant’s punishment, are a violation of humanity.