ManOeuvre
Posts: 277
Joined: 3/2/2013 Status: offline
|
Greta, I wholeheartedly agree with your notion that the strong should protect the weak. This is obvious when it comes to third party interventions, etc. Imagine how crazy it would be if our cultural norm was such that when the police show up to a fight, they put the loser out of his misery.... One important thing to realize, as a part of the whole moral transaction in your idealized case of a woman hitting her partner to no effect, followed by him gently restraining her, is that the man is being paternalistic towards the woman. Treating her like a child. I don't have a problem with this at all, and I wouldn't accuse most women of being particularly mature, but we have to admit that this is what we're doing. To respond not in kind, but to over-rule her attempt at violence and bail her out of her own bad decision with recourse to one's own considerable strength is treating someone not like an adult, but like a child. It is a grown up version of a mother admonishing her two year old after he or she has lashed out, and placing the child in her arms rather than lashing back in kind. Again, I don't have the slightest problem with this, however, it's worth acknowledging that this is what's going on. Also, Greta I disagree with you that a conflict doesn't become violent until someone get's hurt. It would seem that in your subsequent example, you are not recognizing violence and force as distinct. One definition that contrasts the two is that violence is the initiation of the use of force. One component of my job consists of dealing with belligerent people, and I frequently need to apply a small (for me) degree of force to gain compliance. They are violent, I am forceful. If anyone gets hurt, which is very rare, it's them, not me.
|