Of Violence and Valour
PRELUDE:
Violence: use of physical force, intended to cause injury or destruction.
Valour: courage and bravery for an honourable goal.
I was discussing the issue of 'Violence' with one of my English classes this morning, and we were debating whether violence can be justified in any situation.
I, being my usual ideal self, was ranting about how we should not be so quick to anger, and that we should never return violence with violence, for that will only result in destruction and casualties on both sides. Then, one student, J Wu, I think, brought up a most perceptive and pertinent point. He asked if this means that diplomacy is the best means to resolve disputes, and if this is to be the case at all times: if we were to be attacked upon, should we just meekly subject ourselves to such violence and not retaliate at all?
To be frank, this is a most profound issue, and it is not just about little fights and squabbles. I gave an illustration of such silly violence: a tight slap across the face. In such cases, will it help to retaliate with a reciprocal slap or punch? Where then will that lead us to? It will just simply end with both parties being casualties, an no-win situation for both sides. And so, I quoted from my current favourite poem 'IF' by Kipling, that when we are in that one moment, one minute, of anger, we should really just take a step back and breathe, to treat it as sixty seconds, and calm down. Indeed, for many of these little squabbles in our daily lives, we should exercise restraint and self-control, and we will be all the better for it. Afterall, if we are victims of violence, will engaging in it by retaliation make us any better than the aggressor? It will not. We must seek other solutions, or we risk ruining ourselves along with it.
Yet, to not retaliate may to a large extent be only applicable for 'little' or silly non-consequential fights. There are justified situations. First, when we are attacked, we must defend ourselves. Second, if our family or national honour is at stake, we must defend and protect that as well. The key argument is, in this instance, violence may be the justified last resort for the purpose of self-defence or self-protection. It will then no longer be violence, but valour for survival or honour.
Sometimes, the twist of fate and chance would lead to an unavoidable violent resolution. In a war involving grand ideals and consequences involving issues of nation, humanity and mankind, and when all diplomatic means or negotiations have fallen through and there are no other options; violence might be the only a last resort. No doubt, there will be casualties, humongous and tragic, but that will be the necessary and worthwhile sacrifice. Furthermore, in such instances, the trangressed would be more than justified to take up arms and defend their nation, their way of life, their ideals, and their survival. The most iconic examples would be the Sino-Japanese War of the 1920s - 1945, and World War Two itself. The Battle of Britain was the most valiant hours of the war, when the lives of so many were owed to the efforts of so few. Yet, it should only be considered when all other possible means have been exhausted, and that was the basis for many of the historical wars waged. No one country or party would come out of it untainted, but it would have been necessary. When such a war is waged, it would no longer be a war of violence, but a war of valour.
Indeed, violence can never be justified for silly nonsensical personal follies. There should certainly be other alternative solutions. The only justifiable violent has to be that of valour - that the fight is one for ideals, honour or the common good. It will be a battle fought for family, nation or civilisation, for survival.
When it is a true call to arms, it has to be a call for humanity.
I, being my usual ideal self, was ranting about how we should not be so quick to anger, and that we should never return violence with violence, for that will only result in destruction and casualties on both sides. Then, one student, J Wu, I think, brought up a most perceptive and pertinent point. He asked if this means that diplomacy is the best means to resolve disputes, and if this is to be the case at all times: if we were to be attacked upon, should we just meekly subject ourselves to such violence and not retaliate at all?
To be frank, this is a most profound issue, and it is not just about little fights and squabbles. I gave an illustration of such silly violence: a tight slap across the face. In such cases, will it help to retaliate with a reciprocal slap or punch? Where then will that lead us to? It will just simply end with both parties being casualties, an no-win situation for both sides. And so, I quoted from my current favourite poem 'IF' by Kipling, that when we are in that one moment, one minute, of anger, we should really just take a step back and breathe, to treat it as sixty seconds, and calm down. Indeed, for many of these little squabbles in our daily lives, we should exercise restraint and self-control, and we will be all the better for it. Afterall, if we are victims of violence, will engaging in it by retaliation make us any better than the aggressor? It will not. We must seek other solutions, or we risk ruining ourselves along with it.
Yet, to not retaliate may to a large extent be only applicable for 'little' or silly non-consequential fights. There are justified situations. First, when we are attacked, we must defend ourselves. Second, if our family or national honour is at stake, we must defend and protect that as well. The key argument is, in this instance, violence may be the justified last resort for the purpose of self-defence or self-protection. It will then no longer be violence, but valour for survival or honour.
Sometimes, the twist of fate and chance would lead to an unavoidable violent resolution. In a war involving grand ideals and consequences involving issues of nation, humanity and mankind, and when all diplomatic means or negotiations have fallen through and there are no other options; violence might be the only a last resort. No doubt, there will be casualties, humongous and tragic, but that will be the necessary and worthwhile sacrifice. Furthermore, in such instances, the trangressed would be more than justified to take up arms and defend their nation, their way of life, their ideals, and their survival. The most iconic examples would be the Sino-Japanese War of the 1920s - 1945, and World War Two itself. The Battle of Britain was the most valiant hours of the war, when the lives of so many were owed to the efforts of so few. Yet, it should only be considered when all other possible means have been exhausted, and that was the basis for many of the historical wars waged. No one country or party would come out of it untainted, but it would have been necessary. When such a war is waged, it would no longer be a war of violence, but a war of valour.
Indeed, violence can never be justified for silly nonsensical personal follies. There should certainly be other alternative solutions. The only justifiable violent has to be that of valour - that the fight is one for ideals, honour or the common good. It will be a battle fought for family, nation or civilisation, for survival.
When it is a true call to arms, it has to be a call for humanity.
POSTLUDE:
When boys become men, they will truly understand and appreciate the difference between violence and valour.
posted by edwinheng at 10:44 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home