Table of Contents
- 1 Can violence ever be legitimate?
- 2 What constitutes political legitimacy?
- 3 What is considered political violence?
- 4 What is socio/political violence?
- 5 What form of violence is used for political goal?
- 6 What is legitimate force and why is it an important aspect of politics?
- 7 What is the moral basis for the use of violence?
- 8 What is the easiest way to respond to violence?
Can violence ever be legitimate?
It is possible to take the position that no violence is ever legitimate under any circumstances. It is possible to take the position that all violence is legitimate. Both views are rare. Most people most of the time do make some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate (or nonlegitimate) acts of violence.
What constitutes political legitimacy?
Political legitimacy is a virtue of political institutions and of the decisions—about laws, policies, and candidates for political office—made within them. Others associate it with the justification, or at least the sanctioning, of existing political authority.
What is considered political violence?
Political violence is the deliberate use of power and force to achieve political goals (World Health Organization (WHO), 2002). As outlined by the World Health Organization (2002), political violence is characterized by both physical and psychological acts aimed at injuring or intimidating populations.
What is an example of the legitimate use of force by the state?
Legitimate use of force may refer to: the right of a state to exercise legitimate authority or violence over a given territory; see monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. the right of civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of self-defense; see right of self-defense.
How would you determine what is legitimate and illegitimate use?
“Legitimate” children are those whose parents are married. The birth is considered as being “outside marriage” (formerly “illegitimate”) when this is not the case. A child born outside marriage whose mother then marries is said to be legitimised by marriage.
What is socio/political violence?
1. Indirect violence characterized because the structures of the state and society, violate the rights and development of certain vulnerable groups of the population.
What form of violence is used for political goal?
‘Terrorism’ pertains to the use of violence, or the threat of using violence, to intimidate citizens, generally to achieve political goals.
What is legitimate force and why is it an important aspect of politics?
In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion.
Which political thinker defined the state as having a monopoly on exercising legitimate violence?
In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Under feudalism, no lords, including the king, could claim a monopoly over the use of …
Why do we authorize government to use violence?
We authorize governments to carry out our natural right of self-defense. The only legitimate purpose for government use of violence and threats is to prevent or punish those who initiate it against others. By granting government a near monopoly on the use of violence, more order is created, and there‘s less preying upon the weak by the strong.
What is the moral basis for the use of violence?
Let’s put my argument in another light by going to first principles and asking: What’s the moral basis for the use of violence by either a person or government? Part of the answer is simple and has a broad consensus: a person is morally justified in using violence when another initiates violence against his person or his property.
What is the easiest way to respond to violence?
The easiest reaction is to say that all violence is abhorrent, that both sides are guilty, and to stand apart retaining one’s moral purity and condemn them both. This is the easiest response and in this case I think it’s also justified.