Another Chomsky example has used frequently is pulling a child by the arm out of the street.
It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on the specific context.
It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on the specific context.
Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.
It's easy to make your decision when the potential downside (a child cries for 5 minutes) is so minor and the potential upside (a child gets saved from dying) is so much bigger in comparison - it only becomes an interesting debate when you up the stakes considerably. For example, the debate about whether what Mandela did, back in his "terrorrist" days, was justified.
Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified".
That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not.
The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
But back to the main point, there is a world of difference between "self-defense" and "violence used to prevent additional violence". Self-defense is immediate: someone is punching you, so you punch back. The other thing... it doesn't have to be. In my mind, self-defense is justified. But self-defense is defined as "have no other reasonable option", and thus is fairly narrow. If you can negotiate, if you can protect your interests by deterring the enemy, if you can eliminate the enemy without violence, by say sanctions, etc. then you have options and it's not self-defense. Also, self-defense is not the condition where violence is the best option. It's only self-defense when violence is the only option.
Perhaps violence is justified when it's not self-defense, but I don't think you can call any first-strike "self-defense" in order to gain the high moral ground.
Can anyone think of a terroristic act that resulted in one or more deaths actually leading to less net violence? Most seem to cause more violence: Dorner shooting police, causing police to open fire on civilians they thought were him. 9/11 leading to many innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are much more likely to respond to violence with violence, than they are to respond with it to peace.
I think its a fine definition of violence, IF you accept that violence is sometimes necessary (I think most people hold this view), or even that violence may not be inherently wrong (really a logical extension of the first... but I feel that less people would say they agree with this view).