The Loony Left on war

[TragicMonkey]

OK, I see what you mean. I was thinking of something that was still within the realms of possibility. Maybe very very very unlikely, but still possible.

Universal pacifism is entirely possible. Very unlikely, but possible.

So is the arm thing, really, if we ever reach a stage in cybernetic implants and genetic engineering. It might occur faster if we were to colonize a moon or planet with lower gravity or a different atmosphere.

There are very few things that are completely impossible, because they have to be impossible under all situations, in all theories, no matter what. A not being A is impossible. Universal pacifism, human arm-powered flight, and Sylvia Browne apologizing for being a complete lying sack of crap are not impossible. Just improbable.

 

[jj]

Universal pacifism is entirely possible. Very unlikely, but possible.

So is the arm thing, really, if we ever reach a stage in cybernetic implants and genetic engineering. It might occur faster if we were to colonize a moon or planet with lower gravity or a different atmosphere.

There are very few things that are completely impossible, because they have to be impossible under all situations, in all theories, no matter what. A not being A is impossible. Universal pacifism, human arm-powered flight, and Sylvia Browne apologizing for being a complete lying sack of crap are not impossible. Just improbable.

So then what happens when we encounter hostile alien races? I don't think that's any farther out than all humans becoming pacifistic.

 

[Tony]

I am taking a realistic view, in which I can't control every one else's actions...

...except through war.

I'm not going to sit around and wish everyone would act a certain way. I am going to deal with reality.

By posting on a message board? Gimme a break dude, you're just making excuses for refusing to think outside your self imposed box.

The view I talked about earlier was NOT "It would be great if the Nazi's never tried to take over the world." It was "It is preferable to let the Nazi's take over the world, instead of using violence to stop them. Life under them would suck, but at least we have the comfort of knowing we never resorted to violence."

Do you see the difference

Yes, but this point has no relation to what I'm talking about.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So then what happens when we encounter hostile alien races? I don't think that's any farther out than all humans becoming pacifistic.

Perhaps they'll be inspired by the example of the human's pacifism and turn pacifist themselves? Or maybe they only inhabit gas giants, and thus have no reason for conflict with us. Or maybe they'll try to wipe us out but since they're only three millimeters tall they are foiled by a curious puppy. Or perhaps we could convince them that we are actually ghosts from hell and they should avoid us. Anything's possible.

 

[Mycroft]

The view I talked about earlier was NOT "It would be great if the Nazi's never tried to take over the world." It was "It is preferable to let the Nazi's take over the world, instead of using violence to stop them. Life under them would suck, but at least we have the comfort of knowing we never resorted to violence."

And in not resorting to violence ourselves, we allowed a greater violence to take place.

It's a point of view that cloaks itself in moral superiority, but really is just an abdication of responsibility.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's a point of view that cloaks itself in moral superiority, but really is just an abdication of responsibility.

Not all pacifists are "cloaking themselves in moral superiority". Particularly the religious ones, like the Amish or Buddhist monks. Perhaps you are projecting such an attitude upon them? If so, I wonder what a psychologist would say about that. Probably that you secretly agree with their ideals, but feel guilty that your pragmatism will not allow you to follow them.

I don't mean that as a put-down, by the way. I do happen to think that pacifism is a noble ideal, and it's sad that the world, and human nature, is such that it's utterly impractical. I can accept the occasional need for violence, but that doesn't mean I don't deplore it.

 

[Tony]

I do happen to think that pacifism is a noble ideal, and it's sad that the world, and human nature, is such that it's utterly impractical. I can accept the occasional need for violence, but that doesn't mean I don't deplore it.

My position mirrors yours.

 

[epepke]

Um, can't we agree that in principle, war is a bad thing? Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we're probably always going to have them. Yes, sometimes they are necessary. But that doesn't mean that war itself is a desirable thing.

I quite agree. War is sometimes necessary, and it sometimes may be the best possible thing, but that doesn't mean that it's not bad.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I’m not a big fan of Kant, but I think that he would agree with my idea of what rules we should follow regarding war: above all, we should have principles such that, if everyone else held those principles, there would be no war.

Logical fallacy alert.
I was feeling sorry for Art - with his orderly little pigeon holes. I'm was sure it makes things really really simple for him.

Then he blames progressives for all the evils he attributes to his simplified version of the radical left.

Classic.

Fallacy indeed. I did not blame progressives. I said that it's done in the name of being progressive.

Since the mention of the lunatic Right had nothing to do with his exercise of the excluded middle, I'd suggest that you consider brushing up on your rhetorical fallacies.

It is you that needs to brush up on it. Merely pointing out that there are things that someone did not mention deos not establish an excluded middle. For instance, you failed to mention both pink elephants and dancing penguins.

Then you are saying that people being killed, maimed and so on is a good thing (because that is what a war is) or that torture is good thing to do (because it may be justifiable in say winning a war) - which I don't think you do believe?

That does not follow.

Just because something can be undertaken for good or morally good reasons does not mean that the thing you are doing is good or moral of itself.

On the other hand, saying that something is good doesn't mean that everything involved in it is good.

People who say war is good (using my viewpoint) are in fact saying that killing, maiming and causing suffering is good (which of course I don't believe they do believe).

So if someone says that heart transplants are good, are they saying that stabbing people, removing vital organs, and drugging people are all good things?

What I take it to mean is that they are actually saying: "The result of war can be good."

I don't see the distinction.

To get back to Arts' OP, I have a couple of comments:

Who's Arts?

Since Art has seen fit to not provide a link and quote out of context, we can but take the above statement at face value.

That's a bizarre comment.

FWIW, superfluous conflict is defined as Beyond what is required; extra and Ed knows, we have had enough wars in history to make any conflict superfluous.

It's rather out of place in that sentence; I have a feeling that what it really means is "I think this word looks cool I want to show off my 'vocabulary'".

and the second and third statements are merely statements of fact that could apply to any conflict and be said by any military man from Thutmose II to Tommy Franks.

The second is not a a statement of fact. The third technically is, but it implies that this is all that matters, which is a matter of opinion.

Exactly how Art expects us to get from that to his following conclusions without additional references is asking a lot, IMHO.

Perhaps you could quote the part of my OP in which I declare that everything I say is based on that one letter, and I have no other expencies that inform my views.

I fail to see how we can arrive at this conclusion based on the quote provided.

If all wars are alike, then if there are any wars which were not justified, then all wars must be unjustified.

I would require more of what Mr. Ashenburg wrote to reach Art's conclusions, rather than Art having drawn them for us.

I think that you would be able to ignore the obvious implication no matter how much of his letter I presented.

Bolding above mine. Which makes all that follows Art's personal opinion-

Any more blatantly obvious facts to point out?

In sum, much ado about one sentence in a un-referenced letter from a relatively unknown source by one individual of modest importance (unless demonstrated otherwise).

1. It wasn't just one sentence.
2. It wasn't unreferenced. There is a world beyond the internet.
3. It was endorsed by Tikkun, which is more than just one individual.

I'll even state that sometimes war and killing are the best choice and not to do them would be bad....but they are still bad things, and doing them is making a conscious choice to evil. Necessary evils are still evils.

So you're saying that sometimes, doing evil is necessitated by the situation? There are cases where it's physically impossible to not do evil? That flies in the face of what "evil" means. "Evil" means that something bad happened, and a certain person is responsible. If it was physically impossible not to do evil, it makes no sense to blame the person. According to your formulation, evil is something that the universe simply attaches to certain people, rather than certain people choosing.

Yes, it's bad. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I think an easy test to assess whether something is bad, albeit necessary, is to hypothesize other options.

But you can always hypothesize other options. Sure, giving a meal to a homeless person seems good, but you could have given him two meals, so giving him one meal is actually bad. Using this logic, nothing is truly good.

C not being available does not change the moral valuation of A. A is the correct choice, but it's still bad.

Morality is about choosing between your actual options, not comparing your actions to some magical fantasy land.

It seems to me that you're trying split actions into separate parts. For instance, suppose a terrorist's about to detonate a bomb that will kill a hundred people. If we kill him, he dies, but the hundred people live. So, in your calculus, we can separate the "killing the terrorist" and "saving one hundred people" into separate actions, and say that the first is bad, but the second is more good, so overall we should do it. But that makes no sense. Killing the terrorist is inseparable from saving the hundred people. You simply can't evaluate one in the absence of the other.

Life is good.

Not always.

Which, incidentally, is why killing is bad-- when you do it, you deny someone else that good.

When hot women wear clothing, they deny me the good of seeing them naked.

Just to point out...Tikkun is actually a fairly well-read magazine among Reform Jews. It's not really "unknown," but neither is it "radical left," either. (I'd put its politics somewhere in the center-left of the Democratic Party.) I'm very suspicious of Vandelay's claim that "according to him, the Israelis deliberately provoked." If so, I really doubt Tikkun would ever endorse such a letter--they're very pro-Israel, although anti-occupation and pro-human rights.

Here’s a more complete excerpt (all bolding and brackets mine):

Israel first took over the Golan heights in the 1967 Six Day War. There was no Syrian aggression [I’m not clear on whether he means there was not aggression in the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, or in between], although Israel claimed thae Syrians were shooting at Israeli villages, a myth that served as a pretext for war [note that only the aggressors in a war need “pretexts”, so he is implying that the Israelis were the aggressors], but was later refuted by Moshe Dayan in his memoir:
“We would send a tractor to plow some place of no value, in the Demilitarized Zone, knowing ahead of time that the Syrians would shoot. If they did not start shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians would in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And the we would start firing artillery, and later also the air force and this was the way it was.”
At the time of the Yom Kippur War, Golda Meir was Israeli’s Prime Minister. She shared Bush’s primitive, brutal mentality: that [sic] the opponent of your policy is your enemy, and your enemy are [sic] the Arabs.
Why did Israel want the Golan? The soil is excellent, especially for wine growing. By sitting on the Golan, Isreal could control the local water resources. {No mention of the fact that allowing the Syrians to control the Golan Heights would give them a dangerously strong strategic position in any future wars.]
Meir had rejected a peace offer by Egypt’s President, Anwar Sadat. So, knowing full well that Israelis only understand force, Egypt and Syria attacked us.
[…]
I hope I diddn’;t kill too many people, but I don’t know. I just hit tanks, and I have no idea what happened inside. I didn’t hate the Syrians. They were young and naïve. But I also hated Gloda and the apathetic Israelis that didn’t prevent the Yom Kippur War.

The problem with the idea that, "some have to be fought," is that is precisely what is screwing us up as a race (the human race). There is ALWAYS a reason for war! Whether it's the color of your neighbor's skin, the way he worships, his political beliefs, the idea that they're trying to acquire weapons you don't approve of, they're sneaking across your borders to work, their leader is a terrible dictator . . .

The idea that everyone has a “reason” for war, therefore all those “reasons” are equally valid, is what’s screwing us up. There’s nothing hypocritical about criticizing someone else’s decision to go to war, while going to war ourselves.

 

[Mark]

And this has to do with... what, exactly? Apart from the fact that it's not true - and you know it - it's a complete disconnect from the issue at hand.

If you want to flame with non sequiturs, Mark, there's a forum for that. I'll meet you there anytime.

Are you calling me out?

 

[TragicMonkey]

So you're saying that sometimes, doing evil is necessitated by the situation? There are cases where it's physically impossible to not do evil? That flies in the face of what "evil" means. "Evil" means that something bad happened, and a certain person is responsible. If it was physically impossible not to do evil, it makes no sense to blame the person. According to your formulation, evil is something that the universe simply attaches to certain people, rather than certain people choosing.

An evil act is an evil act, even if it's the only option. If you have to kill the cat because there's nothing else to eat, you still killed the cat. Sorry. You don't get a free pass that changes an evil act to a good one because you didn't have, or see, any other options. Life requires a certain degree of being nasty. It does not require being good. Good is the ideal; we will not always attain it. Failure to attain it does not mean we can stamp our feet and say it's unfair, and our evil should count as good. You might as well complain that the cards you were dealt aren't nice ones. You have to play what you've got, whether they suck or not.

But you can always hypothesize other options. Sure, giving a meal to a homeless person seems good, but you could have given him two meals, so giving him one meal is actually bad. Using this logic, nothing is truly good.

Well, it's certainly true that my clumsy analogy can be stretched into ridiculousness. I was merely attempting to dance around discussion of the Idea of Good, which would launch the good ship Plato, all torpedos firing.

Morality is about choosing between your actual options, not comparing your actions to some magical fantasy land.

Magical fantasy land? That's what ideas are. We made up something that we call "good", then interpret actions in light of that idea. Sometimes reality does not conform to ideas, and there will be no "good" option. That does not immediately render the lesser of evils suddenly "good", because that evil does not meet the requirements of the idea of good. Definitions do not change for our convenience. If you want to enter the county dog show, but have only three cats, you can't pick the least catlike of the three and call it a dog. It's not what "dog" is.

It seems to me that you're trying split actions into separate parts. For instance, suppose a terrorist's about to detonate a bomb that will kill a hundred people. If we kill him, he dies, but the hundred people live. So, in your calculus, we can separate the "killing the terrorist" and "saving one hundred people" into separate actions, and say that the first is bad, but the second is more good, so overall we should do it. But that makes no sense. Killing the terrorist is inseparable from saving the hundred people. You simply can't evaluate one in the absence of the other.

Of course you can. Actions are already separated in parts. There's the intention, the action, the results. Each of those parts can have it's own moral evaluation, possibly conflicting with the others. As for your scenario, killing the terrorist is one of those unfortunately necessary evils that you must commit in order to carry out a necessary good. Nobody's going to condemn you for it, but that's because people are willing to be reasonable about good and evil. People are practical more than idealistic. That doesn't change the ideals, though.

Not always.

Well, this is one of them fundamental world views that is sheer opinion.

When hot women wear clothing, they deny me the good of seeing them naked.

Perhaps you have different interpretations of the idea of Good.

 

[Art Vandelay]

But if enough people were nonviolent, Hitler wouldn't have been able to run wild because he'd have no armies with which to make war.

If everyone else were nonviolent, Hitler wouldn't need an army.

Not realistic, of course, but theoretically possible. Likewise, if nobody was a thief, we would have no need for locking doors.

And it's is silly to not lock your doors simply because one can imagine a world without thieves, just as it's silly to not engage in violence, just because one can imagine a world without criminals.

Universal pacifism is entirely possible. Very unlikely, but possible.

But if everyone else in the world were a pacificist, then it would be irrelevant whether I was one, because I would never have to choose between engaging in violence and allowing evil to occur. The only time I have to resort to violence is when someone else does, at which point universal pacificsm is already out the window. So my resorting to violence has no effect on whether this is a violence free world.

The fact that something is theoretically possible is completely irrelevant. Decisions should be made on the basis of what is, not what might be. Should we shut down hospitals, because it's theoretically possible that no one will get sick?

The person I was referring to in my post thinks that the allies should have just let Hitler take over the world, because that is better that using violence to defend yourself. No, I am not kidding.

Did this person pay taxes? If so, he's a hypocrite.

Another question I have for these people: if you saw a woman getting raped, would you sit back and do nothing? (Note: no, calling the police and having the rapist prosecuted is not an option. That's just getting someone else to do your violence for you.)

A pure pacificist should be opposed to not just war but the criminal justice system, and should refuse to support either in any way (this includes paying taxes, providing information to the police, and serving on juries).

This is a problem that I have with MLK Jr. He's presented as a champion of nonviolent resistence, but the whole point of him asking blacks to engage in nonviolent resistence was to shock whites into passing civil rights legislation, and enforcing that legislation through violence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And it's is silly to not lock your doors simply because one can imagine a world without thieves, just as it's silly to not engage in violence, just because one can imagine a world without criminals.

....

The fact that something is theoretically possible is completely irrelevant. Decisions should be made on the basis of what is, not what might be. Should we shut down hospitals, because it's theoretically possible that no one will get sick?

And did I ever say that decisions should be made in light of what is theoretically possible? Have I not stressed, over and over, that there are ideals which are not practicable, and survival means having to go against them? Yes, I have. I would have thought I'd made my position clear by now. There is good, there is evil, there is necessary. The latter can be either of the first two. But the necessary is not automatically good. No matter how many scenarios or hypothetical situations can be dreamt up, an evil is not a good. Accept the necessary evils as precisely that: evil, but necessary.

The danger I see in refusal to accept necessary evils as evils is that one could become blase. If everything necessary counts as good, then one can perpetrate horrors while remaining smugly confident of one's own righteousness. At least the man who recognizes his evils and regrets their necessity will have some restraint.

 

[gnome]

This is a problem that I have with MLK Jr. He's presented as a champion of nonviolent resistence, but the whole point of him asking blacks to engage in nonviolent resistence was to shock whites into passing civil rights legislation, and enforcing that legislation through violence.

Ok, so what you're saying is that since laws are upheld by force, then using non-violent persuasion to get a law changed is equivalent to using force directly to get your way?

 

[Freakshow]

The danger I see in refusal to accept necessary evils as evils is that one could become blase. If everything necessary counts as good, then one can perpetrate horrors while remaining smugly confident of one's own righteousness. At least the man who recognizes his evils and regrets their necessity will have some restraint.

But if the same standard is followed, is the only difference one of feelings? One guy feels regret, and the other guy doesn't. So?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But if the same standard is followed, is the only difference one of feelings? One guy feels regret, and the other guy doesn't. So?

The man who feels regret will stop to think about his actions, and examine his options more carefully. The man who doesn't will plunge ahead, confident that whatever he does is okay because it's him doing it, and he's a good person, right?

 

[Art Vandelay]

You don't get a free pass that changes an evil act to a good one because you didn't have, or see, any other options.

This is an interesting choice of words. A free pass for what?

Failure to attain it does not mean we can stamp our feet and say it's unfair, and our evil should count as good.

But the entire concept of good and evil is about fairness. It arises out our idea that people who do bad things should be held responsible for those things. That's fair. If they had no choice about doing something "bad", however, then it's not fair to hold them responsible. If you're going throw fairness out the window, then you're no longer talking about good and evil.

You might as well complain that the cards you were dealt aren't nice ones. You have to play what you've got, whether they suck or not.

And if you don't play the "right" card, even though you never had it to begin with, that's evil?

Magical fantasy land? That's what ideas are.

No, it's not.

Sometimes reality does not conform to ideas, and there will be no "good" option. That does not immediately render the lesser of evils suddenly "good", because that evil does not meet the requirements of the idea of good.

The concept of good and evil requires free will. If you can only choose between evil acts, that's not true free will. Free will means that you can choose between good and evil, not that you can make a choice between two options that are really just the same thing. Nothing can be evil unless there is a nonevil alternative. Maybe it's not good, but it's at the very least not evil.

Definitions do not change for our convenience. If you want to enter the county dog show, but have only three cats, you can't pick the least catlike of the three and call it a dog. It's not what "dog" is.

But you're the one changing the definitions. Evil is failing to choose the good. That's what it means. If there is no good option, then there is no evil. If I have no dogs, how can you say that I chose to not take a dog to the show? I no more chose a nondog option than someone chooses to do evil when both of their options are "evil".

Good and evil are opposites, defined in terms of the other. You can't have one without the other. That's like saying that of two towns A and B, town A is the northern one. Then town B must the southern one. They can't both be northern unless there's a third town to the south of both. Just as an act can't be evil unless there's something better than it.

Of course you can. Actions are already separated in parts. There's the intention, the action, the results.

The action is part of the action? That doesn't make sense. Simply because A can be separated into B and C, that doesn't mean that D can be separated into E and F. That just doesn't follow.

Nobody's going to condemn you for it, but that's because people are willing to be reasonable about good and evil. People are practical more than idealistic.

But you are. To say that someone did something evil is to condemn them.

And did I ever say that decisions should be made in light of what is theoretically possible?

You implied it.

But the necessary is not automatically good.

It is not automatically good, but it is automatically not evil.

At least the man who recognizes his evils and regrets their necessity will have some restraint.

One does not have to consider something to be evil to regret its necessity.

gnome

Ok, so what you're saying is that since laws are upheld by force, then using non-violent persuasion to get a law changed is equivalent to using force directly to get your way?

No, not equivalent. But you can't claim to be a pacificist simply because you personally don't engage in violence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is an interesting choice of words. A free pass for what?

But the entire concept of good and evil is about fairness. It arises out our idea that people who do bad things should be held responsible for those things. That's fair. If they had no choice about doing something "bad", however, then it's not fair to hold them responsible. If you're going throw fairness out the window, then you're no longer talking about good and evil.

Good and evil are not about fairness. You're thinking of sin. Sin might be about fairness. I don't know. I don't believe in sin. As for "holding people responsible", I'm not. That suggests judgment. There is no judgment being made, there is no verdict, there is no sentence. It's not a trial. It's not a test. It's life. There is good, there is evil. Some choices will be one, some will be the other. You're not guaranteed at least one of each.

I think you're conflating doing evil with being evil.

And if you don't play the "right" card, even though you never had it to begin with, that's evil?

If you play an evil card, you play an evil card.

No, it's not.

What's an idea? A construct in the mind. Unless you're going to argue that good, evil, justice, humor, and love are physical objects in this universe, you're going to have to accept that they're all in the head. That's why you could call them belonging to a "magical fantasy land". It's also why I'm saying there sometimes isn't a good choice: because good is in the mind, not the physical world. The two don't always synch up nicely.

The concept of good and evil requires free will. If you can only choose between evil acts, that's not true free will. Free will means that you can choose between good and evil, not that you can make a choice between two options that are really just the same thing. Nothing can be evil unless there is a nonevil alternative. Maybe it's not good, but it's at the very least not evil.

Good and evil do not require free will. Sin and justice and fairness require free will. I never claimed life was fair.

But you're the one changing the definitions. Evil is failing to choose the good. That's what it means. If there is no good option, then there is no evil. If I have no dogs, how can you say that I chose to not take a dog to the show? I no more chose a nondog option than someone chooses to do evil when both of their options are "evil".

Our definitions of good and evil are not the same, then. Good is not the absence of evil, evil is not the absence of good. Neither, both, or just one can be present in any given set of options. Your cat is not a dog, whether there are other cats available or not.

Good and evil are opposites, defined in terms of the other. You can't have one without the other. That's like saying that of two towns A and B, town A is the northern one. Then town B must the southern one. They can't both be northern unless there's a third town to the south of both. Just as an act can't be evil unless there's something better than it.

Because directions are comparative terms. Their nature is as you describe, that one implies the other. My argument is that good and evil are not the same way. Just because something is opposite doesn't mean there is a necessary relationship between them. A hill is the opposite of a valley, but you don't have to have both to have either.

The action is part of the action? That doesn't make sense. Simply because A can be separated into B and C, that doesn't mean that D can be separated into E and F. That just doesn't follow.

This is a language limitation. The "action" part of an act is the bit where things happen in the real world, initiated by the actor, who expends energy to create an effect. It's the bit after the bit that occurs in the actor's head, when he's deciding what to do. As for A and B and C, just because you don't think something can be divided doesn't follow that it can't be.

But you are. To say that someone did something evil is to condemn them.

Indeed I did not. You are leaping to that conclusion because you yourself judge it so; your concept of evil appears to be equivalent to the concept of sin, and comes with the provisos of fairness, and what other options did someone have, and mitigation and justification and condemnation. Hence a necessary evil would be frowned upon. I don't see judgment as a necessary part of good or evil. Mostly because who is qualified to judge?

You implied it.

I might have seemed to do so in my admittedly clumsy attempt to compare real options with hypothetical ones in an effort to demonstrate that sometimes there are no good choices. But I really wasn't. People have to chose from what options they have. I just think they ought to choose with their eyes open, willing to admit that the choice is not good, but it is the necessary choice. I think people ought to have enough courage for that.

It is not automatically good, but it is automatically not evil.

I disagree. Good is good, evil is evil.

One does not have to consider something to be evil to regret its necessity.

But if one regrets it, then why? Perhaps because it's evil.

 

[Tony]

The man who feels regret will stop to think about his actions, and examine his options more carefully. The man who doesn't will plunge ahead, confident that whatever he does is okay because it's him doing it, and he's a good person, right?

In other words. It's the difference between Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin. Someone who thinks about their actions and the consequences they have vs. someone who thinks he is so right that he can do anything he wants, without regards for the consequences, to achieve his goals.

 

[Freakshow]

The man who feels regret will stop to think about his actions, and examine his options more carefully. The man who doesn't will plunge ahead, confident that whatever he does is okay because it's him doing it, and he's a good person, right?

But now you are again talking about evaluating the best course of action, on a case-by-case basis. Which is different from just saying someone thinks they can do whatever they want when they want.

I think the point you are making is correct. But I think the way you are going about making it is too emotional. It seems that even when the results are identical, you just "feel" better about the person committing the violence if they regret it. Am I wrong about that?