Violence is Wrong

PRO has launched a bevy of counters to my claims. I will address them in order of foundational importance.I remind audiences of the key distinction between forms of violence:Natural Violence = #AHuman/Human Violence = #BRebuttalR1) First, I will rebut PRO's mischaracterization of my operating definition of "nature". I have no idea from where he got his "obtuse amalgamation" - that's a strawman from PRO. In fact, my stance is almost exactly the same as what he laid out except with one semantic clarification: "nature" is "the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not [caused] by people".Are we a part of nature as PRO insists? Yes...however, we are not morally responsible for what occurs outside of what we cause into being. The emphasis on morality in this debate explains my distinction between natural violence (#A) and human/human violence (#B).R2) This framing of nature then puts the trolley dilemma in the proper framework. The person at the lever (let's call him Bob) did not cause this situation to come into being. So, Bob is not responsible for what would occur had he not been there to make that choice. In the trolley dilemma, had Bob not been there, five people would have died due to an act of nature. This is why I do not hold Bob to be morally culpable for those deaths, because Bob's mere awareness of the situation does not change the outcome. Given the choice to save those five people while violently acting to kill one other person, the moral choice at that point becomes clear...Bob must act, and violently.In a utilitarian calculus, what matters is a relative comparison of choices to determine relative morality. In this case, the moral choice is clear, as saving five lives is better than saving one. To act or not act otherwise would be relatively immoral by comparison.R3) According to PRO, "consciousness is by definition action." I'm not sure I buy this at all. Is consciousness of a solar flare or a lunar eclipse actually action? This is prima facie absurd. We ACT upon such thoughts, so for example, if you wanted to see such events, you ACT by pulling out a telescope to view them. Gathering knowledge may be a conscious action, but mere consciousness is not action.Therefore, I would conclude that PRO is correct about choice, but incorrect about action. Bob had a choice to make, but not necessarily any action. By acting, Bob increased human-human violence (#B). This increase in violence is moral. By not acting, Bob allowed for an increase in natural violence (#A) to occur. This non-violence between humans is immoral.R4) PRO makes an interesting point about the ostensible absence of rational self-interest in the trolley dilemma. I posit several solutions to this quandary:a) The Golden Rule - given that we all hold our own interests at heart, it would follow that, absent any conflicts, we would respect similar notions in other people.b) The dead cannot further one's self-interest in any manner. With more people alive, more people will be thankful that Bob saved their lives (go Bob!), and may indeed express their thanks in ways that further Bob's self interest.Both of these notions augment and uphold the principle of rational self-interest. Unless PRO can debunk the viability of these arguments, I find that they are valid, universal perspectives for this scenario. I understand this adds a bit more detail to the stated problem, but I think it's not much of a stretch to do so, and easily conforms to common experience. The simple questions are thus: What profit do we gain from others' deaths? What profit can we gain from others' lives?R5) The final, underlined questions I asked in [R4] are relevant to PRO's discussion on living vs self-destruction. Even though I could argue that the tons upon tons of consumed meat and plant protein embody suffering beyond PRO's claims, for the purposes of this debate, PRO/CON agree that living humans achieve a greater good through their lives than their deaths. This further adds credibility towards anyone looking to save lives via the trolley dilemma, and affirms rational self-interest as a moral truism for this debate.R6) PRO also states: "If it were, for instance, very difficult to pull the lever to change tracks, blaming the course of events on nature might be more convincing."This is exactly true in the researchers' lab dilemma. It is extremely difficult for those 10 researchers to figure out who is going to die amongst themselves to save the rest. Imagine if the only tool they had for the task was one crowbar. If PRO requires such difficulty to be convinced, then this derivative of the trolley example should be most convincing. Or, the cannibalism on the lifeboat. Or, the doctor sawing off limbs for an amputee. If only they had it as easy as Bob...ConclusionPRO continues to conflate violence in nature (#A) with human/human violence (#B). He insists that we do so due out of considerations for consciousness, which I do believe I have debunked. Outside of that key point, I believe I have resolved any other differences of interpretation between PRO/CON. My thesis is clear: We are morally responsible for only violence that we cause. PRO does not contest that human/human violence can at times be synonymous to "fighting fire with fire", and when it is, it is the moral solution. Because of this, human/human violence can be moral or immoral. This negates the resolution.