Violence is Wrong

RebuttalPRO lays out a clear argument, that "we almost all feel that, not only is there a definite distinction between [reading a book or stabbing someone,] but that one is intrinsically more favorable as a choice," because stabbing someone deals with "the negative effects caused to a victim," by one person injuring another.Recall that specifically for this debate, I have made a clear distinction between natural violence (#A), and human-to-human violence (#B), because for the purposes of morality, we can only be held accountable for #B. This distinction is not only central to my opening arguments, it will also become critical in all of my subsequent rebuttals. Whatever harm results from book-reading (oxygenation in cells leading to death by aging, thirst, hunger, etc) is clearly a case of #A, whereas the stabbing is clearly #B.I warned in my opening that it is very easy to conflate #A with #B. I will demonstrate that PRO is combining and conflating #A with #B on numerous occasions when it is inappropriate in a discussion about the morality of violence, since #A is not in any way relevant to a human standard for morality - we are simply not responsible for the violent acts of nature, even though we seek to mitigate its effect upon us. I will isolate instances of #A in PRO's arguments and demonstrate how an increase in #B can easily be deemed moral.The Trolley DilemmaPRO conflates #A with #B most clearly in his analysis of the trolley dilemma. He cites:"- Action A causes harm to five people.- Action B causes harm to one person."He is incorrect in his conceptualization of this scenario. There IS NO "Action A". Action A is an act of nature (#A), not of human action (#B) - thus, what PRO deems to be "Action A" is actually natural violence and inaction by humans. It is nature that causes those 5 deaths (#A), not the action of any one individual (#B). Indeed, it is HUMAN INACTION that causes those deaths (neutral #B, increase in #A).It is only through violent human action (increase in #B), that those five people are saved (greater decrease in #A). In this specific case, non-violence actually results in more deaths. (neutral #B, increase in #A)In a utilitarian calculus, all else being the same, fewer people dying is desirable and conforms to rational self-interest. So, in this utilitarian calculus for this specific dilemma, the more violent solution (increase in #B) is the moral solution, because it leads to fewer deaths (greater decrease in #A).This reasoning also applies to all of my derivatives of the trolley dilemma, i.e. the research lab, the lifeboat, and the doctor/amputee. In every one of these instances, non-violence through inaction actually results in more death (neutral #B, increase in #A). That death is caused by nature.Thus, I find PRO's charge that "By calling Action B the more moral, Con has accepted the very paradigm he purports to debunk," to be false, because Action B mitigates death by nature to a greater degree than the death caused by human action (increase #B, greater decrease in #A) and is thus the moral course of action.Utilitarianism and the Greater GoodPRO has doubts about the greater good thesis, as he states that it "seems to contradict the rational self-interest moral standard Con supposedly subscribes to."This is incorrect; there is no contradiction. My thesis accepts that nature may do us great harm, and that sometimes, it is appropriate to "fight fire with fire." What may be at times the most utilitarian course of action is for humans to inflict greater harm against each other (increase #B) in order to counter-act the inherent natural violence against humans (greater decrease in #A). This results in the greater good.Nature has instilled violent, self-destructiveness (#A) in our very being. If we do not eat, we starve. If we do not breathe, we suffocate. In order to counter-act this natural violence, we must do violence to our environment in return, sometimes against other individuals (#B). To feed ourselves, we must destroy plant or animal life. To prevent suffocation, we must breathe air that would otherwise be needed to sustain the lives of others. The latter is most clearly illustrated in the research lab example...all of the researchers realize the necessity of violently killing off some of their own (increase #B) in order to provide enough air to save the rest (greater decrease in #A). Non-violence would actually result in all of their deaths (neutral #B, increase in #A). This is very similar to the concept of a controlled burn to fight a forest fire, i.e. "fight fire with fire". All of this is consistent with rational self-interest, because it's in none of the researchers' interests to have them all die.In this sense, both PRO/CON agree that "insofar as violence exists, it is not desirable for living beings" - however, the key difference between PRO/CON and why I advocate for human violence not necessarily being morally wrong is that I believe in an overall decrease in violence against humans found in nature (#A) AND humans (#B), even if that requires an increase in violent human interactions (increasing #B) to accomplish such a goal - PRO however sees all human violence as immoral, and that is where he is mistaken. The increase in #B serves to counter-act the inherent natural violence against humans (i.e. decrease #A by a greater amount), and is thus a moral application of violence.Keep in mind that humans are not responsible for and largely have no control over natural violence (#A), which is why only human-to-human violence (#B) is considered when it comes to morality.ConclusionPRO is correct in that this topic is quite abstract. I hope my presentation has clarified upon the moral nature of violence, and how in certain situations, human-to-human violence may very well be moral and desirable. Such a stance negates the resolution.I understand I did not rebut all of PRO's points. I reserve the right for further rebuttal.