Violence should not be used to resolved a dispute

Two heads are often better than one. It is also usually more fun to work with a friend. These types of collaborations are common in many businesses, particularly professional services firms and startups.

Violence should not be used to resolved a dispute

By Mike Mercer The Montreal Review, April, Mike Mercer argues that man's actions can be controlled by violence but their minds can not, thus violence is no real solution. On the surface it would seem true. People often resort to violence in order to settle a dispute, but victory does not always bring a real end to the problem.

If we allow that the statement is true, we must admit that humans are foolish creatures because they continually think and act as if violence will resolve a problem.

However, if the statement is false, we are faced with the idea that violence is a valid means to an end. Why violence does not solve anything?

Violence should not be used to resolved a dispute

First, violence carries only the power to compel action, not the power to persuade opinions. Thus, a defeated foe may be forced to take certain actions or accept certain conditions, but his mind is unaltered.

The views he held before the war may still be held, reinforced by a hatred of the victor. He is usually convinced that his side was right in whatever dispute started the war. Second, most violence does not destroy the enemy entirely. The enemy is left reduced in strength and numbers but with a surviving core that can carry a grudge.

Thus, violence may be useful in the short term to secure a limited goal, control of a territory for example.

But it offers no long term solution to any dispute. In fact, violence usually has the opposite effect: An example that springs to mind is the trouble with Alsace - Lorraine. A small territory in Europe between France and Germanyit has been in dispute from the time Germany became a unified state.

Force of arms allowed it to be captured, but did not ensure that it would be kept. The use of force and the threat of future violence can keep a people under control, so long as the ruler is willing and able to employ these ruthless tactics.

However this is not a real solution, it is a suppression of the symptoms. The underlying cause of conflict, usually linked to unjust acts of the ruling peoples, remains and can surface at a later date. An example here would be the Native Americans.

They were forced out of their lands, their numbers greatly reduced, their movements and actions controlled through the diplomacy of violence.

The use of punitive expeditions may control a people but it can not address the deeply held views of said people. Thus after the will to oppress slackened, the Natives began making calls for the redress of past wrongs.

Violence won the invading Europeans a continent but it did not ensure a conflict free future. Thankfully, the conflicts we see here are mostly battles of words. So far, it would seem that violence does not solve anything. However, our exploration of the use of force has only been generic, we have not yet looked at specific forms or war.

There are two types of violence of interest which may offer a counter argument to our basic maxim; first a genocidal war, second an honorable war. The Biblical Old Testament actually offers us a lesson on genocide. After the Israelites had escaped Egypt and were on the march, God told them "Destroy your enemy totally; kill every last man woman and child, even their animals.

It would eliminate any chance of rebellion from a slave people or re-conquest from a displaced people. But the Israelites found this order morally difficult to carry out. So in the next battle, God said "Kill all those over age six, and take the children as your own.

Under this harsh logic, violence performed to an extreme would settle things permanently. Fast forward to the age of the Persians, Greeks and Romans.However, while family violence may arise as an issue in FDR, the subject of the dispute resolution in FDR is the parenting dispute, not the family violence.

Violence is never justified as a way to resolve disputes. | mcatessayattempts

FDR—which seeks to resolve a parenting dispute—is, therefore, to be distinguished from ADR that attempts to mediate or negotiate violence itself. The Supreme Court of India should take a relook at its decision because domestic violence in not a crime of private nature rather it is a violent act committed by one citizen against the other citizen and should not go .

has a plan or a philosophy that they believe will best help you resolve a dispute in a Non‐Violent manner. Again, remember the importance of winning, and remember that “winning” does not always involve beating someone.

Winning simply means that you have obtained your objective. Those charged are presumed guilty, and the courts should not hinder effective enforcement of the laws, rather, legal loopholes should be eliminated and offenders swiftly punished.

Court Violence: Targeted. TYPES OF LABOR DISPUTES AND APPROACHES TO THEIR SETTLEMENT These are the external evidences of the dispute; they do not tell us much about the basic controversy.

And there may be labor and more it is being recognized that such questions can be resolved through pro-. Jul 07,  · Violence is never justified as a way to resolve disputes. Posted on July 7, by mcatessayattempts Describe a specific situation in which violence might be justified as a way to resolve disputes.

Dispute resolution - Wikipedia