Definition: Justification of violence is when there is a legitimate reason to be violent to an animate object.
My reasons for agreeing are as follows:
In the 10 Commandments God teaches not to kill. (Killing is a form of violence). When God gave these commandments to Moses he expected them to be followed, without them the Jewish people would be corrupt and chaotic. For example, If you kill someone you have destroyed the equality between yourself and the person you have killed as you have decided for them to die and for you to live. Therefore without rules we would turn into a violent species.
Violence can only lead to more violence. For example in Korea there are huge grudges between North Korea and South Korea. In 2010 is was found that a North Korean torpedo had been fired (on purpose) at a South Korean naval ship. Only eight months later North Korea fired 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, where the South Korean military was stationed, then South Korea sent fighter jets to fight back(it is only human nature to get revenge). Around 15 people were killed and 50 were wounded. This is an example of an on-going grudge that only leads to more violence.
Sometimes you do not need violence to get something done. The best example of this is Martin Luther King. He was able to lessen the amount of racism in the world with an unseen non-violent approach. Another example is Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi. He also had a non-violent approach to gaining independence for India from Britain. Both these people succeeded in making a change and both were against using violence. My reasons for disagreeing are as follows:
If people need to protect themselves in a life threatening situation then they should be allowed to use violence. In many countries there is a law that states that you can stand your ground, in other words you can use deadly weapons against an intruder who may harm you or your property. This is a fair and just law and it is likely to decrease...