Moral justification for rioting

[JohnLocke]

What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?

Releasing pent-up emotions such as rage, frustration, etc. when realistically there is no other way to release them.

 

[JohnLocke]

Thanks for the response, but I think there's a false assumption in the statement "when there is realistically no other way to release them."

Cannot the people who would riot to release these pent up emotions:

Engage in peaceful protest, political action, community activity, go to counseling, vent upon inanimate objects like punching bags, remove themselves from the frustrating and aggravating situation?

I suppose under this logic, it is morally justified for me to burn down Big Ben because I am frustrated and angry that Barrack Obama is President and I cannot realistically change that fact.

The primary problem I have with this is targeting. To take Ferguson as an example, whoever those people were angry or frustrated with I doubt it was the corner baker, the McDonald's or the auto parts store had anything to do with it. Even if one were to accept your premise that pent up emotion justifies lashing out with deadly force, why is there no requirement that the lashing out be towards the people or things that caused the emotion?

 

[High Fidelity]

Releasing them is one thing, being heard is another.

If a group of people are ignored and have been wronged, it's unsurprising that they try to 'make a bang' to draw the attention of their wrongdoers.

 

[JohnLocke]

Releasing them is one thing, being heard is another.

If a group of people are ignored and have been wronged, it's unsurprising that they try to 'make a bang' to draw the attention of their wrongdoers.

Unsurprising sure, but justified? It is unsurprising that those intent on genocide will use starvation as a tool, but does that make it moral? It is unsurprising that drug dealers will give out free samples in order to create an addicted, captive market, but does that make it moral?

If the problem is tactical, wouldn't burning down the wrongdoer's property make more of a bang than an innocent third party? If your beef is with the Government or the Police, why is it justified to burn my house down?

 

[High Fidelity]

Unsurprising sure, but justified? It is unsurprising that those intent on genocide will use starvation as a tool, but does that make it moral? It is unsurprising that drug dealers will give out free samples in order to create an addicted, captive market, but does that make it moral?

If the problem is tactical, wouldn't burning down the wrongdoer's property make more of a bang than an innocent third party? If your beef is with the Government or the Police, why is it justified to burn my house down?

I'd say it's justified in certain situations, yes.

But this shouldn't be surprising either. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and yet most people considered him a hero.

The third party thing has always bugged me though, yes. It was the same here when an unarmed kid was shot(Which is really rare in itself that anyone gets shot), a lot of kids took it upon themselves to use that as a reason to be disorderly and basically just go out trashing things and robbing businesses.

 

[JohnLocke]

Check out Terrorism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

With respect Tywin, I do not see a meaningful difference between this definition of terrorism and the rioting you describe.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Releasing pent-up emotions such as rage, frustration, etc. when realistically there is no other way to release them.

This is not true. All over the world people are repressed. People don't riot all over the world... especially in the most repressive places. It takes community organizers trained to make these things happen. The leaders need to be identified and then the organizations paying their salaries need to be identified and prosecuted under RICO and their trust fund assets need to be seized.

 

[High Fidelity]

John -- Sorry, it won't let me quote you, it just shows up blank.

What I meant was that sometimes the end justifies the means in peoples eyes.

 

[KWCrazy]

I was disgusted to see the utter depravity and animal behavior displayed during the riots. I was ashamed to admit that these bi-pedal beasts were actually Americans. Who but a fool would burn down minority owned businesses in his own home to protest the killing of an out of control criminal who attacked a police officer? Most of the businesses destroyed were locally owned. The church that the family of the young criminal attended was burned. Does this make sense to anyone? What we saw was a pathetic display of abnormally low intellect inspired by misplaced rage. Much of the anger was fueled by other criminals who lied under oath about what happened; a media more intent on stirring up a big story than reporting the truth, and a president who had neither the class nor the leadership to say that Michael Brown was not innocent and the officer's story was substantiated by the evidence and the testimony of minority witnesses. Instead he played community organizer and talked mostly about the historic injustice that can only be overcome with more black cops.

News flash, Obama. Race had NOTHING to do with it. You're every bit the liar as Sharpton and Jackson.

 

[Ken-1122]

The primary problem I have with this is targeting. To take Ferguson as an example, whoever those people were angry or frustrated with I doubt it was the corner baker, the McDonald's or the auto parts store had anything to do with it. Even if one were to accept your premise that pent up emotion justifies lashing out with deadly force, why is there no requirement that the lashing out be towards the people or things that caused the emotion?

In Ferguson, I don't think the people who were frustrated were the ones rioting; I think they were the people who live there who initially were trying to prevent the violence. I think most of the violence came from the anarchist most from out of town who saw an opportunity to riot, steal, and destroy, under the pretense of fustration.

K

 

[RDKirk]

In Ferguson, I don't think the people who were frustrated were the ones rioting; I think they were the people who live there who initially were trying to prevent the violence. I think most of the violence came from the anarchist most from out of town who saw an opportunity to riot, steal, and destroy, under the pretense of fustration.

K

This did happen in the case of Ferguson, but it's not always that situation.

I've never seen the point or justification of rioting, not even when I was an "angry teenager" in the 60s.

I'm not sure, though, that this rioting is actually any different from the rioting done by jubulant (or angry) mobs after sports events. Somewhere there is a common disregard for society that requires only a trigger to release. The triggers are different, but the disregard for society is the same.

 

[Inkachu]

.

 

[JohnLocke]

John -- Sorry, it won't let me quote you, it just shows up blank.

What I meant was that sometimes the end justifies the means in peoples eyes.

I'm assuming that this is some kind of Act Utilitarianism, but I'm having a hard time formulating the premise:

1. Rioting is morally permitted (or even compelled) because taken as a whole the positive benefits of rioting outweigh the costs?

2. It is moral for me to burn an innocent third party's business to the ground because the benefit to me and society of venting my emotions in this way, outweighs the negative consequences (the loss of the business, fear, loss of public order, etc.)

What end is rioting the means to? If it is "release of pent up emotion" may I suggest counseling as a far more utilitarian alternative. If it is political change, may I suggest voting as a far more utilitarian alternative.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm assuming that this is some kind of Act Utilitarianism, but I'm having a hard time formulating the premise:

1. Rioting is morally permitted (or even compelled) because taken as a whole the positive benefits of rioting outweigh the costs?

2. It is moral for me to burn an innocent third party's business to the ground because the benefit to me and society of venting my emotions in this way, outweighs the negative consequences (the loss of the business, fear, loss of public order, etc.)

What end is rioting the means to? If it is "release of pent up emotion" may I suggest counseling as a far more utilitarian alternative. If it is political change, may I suggest voting as a far more utilitarian alternative.

As I've mentioned before, I dont see rioting as ever a good response. However, I also see circumstances in which voting for a minority is a useless gesture.

I haven't studied the situation for Ferguson very closely, but from what I've gathered (admittedly, shallowly), the situation of mose of the blacks being clustered into one area means that the one (currently black) assemblyperson for their area gets outvoted on policies that will adversely affect that area.

If so, even a 100 percent vote from that area is fruitless against adverse policies.

 

[High Fidelity]

I'm assuming that this is some kind of Act Utilitarianism, but I'm having a hard time formulating the premise:

1. Rioting is morally permitted (or even compelled) because taken as a whole the positive benefits of rioting outweigh the costs?

2. It is moral for me to burn an innocent third party's business to the ground because the benefit to me and society of venting my emotions in this way, outweighs the negative consequences (the loss of the business, fear, loss of public order, etc.)

What end is rioting the means to? If it is "release of pent up emotion" may I suggest counseling as a far more utilitarian alternative. If it is political change, may I suggest voting as a far more utilitarian alternative.

1. It's entirely circumstantial -- I can see times where rioting and excess are the only means to force someone's hand. There's only so long a valid cause can be ignored before people use excessive means.

2. I already stated my opinion on third parties. I don't agree with it.

 

[Ken-1122]

1. It's entirely circumstantial -- I can see times where rioting and excess are the only means to force someone's hand.

When has rioting ever forced somebody's hand?

Ken

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Cannot the people who would riot to release these pent up emotions:

Engage in peaceful protest, political action, community activity, go to counseling, vent upon inanimate objects like punching bags, remove themselves from the frustrating and aggravating situation?...

If they do not have the required cognitive intelligence, required emotional intelligence, personal diplomatic skills and/or collective diplomatic resources, financial means to use mental health services or awareness of the existence of such services, etc., then, realistically, no.

 

[Euler]

I was disgusted to see the utter depravity and animal behavior displayed during the riots. I was ashamed to admit that these bi-pedal beasts were actually Americans. Who but a fool would burn down minority owned businesses in his own home to protest the killing of an out of control criminal who attacked a police officer? Most of the businesses destroyed were locally owned. The church that the family of the young criminal attended was burned. Does this make sense to anyone? What we saw was a pathetic display of abnormally low intellect inspired by misplaced rage. Much of the anger was fueled by other criminals who lied under oath about what happened; a media more intent on stirring up a big story than reporting the truth, and a president who had neither the class nor the leadership to say that Michael Brown was not innocent and the officer's story was substantiated by the evidence and the testimony of minority witnesses. Instead he played community organizer and talked mostly about the historic injustice that can only be overcome with more black cops.

News flash, Obama. Race had NOTHING to do with it. You're every bit the liar as Sharpton and Jackson.

Wow.

Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.

 

[Lilly45]

What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?

There is no moral justification for rioting. Rioting abuses innocent people, destroys homes, property, burns businesses to the ground, is violent and unwarranted. If you want to change the system you do it through non-violent means and you work to incorporate your values into the system. Any type of violence like this is fruitless and does nothing but destroy innocent people.