The OP's question is tremendously broad, so I'll make the assumption that the question "why is violence wrong" refers to physical violence committed by one party against another party without that party's permission.
I suppose the short answer is that it depends on who you ask. Individuals and societies have their own definitions of physical violence and a sliding scale when it is right and when it is wrong.
I had an entire paragraph written in my head when I started this post, but I've since realized that it all depends on your point of view.
Pretty weak tea as responses go, please accept my apologies. ;D
The universe can't create right or wrong. The universe is naturally good and evil. IE- The sun is one item that helps plants grow that we use for food, and in this case is a good. But, sunburn is evil. Violence is a part of the goods and evils naturally occurring in the universe. Life has consequences, but violence is a must for the wolves to live. What is the concern here is--the good and evils "we' perpetrate upon one another. We are no different then the wolves--except we have a higher level of cog nation then the wolves, so we can reason things together to make a decision. Good and evil are one thing, but right and wrong are another. The universe cannot be right or wrong, so right and wrong is people's own inventen to control people's behavior, or to control people in a particular manner. We can't get a wolf to behave by reason not to kill a deer but only by training and punishment. Politicians can make killing a deer right or wrong by preference, depending on a hunting season that they approve. So, our inventon of right and wrong can only be for what certain individuals are entrusted to create to regulate the behavior of people. To harm another is against regulation except for just cause, That means the ones entrusted then, also, decide what is just and what isn't. So, violence is a must as it is created by the universe itself, and inherent in beings, people or animal. Good and evil between people comes under the heading of "morality, which is another subject. :)
Violence is a means to an end, used by all animals in the animal kingdom. Humans have a low inhibition to violence and killing. This is the nature of evolution. There is no right or wrong, just strength or weakness. The quicker we realize it, the easier it will be to understand human nature.
Life is violent, that's just the way it is. When a predator takes down and kills its prey it is violent. However, violence from the human standpoint, violence for the sake of violence is what makes humans such a detestable creaature.
If we say that violence is that an action that inflicts physical damage, then in that sense I wouldn't say it is ok unless you are being attacked and you can use it to teach your attacker to stop being a bully.
If we say that you are making faint punches at someone without ever really touching touching them, and that is enough to be violence, then I wouldn't say that is ok either unless you are already fighting someone to, again, teach them a lesson.
In the cases mentioned above, if we say these are necessary and sufficient conditions to define violence, then I would say violence is only ok if you are already being attacked and you are using violence to teach your attacker that violence is wrong.
It's an expression of the animal spirit, the very thing you want to repress if you want to get close to god.
And how in the world are you going to stab him/er with the special knife unless you manage to get close?
Quote from: No one on December 08, 2016, 10:19:11 PM
Life is violent, that's just the way it is. When a predator takes down and kills its prey it is violent. However, violence from the human standpoint, violence for the sake of violence is what makes humans such a detestable creaature.
Detestable to whom?
The cats are a bunch of vicious cunts.
Dogs are a horror to all meat on legs.
Detestable to ourselves?
But you raise the point
So are free of the taint
Quote from: Bad Penny II on December 10, 2016, 03:55:15 PM
...
The cats are a bunch of vicious cunts.
...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/2pHCxQtUttmHm/giphy.gif)
Sometimes I think that peaceful manifestations, while having more moral support from part of the general population (which is important), just doesn't get anything done.
If violence is a means to an end, and that end is admirable, does that put violence in a grey area? :notsure:
Quote from: Bad Penny II on December 10, 2016, 03:38:49 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on September 08, 2016, 10:28:37 AMThe universe is naturally good and evil.
No it's not.
Good and evil exist as a natural part of life forms capable of giving them those labels. It is the intent, the motivavion, that gives the action its "polarity".
Now, if you ask if killing to eat or killing to defend are always justifiable - that's a whole new kettle of comestables.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 13, 2016, 10:58:16 PM
Sometimes I think that peaceful manifestations, while having more moral support from part of the general population (which is important), just doesn't get anything done.
It does so.
There's the immunisation and health programs, education, disaster relief, local shops, the local library, on an on, peaceful manifestations get almost everything done.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 13, 2016, 10:58:16 PM
If violence is a means to an end, and that end is admirable, does that put violence in a grey area? :notsure:
Ye, unless it's a virtuous war 'cause then they get to wear white.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on December 15, 2016, 12:17:33 PMYe, unless it's a virtuous war 'cause then they get to wear white.
Ah, the Winter War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War). Unfortunately, in that one the good guys didn't triumph.