Achieving Justice

Achieving Justice

Can violence be justified as necessary to achieve justice and/or freedom for oppressed groups? What is non-violence struggle and/or resistance, and can it be a more effective way of achieving change than political violence? Or is its apparent moral superiority purchased at the cost of its strategic weakness in the face of superior force and/or structural violence and injustice?

Cristina Hure (5273517)

Professor Keith Haysom

POL 3162 B

03.11.2011

The political realm has been evolving and reconstructing itself through different forces, social attributes and powerful figures to achieve change ever since politics came to exist. Nonetheless, justice is always a significant quest and is displayed as a re-occurring trend to be attained as an ultimate end goal. The means in which justice has been achieved, is not always the most just or considerate to moral predominance. Historical progression has demonstrated that one of the easier ways to achieve justice is through violence, and those who commit such an offence are generally the oppressed to achieve equality or the oppressor to achieve power and co-operation. Justice though, by definition should not entail violent behavior although it is often necessary when states are threatened and must use coercive and violent means to regain peace and prosperity. In order for justice to be achieved in a conscionable manner, states and people must act in accordance with moral superiority unless external forces pose violent threats to the well-being of the hegemonic state and security to its people.

The most justifiable ideologies of how a state should act under threat are as follows: First, that force should be used to frighten enemies and/or acquire end goals. Secondly, that a state shall not act with violence unless external forces shall threaten it. Violence has most certainly been used besides to defend a states well-being and sovereignty. The purpose of this essay is to...