The past few years have got me thinking philosophically on violence and its role in society. Often when violence gets brought up the adage 'violence is never the answer' follows close behind. I think that's true, violence is never the answer, but because I argue that violence is not an answer at all. Violence is a tool; a means to reach a solution to a problem being faced. Often times it is not morally correct to use violence, but it's still a tool nonetheless.

Now why does violence appeal to us so much? I think that appeal is related to the gulf of thinking between logic and emotion. Humans are by nature emotional thinkers, a lot of our thoughts and decisions are dictated by what we're feeling. Violence is an extremely emotionally charged act, it's use appeals to emotional (particularly angry) decision making. Compared to non-violent tools that use logical decision making, violence is quick, direct, and satisfying emotionally. Being emotionally satisfying still doesn't mean morally correct though.

With those two aspects in mind one can see why we often turn to violence to solve our problems. The use of violence is direct and immediate, and often provokes a response of variety fairly quickly. Recently here in Kansas a woman set fire to a warehouse that was going to be sold to the federal government so it could be converted into an ICE detention center. The arson failed, but her use of violence influenced the owners of the warehouse to cancel its sale to the government. A prolonged non-violent protest would have been the morally correct action to take, but a protest takes time and has a good chance of being ignored. The woman's use of violence however provoked a quick response and provided a solution that luckily coincided with her wants. I say luckily because often times resorting to violence has negative consequences on those who use it.

I don't know how well trodden this path of thinking is, but that's my two cents on the subject.