When is the use of force acceptable?

[Enemy of the State]

You are approached by a friend. He tells you that he really needs a quick loan so he can pay the rent this month or he'll get evicted. You agree to help him, but it's not enough. You find out that a mutual friend has refused to give him money. Is it acceptable to threaten to use violence against this friend who refuses to help to get him to cash up? Would you be able to make that threat yourself? What about if it wasn't just about a place to live, but buying medical treatment that could save a life?

Also, what if there was a large group of friends, say 10 people. 9 out of 10 agree to help out with whatever is being asked of them, but there is one dissenter. If this group took a vote on wheter or not to threaten the dissenter, does this democratic process make it okay?

[Helm]

It probably should only be used to stop someone from ding something you don't want, like say breaking into your house and stealing your TV, than to make someone do something you do want like give you money.

[Nimthill]

You'd have to define 'force' en 'violence'. Since manipulating people by asking them for something is already a form of force, I'd say we need a clearer definition.

[Enemy of the State]

What I mean by force is coercion. Forcing someone to act against their will with the threat of physical force.

[Khassaki]

What I mean by force is coercion. Forcing someone to act against their will with the threat of physical force.

Never.

[Tacitursa]

I dont see any reason for force or threats in any of those scenarios. A friend that refuses to help if they can isnt a friend, Forget about him/her and just ask another friend or family member. Ofcourse if they refuse to help for a good reason you just have to accept that.

Most people cannot afford to just hand over a months rent to a friend, They have there own bills to pay families to feed etc. Using force or threats will just make you look like a tool and you'll lose your friends very quickly.

And as far as i know you dont get evicted due to one missed payment, The person that needs help must have a problem with money or lack of responsibility, Refusing to hand money to someone like that is understandable.

If it's a life saving matter the bank/goverment will help you out.

[Border Patrol]

It's an allegory for the government.

[Ahlerich]

the force should be only used as a last resort. also make sure that anger or fear isnt controling you when you use the force.

[Col. Tartleton]

Force should always be used. Obviously.

Give me the strength and I'll move mountains, no amount of eloquence will move the deaf.

[Dan the Man]

Use violence to get him to give up money? Isn't that a little like mugging him?

[Elfdude]

You can't force someone to make a choice or the choice is no longer theirs. A choice made for you is an order not a moral decision. Thus it fundamentally can never be considered right. At best you can consider it necessary or justified however this still isn't the ideal which would be the person helping out through his own choice. You are however allowed to persuade someone in an honest fashion i.e. you can lead them to the choice you desire them to make you just can't force them to drink. No doubt with so many people persuading them they would agree without much fuss. Peer pressure can be a force for moral decisions just as it can be for immoral decisions.

So while the use of force may be acceptable when such a situation justifies it (Anything can be justified, justification by nature is relative) it is never morally preferable.

[chriscase]

If the people in the OP are friends, obviously coersion is way out of line. If the lender is a loan shark working in an organized crime family, I understand what you are talking about is the way things are done.

[Gaidin]

You are approached by a friend. He tells you that he really needs a quick loan so he can pay the rent this month or he'll get evicted. You agree to help him, but it's not enough. You find out that a mutual friend has refused to give him money. Is it acceptable to threaten to use violence against this friend who refuses to help to get him to cash up? Would you be able to make that threat yourself? What about if it wasn't just about a place to live, but buying medical treatment that could save a life?

Also, what if there was a large group of friends, say 10 people. 9 out of 10 agree to help out with whatever is being asked of them, but there is one dissenter. If this group took a vote on wheter or not to threaten the dissenter, does this democratic process make it okay?

What does your ability to give whatever you were able to give have to do with another friend's ability to be able(or unable) to give? There's a severe disconnect. Some people just flat out can't afford to churn out a few hundred dollars a month to help someone. They might be able to give him something like 20$ a week and help him with the basics like say, buying simple food like lunchmeat and bread. Some can't even afford that. Rent? That's an entirely different ballgame altogether.

[Nietzsche]

The intensity of coercion must balance with the severity of the circumstance.

In this case, the dissenter is well within his conscious right not to help. Without knowing the sundry details, I'm certain there are a multitude of reasons why a person would behave in opposition to a group, or, more importantly, in opposition to a required act.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness.

At least is you believe Nietzche.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Yeah, that scenario is theft. Theft is frowned upon. Especially when you forcefully take something from someone.

[Fight!]

Depends Leary, am I in the top quintile? If so, I'll shoulder the load myself.

How's that for allegory?

[Jom]

Let's get back to the topic shall we? Any more discussion that is not on the subject of the thought experiment will meet with a defying moderators infraction.

[ROFL Copter]

The use of force is only necessary when defending oneself or ones ideas. Meaning only in the case of a cheap excuse.

[Voodo chile]

If a friend was extremely poor and had to sell matches to make a living and one of his mates didnt buy matches off him then i wouldnt do anything tbh. A friend helps out friends but i guess there is a line. Its like accepting people off the street onto your house and offering free dinner to them every night. You may be able to accept one for a few nights but then 20? No way.
You could say thats greedy and selfish. I could say its trying to maintain my standard of living and having enough food to eat. I guess it something you have to negotiate. No one is saying you should or shouldnt. Personally i would weight up the pros and cons and i dont have a set of ridgid rules. I have rough guidelines of what and what not to do but ultimately it depends on the situation.
An example would be fighting people. See someone sitting at a bus stop. As you bike past he/she says "Queer". Obviously directed at me. I would not get into a fight with the person unless they start to make moves. In that case negotiate."None of that now ay!" . No need to fight unless they make threatening moves intending to cause grievous bodily harm. Even then i probably wouldn't fight.

If the same person were track me down and proceed to throw stuff at my house and walk onto my property and perhaps even wait on the road until i walk outside, then i would draw the line in the sand. I would go, "you bit the hand marty! You bit the hand of restraint." Then i would "fight". Now in this situation police dont exhist.
In this instance i would not bother to negotiate or run.

Obviously there would be people who would choose the opposite of me. There are different combinations. I say you choose the best option depending on the situation. I personaly believe that incredibly strong beliefs eg "never back down" or "always run away" are pretty stupid indeed.


e