I had written: "There may be occasions where violence is needed to stop a greater evil, but no good comes from violence." to which Eric Yost replied: "Could you explain this principle a little more thoroughly? I assume you are basing it on a belief that one cannot overcome evil with evil." I am basing it on the belief that what is worth doing in life differs from the absence of evil. It may be necessary to use violence to overcome a greater evil, but the question 'What should be done?' remains unaddressed. Eric continues: "Yet haven't good things resulted from violence? Didn't the Civil War bring about an end to slavery? Haven't workers gained rights and benefits as as result of violent strikes?" It is certainly better that slavery came to an end and workers gained rights, but the fighting of the Civil War did not produce the conditions necessary for slavery to be considered immoral nor did the violent strikes provide the conditions necessary for people to think that workers had rights. Eric concludes: "Isn't it more likely that violence routinely brings forth bad things but also allows good things to emerge? If not, why not?" Violence may allow good things to emerge but it does not cause them. Two reasons present themselves. The first is the most obvious, namely, that violence necessarily restricts freedom. As I said above, in some case this might be required, but violence necessarily involves a constraint on freedom. Second, violence is not an activity that involves reasoning regarding what is worth doing. Good government does not follow from a strategy for killing a certain number of people or certain people. Going to war and forming good government are two very different activities, though at times they may coincide. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html