Recent events in places such as Charlottesville, Virginia has brought to light the moral question of violence and how we as a society justify and allow violence in both indirect and direct manners; as well as the merits of violence in problem-solving and decision-making. This is exemplified in the debate over the anti-fascist methodology as a structural tool of grassroots organization. The coined the phrase "punch a Nazi" best summarizes the methodology as a tool of direct action as a means of self-defense. Personal behaviors of individuals who embrace this philosophy has been illogically used to discredit the philosophical position on the grounds that it is a violent extremist ideology.
The paradox of people trying to claim that self-defense against white supremacist, Nazis, fascist, etc. is violence on par with the blatant aggression of far right ideology, in terms of historical precedent of violence; completely fails to acknowledge that "violence" is not a single spectrum of analysis. Acknowledging violence in multiple forms goes back centuries, arguably millennia, with afamous example with Dante Alighieri in his work the "Inferno" describes with the circle of violence broken up into three: violence against self, violence against others, violence against God. While it is rather arbitrary to designate these three particular categories, especially in a modern scientifically enlightened mindset; but it is important to recognize that not all violence can be seen as equal.
The any quality of violence was acknowledged during the most recent deadliest outbreak of the second world war; in which the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials allowed for and assessment and analysis of the crimes of war that outlined international law for the late 20th and 21st century. Concepts like "wars of aggression", "crimes against humanity", and many other important moral concepts were able to evolve once we divided and analyzed the cases of violence and atrocities.
A society and people who are incapable of perceiving the differences of violence, and how the differences have immense repercussions in context to the situations; exist in a morally neutral, even declining, society within a philosophically void civilization. One therefore is left with the question in its essence: can a philosophically void civilization survive; and if so, can one truly call it "civilized"?
