Is Violence Ever Justified? | Steven Pinker, Tariq Ali, Elif Sarican

Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/fires-of-progres...
Are struggle and conflict the forces of progress rather than reason? Is violence ever justified as a political strategy?
From the French and Russian Revolutions to the Suffragettes, violent action has been instrumental to creating a better world. Are struggle and conflict the forces of progress rather than reason? Is violence ever justified as a political strategy? Or should we always venerate Gandhi over Guevara?
Author of Enlightenment Now and Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, political activist and author of The Clash of Fundamentalisms Tariq Ali and activist of the Kurdish women's movement Elif Sarican investigate progress. Oxford Professor of History Rana Mitter hosts.
#violence #protest #suffragettes
Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics. The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below You can watch this debate, Is Violence Ever Justified, in full at iai.tv/video/fires-of-progress?KZbin&

[@BuceGar]

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

[@drystkrab269]

someone once said " struggle is the father of all things."

[@raycooper1943]

Heraclitus

[@Michael.Eddington]

Thanks for the upload

[@brianoloo8927]

Interesting discussion. How power dynamics and inequality leave the door to violence inevitable despite noble principles. Ill have to meditate on this.

[@danielm5161]

The panelists on the left aren't taking into account that if you leave the door open to violence being justified at all then that allows anybody from any perspective to create their own reason for justifying their own violent actions. We don't live in a perfect world and there may be situations where measured violence may prevent the greater saving of lives but keeping "Violence is sometimes justified" as a corner stone to your moral philosophy will ultimately cause more violence than it prevents, reason being is that anybody can adopt the principle for any reason they themselves define "justified".

[@gazinta]

Precisely. But first a person must establish a moral high ground. To save time, many will resort to de-humanizing the opposer by calling them an oppressor. That woman is a good example of making the case: "If it weren't for men, violence wouldn't exist.". She is clearly taking a position that women are morally superior to men, but men have all the power. For a better society, men need to relinquish that power to women, and become their subordinates. She's one step away from saying if she can't convince people by democracy, than resorting to violence and taking power by force might be necessary if she wants to achieve her goals before she dies. The men are saying that communism and Nazism are bad, but then she goes back to her anectodal experiences in Syria as the justification for necessary violence to achieve goals of oppressors. They've pretty much told her that her women's lib struggle is cute, but not like being killed 100 million at a time. I'm sure her gender studies professor is proud of her, but that Arab looking guy in the audience looked like he wanted her head on a pole! She equated women's suffrage to an annihilation of an entire people. That's disingenuous at very best. That Canadian guy is pretty persistent, and it's as if he's reading a book that he wrote himself. He tends to take a centrist approach, and has stats in his memory. The guy with the moustache is equally smart, but very guarded and snobbish. Towards the end, the woman goes right back and rallies the audience claiming that the majority of the audience agrees with her, yet she knows nothing about their backgrounds. She then projects her anectodal experience with vague generalizations. That's not debating, that's selling.

[@harleywykes4971]

This channel deserves way more subscribers

[@AdamPitas]

Great debate, amazing moderator, but it was too short! I think a two hour debate would have been much more fruitful. Perhaps even some sort of consensus would have been reached if the debaters were given an hour or so to define the concept of violence. They finally got on the same wavelength right as the debate ended and that's when the conversation would have been deepest.

[@sowelie1]

Nice debate, but sound is a bit out of sync.

[@lsobrien]

Pangloss was a professor of Voltaire’s invention, who, despite living in a world where rape, destitution, war and weaponised stupidity were all commonplace, insisted that this was the “best of all possible worlds”. Certainly living between the ivory tower and the highest courts of the land helped in maintaining the delusion. But even when he was forced face-to-face with just some of the horrors produced by his species, his insufferable brand of Optimism, that had made him a star in salons across Europe, prevented him from registering them. So it is with Steven Pinker. His grand thesis goes: as capitalism went global, so did Liberalism, and they, together, became the source of all good things. Passed over is the brutal institution of capitalism, of which Marx (capitalism’s greatest surveyor yet) was only too aware. "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of … capitalist production." Blankly ignored is the forceful imposition of state-backed capital in the “Third World,” an invention of that those Victorian decades. An overlooked and tragic period explored by Mike Davis,⁶ during which perhaps 60 million perished. It was the IdEas of Locke, Hobbes, Malthus and the race scientists⁷ which carried the day. The horror of the industrial revolution in Europe is only mentioned in the context of how better it is for the majority of the population now compared with then. It is often said that “capitalism lifted millions out of poverty,” without considering what it is was that dispossessed them (and finished off so, so many) to begin with. Morons on message boards may be excused, a “leading public intellectual” can not. medium.com/@lsob/the-new-charlatans-73bc6d198491 Thank goodness for the other speakers, Ali in particular.

[@mycount64]

violence (against authority) is often used too soon and sometimes necessary. The problem is once started there is no way to know where it will escalate to... nuclear war?

[@uncleouch9795]

I was going to say yes and mention a few historic and defense reasons. For political reasons? Not generally.

[@MxLee192]

This debate required way more time than offered.

[@Christianvalentinbooks]

The protest by Thích Quảng Đức is good example of violence or peaceful manifestation?

[@hamzariazuddin424]

hmm interesting. big fan of tariq but find myself listeningg even more intently to the young woman Eli. very well researched and good arguments. Pinker we know where he stands and in fairness, although i dont agree with his POV on most thngs, does present a fair case for his point with stats

[@alexandernay5631]

The development of pro-social tendencies within human-beings, were developed within functional bands, and communities of, distinctly cooperative women: and sometimes men. Mothers and Others, Hrdy* With the recent historical context of the state, and patriarchal oppression: Does the normalized domination and oppression of half of the population of the planet, have have something to do with violence.

[@shaolin89]

As usual, Pinker has the best arguments.

[@horkade]

I would think twice before entering in a debate where Pinker is in the opposite side.

[@gazinta]

No he doesn't. I do.

[@danielgyllenbreider]

That omelette and eggs quote can be attributed to Napoleon, not some later russian leader.

[@abhishekdb9800]

I don't understand much of what Elif Sarican is saying

[@TheOlzee]

Stupidest question ever. Of course it is. Not only that it’s compulsory at times. Trouble is you often get two people believing in two separate things will fight over s particular thing but one of the two parties is ALWAYS right.

[@Airehcaz]

“Political education” as an idea feels...like it could go wrong pretty quick.

[@alexandernay5631]

The notion of political education, when it's aims, are critical conciousness around the issue of gender based violence and oppression, is distinct from the sort of "education" that takes place with American schools, for example. 1) its not controlled by a beaurocratic state 2) in Rojava, they are try to self direct, a social change within the society, on the basis of women's liberation. --- it's a very concious and intentional thing.

[@tymanning2832]

Such a complex question that can’t really be fully answered in 40 minutes. It would also be great if this wasn’t all a panel of people on the left side of the political spectrum.

[@MemberNo2]

Pinker: Violence is not justified for bringing about socio-political change when effective non-violent alternatives are available. Violence may be justified when it's the only option for mitigating greater violence. Sarican: You're a white middle-class male who's never experienced oppression first hand. Ali: I'm going to sit here with my arms folded tightly against my chest and look up at the ceiling whenever you speak.

[@jessicastrat9376]

Anything with pinker deserves a thumbs up

[@andrewmorton3344]

22:45 During a debate, when someone says "you know" and follows it up with "kind of", I cannot help but be "sort of" disappointed.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

You know, I kind of agree

[@firstal3799]

The woman is much smarter and authentic on the given topic.

[@cloudgalaxy9231]

Pinker felt like he was arguing against all three at one point. (But I'll still give the moderator a pass because he wasn't softballing the other side. Though he definitely was harder on Pinker.) I think Tariq's Israel/Palestine conflict example is a bad one. There's so many factors in the conflict, the foremost one being religion. I would argue that the second most pertinent one is the "tit-for-tat" / "eye-for-an-eye" attitude between the two groups. The cycle is unending that way. How do you make it so that one's rights don't get trampled on by another state? That's more complicated than saying definitely " you CAN or CANNOT use violence". Pinker was arguing this more mediated position. It seemed like an undertone of his "whiteness" was frustrating Tariq and Ali. Pinker represents the old way of thinking because he (a well off Canadian) is living a cush life where he doesn't have to deal with the problems minorities experience in the "real" world. The identity behind the ideals seems like a more important point then the ideals themselves. But honestly, do the laws of physics only work for Christians because Newton was an insane Christian? I'm probably reading far too much into the subtext of this debate, but that's still the vibe I was getting.

[@Arcsprite]

Steven Pinker has persuaded me. It’s good to have your mind changed

[@inpugnaveritaas]

This is nonsense. Violence is ONLY physical. The attempts to redefine violence as something more ethereal, to use it as a means to justify violence against others who do not agree with you, is disgusting.

[@simonkaroly1]

Keep following that line of logic. Does denying access to healthcare or clean water cause physical harm? Cutting welfare programs? Economic sanctions that cause deaths of civilians? How about oil companies literally destroying the fucking planet? The Stasi used a technique called 'Zersetzung', basically psychological warfare, is that non-violent?

[@davidhance9572]

As usual, my man Steven Pinker is on top of the game.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

24:55 “If you need to transform an aspect of society but you’re not being listened to then yes [its justified to use violence]” Dangerous words. For example, I feel that I need to transform the bakeries in society and I don’t feel listened to, therefore I’m justified in using violence. By this woman’s words.

[@Bo2gLiTcHmAsTeRtRoLl]

Christ almighty, gotta love Pinker's red-scare liberal idealism.

[@Abraham_Tsfaye]

Excellent Tariq Ali.

[@duranleaujean-francois1088]

Violence as a manifestation of the patriarchy... please!

[@danielgyllenbreider]

True. We can see many female leaders choosing violence in absurdum as the first goto throughout history. The most recent would be Hillary Clintons destruction of Libya and the sodomization of Ghaddaffi with a bayonet and his following death.

[@gazinta]

I know some pretty violent feminists. I suppose it's a reaction to the patriarchy, therefore men's fault, too?

[@gazinta]

@@danielgyllenbreider Just Clinton? Women have been clubbing their husbands over the heads for years! Even the heroines of the Old Testament Bible were brutal and disobedient.

[@NerdyRodent]

Some past violence can be justified. Current and future violence are a different question altogether.

[@firstal3799]

That's a failure of imagination.

[@livondiramerian6999]

Violence isn't justified, anyone could attain his goals through peaceful means. Those who use violence will backfire on them.

[@jeanniedevereaux5857]

Steven Pinker is a legend

[@marypoole6064]

Monsanto Roundup/Agent Orange--Glyphosate etc.--get Monsanto/Bayer out of America---join the glyphosate residue project---

[@DG_Haus]

No it isn't

[@bt404]

@32:19 - tariq Ali is savage 🤣 pinker is so out of his depth here. And all of his logic pedant sycophants actually think he belongs on this stage.

[@biswajitdas6962]

What was that tarik ali ?

[@mitseraffej5812]

Like Canada, Australia and New Zealand also gained their independence from the UK through non violent means. For all but the original inhabitants of those lands, who to this day are still lorded over by colonial descendants.

[@steeneugenpoulsen8174]

I don't get that white haired guys argument, he is basically saying that slaves shouldn't revolt because more people get killed due to the uprising. We still have slavery today even if not as bad as the old school slavery..

[@rumco]

It's funny because Pinker supports State as a concept, which is nothing but violence and threat of.

[@davidanderson9664]

Boy - as well as being one of the smartest people on the planet, Pinker does such a good job at trying to teach idiots who can't or won't be taught. D.A., NYC ---and maybe the trolls below should actually read one of his books? And a lot of OTHER books besides. Start with history...

[@buddinganarchist]

Pinker cowers from Chomsky so Ali is a good sub.

[@danielgyllenbreider]

Beware of the so called "autonomous" ones. - some marxist-leninist guy:)

[@sullivan241]

She’s dripping in ideology and would be better convo without her. All vague statements with buzzwords. She’s probably praised as genius in her bubble.

[@benjamintran3894]

@Charlie That's a meaningless statement. Everybody's views in some way "drip with ideology." What you mean to say is that what she's saying is making you feel uncomfortable. It's OK to admit that.

[@kallencornish6293]

I don't fully agree with Pinker, yet he is clearly the intellectual superior to his opponents.

[@Olsonic]

I really don't know how Steven stays so calm and professional around these half wits.

[@chrishansen7287]

Steven Pinker actually thinks that violent revolution/resistance means mass killings. What a pseudo-intellectual.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

Quote or time stamps please

[@keith5546]

Don't bring an activist to an intellectual discussion in which people are trying to seek the truth through logic, facts and reason.

[@andrewmorton3344]

22:45 During a debate, when someone says "you know" and follows it up with "kind of", I cannot help but be "sort of" disappointed.