I’ve been thinking a lot about something we all learned in ethics class: violence is only morally defensible when there is no choice left and you are defending yourself or others from immediate harm.
This principle applies whether we’re talking about individuals or entire communities.
Right now, we are watching something serious unfold in real time. An ICE agent recently shot and killed a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman during a federal enforcement operation, and people across the country are grieving and protesting. Many who saw video and eyewitness accounts say she posed no clear threat when she was killed. That tragic event has sparked peaceful protests nationwide and broad political backlash.
At other demonstrations, clashes have occurred and people have been hurt during confrontations with ICE agents. In some cases people have suffered severe injuries, including permanent damage after being hit at close range by their violence.
And yet, peaceful requests to stop the violence, to stop violating people’s rights, and to begin following the law have been ignored or met with further violence from ICE agents.
Here’s the question ethics pushes us to ask:
If violence is only justifiable as defense, then when that violence is coming from ICE agents toward peaceful people, what is the morally correct response of the peaceful? If peaceful people do all they can to avoid confrontation and are still met with violence, where is the line between self-defense and escalation?
I am not advocating violence. I am calling for violence to stop. I am calling for accountability, transparency, and justice from those who wield power. I am asking us to think deeply about the difference between defending ourselves and each other, and becoming the thing we condemn.
Peaceful protest is not weakness. It is an expression of moral strength when it stands firm against violence, not just in spite of it.
This pattern raises serious questions about whether force is being initiated by peaceful people or whether it is being started and increased by ICE agents. When those with power refuse to respond to peaceful appeals, escalate force, and continue to deploy violence against people who are unarmed and proclaiming peace, we must ask: what is the morally defensible path forward?
How do we protect life, dignity, and each other without becoming what we oppose? How do we demand justice without surrendering our humanity?
That’s not a rhetorical question. That’s a conversation our society desperately needs to have.
If you care about peace, if you care about justice, if you care about keeping our humanity intact even in moments of fear and anger, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Not to argue. Not to attack. But to think together.
#Peace #Justice #Ethics #Nonviolence #Humanity
PS. On a personal note.
Murder in cold blood is completely unacceptable. Ever.
Not when it’s Rebecca Good. Not when it’s Charlie Kirk. Not when it’s anyone, period.
The idea that some people will try to justify cold-blooded murder based on where somebody falls on a political spectrum is morally disgusting and unacceptable. Thankfully most of this country still agrees on this basic human truth.
I have seen polls showing that a percentage of people believe certain killings are justified depending on who the victim was. That is not justice. That is tribalism at its worst.
If someone defends cold-blooded murder because they agree or disagree with the victim’s politics, that’s a line I will not cross. And yes, that kind of thinking earns unfollows.
The cold-blooded murder of Rebecca good has inspired many unfriendings on social media and rightfully so.
If at the end of the day bloodthirsty Un-American Psychopaths are completely disassociated and cut off from the rest of us that is a good thing.
The individuals who have nothing to offer but moral rot are so severely outnumbered that their day is coming where they will no longer wield any power, have any influence over public policy, and will eminently be driven back into their small and pathetic disgusting little corners where they can’t harm anyone else anymore.
Hitler sympathizers from World War II didn’t have social media, so public shaming could not follow them. Today we have social media where things are permanent. A small percentage of immoral Psychopaths have the potential to be publicly shamed for the rest of their natural lives, good.
Not out of pettiness.
Out of principle.
Because there are many things we can debate in this country. Whether murder is wrong is not one of them.
#Peace #Justice #Ethics #Nonviolence #Humanity
I am taking a side in this. I am on the side of peace. I am on the side of human life. I am on the side of dignity. I am on the side of nonviolence.
And I am also clear about this.
I am pro self-defense as a last resort, when someone is actively being brutalized by violence and there is no other option left to protect life.
That is not a contradiction. That is moral consistency. Because standing for peace does not mean standing still while innocent people are being harmed. It means rejecting brutality as a tool. It means rejecting murder as a political weapon. It means speaking when force is used against the peaceful.
You don’t have to agree with everything I believe to be here. But you do have to believe that violence is not a political strategy.
Peace is not neutrality. Peace is a moral stance. That’s the side I’m on.
Tom

