On what had been a pleasant morning run, I saw a man with a machete emerge from the woods. He yelled at me, then started sprinting in my direction. I felt an instant of fear, for I know the damage a machete can do to the human body. Then cold clarity took over, as it always does in times of danger. I have faith in my speed and endurance, but my speed failed me that day: the man caught up to me with shocking speed. I spun to face him, crazily hearing the line from One Piece that “scars on the back are a swordsman’s shame.” More rationally, I knew that death was almost certain if he was able to hack at my back.
A past misfortune in the park suddenly seemed fortunate. In 2023 my dog Remy was attacked by another dog and I, contrary to the advice of experts, intervened. Remy got a trip to the emergency vet; afterwards I took myself to the ER where I was treated for rabies and had my hand x-rayed to check for teeth fragments. After that, I always walk and run with (legal) weapons. As such, I was well armed when the man caught up to me. I, of course, deployed my best weapon: I spoke to him.
He stopped and lowered what I had seen as a machete. While he was armed, it was with just a hefty stick. To this day, I use this as an example of how our perceptions can be mistaken when we are afraid—I perceived the metal blade of a machete when it was just a stick. I was still concerned, but fighting a man armed with a stick is different than facing a foe with a machete.
After a few minutes of confusing conversation, he explained that someone had stolen his laptop from his apartment and fled towards the park. I assured him that I did not have his laptop. He then set off at a jog to find the perpetrator. I, of course, had to follow him. He immediately ran into another runner, and I helped convince him that the runner did not steal his laptop. He moved on, and I ran with him, to protect him and others he might encounter. Eventually he calmed down and said he was going home; I said farewell and finished my run.
I briefly thought about contacting the police, but I feared for his safety. Like anyone who follows the news, I knew that there would be a chance that if an officer saw him with a stick, they would be “afraid for their life” and shoot him. They might, as I did, perceive him as armed with a machete or even a gun. I never saw him again, but I hope he is okay and that he has a new laptop.
Since that incident, I have thought about my philosophy of violence, working out my principles. Each new episode of violence in the news, such as when ICE agents kill people, sets me thinking about a philosophy of violence again. I have, obviously, decided to start writing up my philosophy of violence. But I will begin with my backstory to provide context and to help me better understand my biases.
I grew up in a small Maine town, far from wars and criminal violence. That said, my backstory includes familiarity with the ways of violence. When I was a kid, my parents worked at a summer camp. One perk was that my sister and I were able to participate in the activities as if we were paying campers. I like to joke that I was trained in medieval warfare: I was taught fencing by an Olympic medalist and trained in horseback riding and archery. While this was sports rather than violence, my experience in fencing taught me about facing another person in combat.
I started shooting BB guns early on, then real guns as soon as my dad allowed that. I was soon hunting and was thus made familiar with guns and killing animals. I have been shooting my whole life, so I am comfortable with guns and noise. I was also properly trained in the responsibilities one takes on when one is armed.
When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons, I had the unwise idea that me and my friends should make our own weapons and fight each other for real. I had a wooden shield, a flail and a wooden sword while my friend Mike favored a croquet mallet as a Warhammer. While there were injuries, this was not real battle (although there was blood and stitches)—but it did increase my familiarity with being in a fight.
While running is useful for escaping fights, it also had a calming effect on me, shaping my disposition and allowing me to endure pain and discomfort.
When I started graduate school in 1993, I decided to earn my black belt in Tae Kwon Do and did so just before I completed my doctorate. That made me even more familiar with fighting and I continue to train to this day. The meditation and moral aspects of the training are also critical, enhancing the pain tolerance and calmness arising from my running. I am, of course, a philosopher—so talking is a core skill for me.
Because of my background, I was well suited for that encounter. Although the attempt to run away failed, that turned out to be for the best. Because of my experience and training, my reason remained in control during the encounter—fear and anger did not become my masters. And these are terrible masters, for they can lead us to unnecessary violence. While I was not sure I could have won the fight, should it have come to that, my competence in violence gave me the confidence to choose not to use it. This might strike some as odd, but my experience has been that the stronger a person truly is, the less inclined they are to use violence. Needless violence seems to arise most often from the fear of those who think themselves strong but know they are weak, the anger of those who lack self-discipline and those ruled by vices such as cruelty. I do my best not to be that sort of person, for they can easily act like monsters.
I provide this backstory, as noted above, to set the stage for the discussions to follow in which I develop my philosophy of violence. I am writing from my own biased perspective and part of sorting out my philosophy of violence is trying to see how my backstory is shaping (or distorting) my view. In the following essays, I will develop my religious view of the ethics of violence and my moral view of violence.
An interesting story. Great concepts are great, but nothing beats great concepts backed by real life experience. Of course, the real life experiences aren’t uncommon, but most people don’t know what to make of them, or draw the wrong conclusions.
I disagree about ICE ‘killing people’ in the case of the woman who unfortunately died. I saw the videos, the women were provoking the ICE with condescension and sarcasm. A foolish strategy to use with people in general, even less with people who under that circumstance, have significant powers over you. The ICE, at least temporarily, had the right to demand that the person steps out of the car. This means the person was being temporarily detained. The woman (sorry can’t remember the name) instead decided to ignore the cop and to simply leave. A foolish decision.
The reality is that most people, in their ignorance and hubris, take foolish decisions. This is not to say that the woman deserved to die, certainly not, and it’s really sad that she did. But die she did, and now her partner will have to deal with the sense of guilt, for she contributed to the misfortune that happened, although of course she is not guilty of her partner dying; only for contributing to the provocation.
Sure, the cop seemed an ‘A-hole’. It will have to be seen where he stand, legally speaking. I am not a lawyer. But I believe the cop still had the right to do what he was doing, at least for the time being. It would have been a matter for a later dispute, probably in a court of law, to evaluate what the cop had been doing and if he abused his powers. But for the time being, the woman should have stepped out of the car and doing as she was told: that is why the police etc is there for, to do these things.
This should never be forgotten. I too once acted in a cocky way with immigration. I was certain I had done nothing wrong, and I was right, as the poor woman was. But even though nothing too bad happened to me, I would have not repeated my idiotic behaviour.
As Seneca wrote: it’s never worth it making enemies, for if they are more powerful than you, they can do you harm, and if they are weaker, they aren’t worth it.
Again, I am genuinely sad about the woman’s death, but in a way I do understand why the cop became angered: he felt not being taken seriously and even mocked. Of course, I am not justifying his shooting, but neither I am dismissing it as ‘unjust’. The law will have to decide if he truly had reason to believe the woman was going to commit an offense, I believe this being the only good reason why he would be not found guilty.
Let’s face it, most people don’t know what the heck they are doing. This includes cops too, I am certainly not defending them.
The death of the woman is sad and should not have occurred. Unfortunately, she played a significant part in it, I believe.
I am quite shocked that a philosopher like you ‘hunts’, i.e. kills animals, I am pretty sure unnecessarily since you weren’t starving. I know you already wrote about your use of guns and I haven’t read that, so it is true that I ignore your reasons for doing what you do, or did, if you don’t anymore.
PS. actually, I am not so shocked at your use of guns: I guess to many Americans this is not so strange, although it may be to non-Americans. But ‘hunting’ is a totally different thing than just owning guns and shooting at empty bottles or whatever. Needless to say, I think it reveals a base nature to harm or kill any animals. But I too did base things very occasionally when I was a child, and I can’t explain it, though I never harmed animals and am proud of that, but this doesn’t change the fact that I still remember I did something mean and cruel.
For context: I did ask an experienced psychologist and he assured me that if I had done these things only once, this is ‘nothing to be concerned about’. But if I had done them repeatedly, this would be completely different.
I did them only once, indeed. But still to me this is a great mystery and something I am profoundly ashamed about, so I don’t mean to say that my own conscience is squeaky clean either. The fact that I was a child on one hand ‘excuses’ these examples of cruelty, but on the other, it’s like being drunk: you end up saying whatever you truly carry in your heart, i.e. what you truly feel, mostly bad, without our base nature being shrouded by the power of reason or social masks.
But of course, whilst most people don’t know what the hell they are doing and take foolish decisions based not on sound judgement but excessive pride, self-confidence, and vanity, just as Schopenhauer explained, there’s only ONE idiot par excellence: Trump. Second to him are only his equally stupid associates, Vance etc.
I mean, both you and me, in martial arts, learned never to start a fight, never to underestimate anyone, and always trying what you can to avoid a fight, for it can be very dangerous. Even if you are a capable martial artist and win the fight, there could be repercussions. Maybe the loser know even more dangerous people. Maybe the law has grounds to prosecute you for using excessive force, and even if you are acquitted, you would still go through a considerable amount of prolonged stress, etc.
But look at what this idiot Trump has done: he basically kissed ass to a psycho like Putin. Then he ‘ordered’ Iran not to kill protesters, or else. But now Iran says that if Trump attacks, it will respond.
But if Trump does nothing, Putin will notice: he would see Trump as just a loudmouth who when push comes to shove, he doesn’t really follow up to his threats.
Just imagine what could happen when two ‘leaders are violent tyrants, and the other is just a trash-talking fool with a lot of money.
And I don’t know about you, but I believe that one that is rich is more fearful than one who is not. For the rich one, it only means he has a lot more to lose, i.e. all the comforts and pleasures that wealth that buy.