Moral Ambiguity of Justice Through Violence

When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?

Morality is by nature an ambiguous entity, based on cultural norms, upbringing, and general environment; thus what may be morally acceptable in one situation is completely out of line in another. An obvious example is that of Usha and the women of her community as detailed in Half the Sky. Failing to find justice or protection through legal avenues the women, many of who were rape victims, took justice into their own hands and lashed out violently. The authors acknowledge the breadth of emotion such a resolution causes in an outside observer:

After years of watching women quietly accept abuse, it is cathartic to see someone like Usha lead acountercharge – even if we’re uncomfortable with the bloody denouement and cannot condone murder(Kristoff 53).

It’s easy to make blanket statements condemning violence or murder when there is no emotional connection, but when a situation is presented on a more personal level black and white fades into shades of gray.

In a situation where an individual or a group of people has been systematically oppressed I would argue that ideally violence should never come into play, but realistically I have no moral qualms about delivering justice or achieving security through violence. I shy more from the discrediting effect and poor precedent that violence sets more than from the moral problems. When someone has behaved as monstrously as Akku Yadav I believe they no longer deserve asylum from the vengence of their victims. What concerns me is that when victims lash out violently they discredit their cause by using the same tools as their attackers. It is comparable to the toppling of dictators in revolutions, such as the recent felling of Ghadaffi in Libya. While it would have been preferable to have tried Ghadaffi and held him accountable for his crimes, few were upset by his demise at the hands of his victims. Unfortunately, such an end discredits the rebels for not using established channels of justice and instead sinking to the level of their enemy. In addition, condoning violence in any event sets a precedent for the acceptability of violence in the future. If it becomes the norm for women to murder their rapists because it was acceptable in this specific incident then is society really better off? Again, it is hard to discern right from wrong, but I will maintain that within my moral code it is not objectionable for an oppressed person(s) to use violence to achieve justice although it may not be the best solution practically.