My first response to the question was that of course it is not morally justifiable. According to John Locke, if a man wrongs another, he has violated someone else’s natural rights (which consist of life, liberty, and property). For example, if a man steals, he has violated someone else’s right to property. Therefore the man from whom he steals is entitled to compensation (i.e. Revenge). However, according to Locke, we as humans are in capable of judging what’s fair in terms of compensation and so we enter a contract (join society) and a few thousands words later, we have a justice system and a way of obtaining justice. Yet, Locke points out that when the justice system is flawed, or if one does not exist, the only person who can judge fairly is God. Therefore, the man who wronged another will be punished by God; the wronged person should not determine his own justice. And again, history points out that violence is not always a necessity when the system is oppressing you. Ghandi, to cite a classic example, peacefully protested against the system itself and was able to achieve justice. Ghandi also famously said that “an eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.”
In my own personal opinion, I believe that Mary was wrong to kill Tehsildar because she has no right to take someone’s life. When I read about Usha in Half the Sky, I still felt that the women weren’t completely justified in killing Akku. While I understand that the point the book is making is that women shouldn’t be compliant, I do not agree that women have to get violent to achieve justice. I believe that violence to achieve justice is only morally justifiable when acting in self-defense in that moment. If someone is going to kill me, I’m going to fight for survival in that moment. A few days later, however, assuming I escape, I wouldn’t want/be able to violently harm that person. Even in the moment, I wouldn’t be able to do so much as purposely kill somebody. It’s tough for me to sit here and talk about being patient when I can’t even imagine what the women in other cultures are feeling at this moment. While I believe it is morally unjustifiable, if I was one of those women right now, I may allow my frustrations to get the best of me and who knows, I could have ended up violent myself.
I really enjoyed reading this post because the the refreshing outside perspectives you bring in with your references to Locke. I would never look to flatly contradict as well throughout an argument as Locke makes, but I cannot say I fully agree. When governments function ideally, Locke is spot on - the social contracts set up to run a government should handle the delivery of justice in a fair and unbiased manner, but as we have seen in the readings this is not always the case. The women in Usha's neighborhood tried to obtain their justice through established and legal means and were denied that right, and only after exhausting these means did they resort to violence. Please note that I am not commenting on your own aversion to violence, one that I hope is echoed in the bulk of the population, but to your argument for the propriety on the usage of violence. I agree that violence is unsavory and should always remain a last resort, violence to escape oppression seems to fit the bill.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your poin that Mary shouldn't have killed Tehsildar. In fact, she had every right to kill him, because that is the law. The law in Mary's village is if a man tries to or does rape a woman, that crime is punishable by death. He only got what he deserved. I also believe that Mary had every right to kill him because she was the victim, so she should be the one to enact punishment. Her kill was justified.
ReplyDelete