Nonviolence is a practice that, whenever possible, works for the well being of the Other by refraining from violence and acting according to lovingkindness
A few things to note: 1) Nonviolence is a practice; that is, a repetitive set of habits that produce skill and virtue that shapes a life, that molds a community. 2) Whenever possible. I can conceive of situations where a violent response to violence might decrease the overall level of violence; in extreme cases of self defense, for example. But these instances are rare. In most instances it is always appropriate to work for the well being of the Other, even when the Other is an enemy. 3) The well being of all is an appropriate ethical goal. Nonviolence works for the well being of the Other; it is other-regarding. 4) Refraining from violence is an imperative. Violence always destroys well being. No exceptions. 5) To act with lovingkindness (metta, agape, ahimsa) is an absolute value—perhaps the only absolute value
Culturally, we are smitten with what theologian Walter Wink termed the "myth of redemptive violence." Myths are storied ways of understanding the world. Myths help us make sense of life. Though in popular parlance we tend to think of myths as always untrue, it's more useful to think of myths as helpful or unhelpful. Some myths are better than other in helping us making sense of things. With myths it's best to ask: does this myth have explanatory power? Does this myth work?
The myth of redemptive violence—in other contexts termed "violentology"—is the story that when all else fails violence will win the day. Evil will be overcome by violence. Try nonviolent methods in the first instance but, when that doesn't work, violence will always do the trick. Try reasoning with your kid. When that doesn't work spank them, for we know that a good spanking will change behavior. (The data tell us otherwise.) The answer to guns in schools is more guns in schools. The good guy with the gun always trumps the bad guy with the gun. Except when they don't. In the appalling tragedy of this week's school massacre good guys with guns did not prevent the deaths of 19 children and two adults. The myth that violence redeems is an inadequate story—it doesn't work.
An example from recent history. The response to the earth-shaking violence of September 11, 2001 was more earth-shaking violence. Violence will redeem, so the story goes. Except it didn't. Though exact numbers are hard to come by, estimates of violent civilian deaths in Afghanistan during and after the war in 2001 is 71,000 (Watson Institute, Brown University). In the Iraq war from 2003-2009 the number of civilian deaths range from 185,000-208,000 (Iraq Body Count). The response to 3,000 violent civilian deaths was exponentially more violent civilian deaths. Violence doesn't redeem. Violence does not produce well being. Violence is destructive.
Yet culturally, we still accept without question the myth. When violence occurs more violence is required. And so the awful spiral continues.
The sages from Laozi, to the Buddha, to Jesus, to Gandhi all told a different myth—the story that lovingkindness (what philosopher Barry Gan termed "comprehensive nonviolence") works toward a better world.
"Unrealistic!" "Sentimental!" "Namby pamby!" "It will never work!" Echo the critics. But loving nonviolence has hardly been tried.
So, I say again: It's time to be serious about nonviolence.
+Ab. Andy