The debate "No justice no peace is a dangerous motto" was started by
June 14, 2020, 11:23 pm.
29 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Harmony posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
gowtama posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Harmony, safalcon7, Sya and 26 visitors agree.
yeah, gowtama, nejjje7, Guerre, TheExistentialist, amazestep18, AerichJ, SUPERPIGGU, gcneault and 27 visitors disagree.
I don't feel it is a dangerous motto at all. If anything it is simply the expressed rights the populous has against a ruling party/government/monarch/etc.... which violates the social contract. Our constitution is based on the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who both saw the violent overthrow of a state by the people as necessary, moral, and a duty should the state ever violate it's part of the social contract.
"No justice, no peace" is simply the proclamation that failure of the state to uphold it's portion of the contract will result in a revocation of the "consent to be governed". A state that cannot uphold justice is a failed state and it is better to build a new state or join a thriving state than it is to be subjugated by a failed/unjust state.
I'm just an extreme pacifist so I don't like ends-justify-the-means violence.
BLM is undoubtedly on the right side of history, and I can't criticise their decision to rise up against injustice. It's just very sad that violence is a successful solution to violence.
justice is mandatory, peace will be lost restoring justice. but in long term justice is mandatory. injustice is a cancer that spreads faster and you wouldn't be surprised if your doctor kill's you because he doesn't like you because of personal bias.
it certainly is dangerous, but considering the background, do you think they are wrong in taking the risk?
do you think a different strategy would have been better?