When is it morally acceptable to use physical violence? According to Howard McGary, there are two types of ways to hurt someone, physically and psychologically. If a person is getting physically abused, would it be ethical to use physical violence? What if a person is being psychologically abused? McGary claims people tend to accept violence when it is being used to defeat a greater physical violence, but refuse to use violence to stop psychological violence. Is it evident to use physical violence when dealing with an abuser who psychologically abused a person? To find out why this is, one must know what is the difference of physical abuse and psychological abuse. Physical abuse is intentionally trying to wound someone by body contact and
…show more content…
McGary defines proportionality as, “the self-[defense] act must be only enough to stop or prevent assault” (McGary 271). This third proposition states that it is not necessary for one to use much force when defending yourself from an aggressor. For instance, the shootings happening to minorities with law enforcement, some law enforcement are physically and psychologically abusing minorities. Therefore, when encountering someone with a weapon is it necessary for law enforcement to apply so much force toward the aggressor where there needs to be more than two shots fired. This is where they are not applying McGary’s condition of proportionality. McGary urges that if a person is willing to use physical violence to defend oneself from an abuser it must be balanced. If it were taken into court and a person were to murder their offender the physical or psychological distress would not balance between the …show more content…
I was in an abusive relationship and being in an abusive relationship that destroyed me mentally, emotionally, and physically and I could say I still suffer from those wounds psychologically. I can assume that McGary might suffer from his psychological wounds in the words of racial oppression. I believe McGary and I can somewhat agree that psychological abuse can still be as damaging and can cause lifelong distress to a person. Although, I completely appreciate McGary had to say, I wish he would have gone more in depth into the three conditions because it all depends on the situation one is, nonetheless I couldn’t agree more on how to apply physical violence whether a person is being physically abuse or psychologically
McGary defines proportionality as, “the self-[defense] act must be only enough to stop or prevent assault” (McGary 271). This third proposition states that it is not necessary for one to use much force when defending yourself from an aggressor. For instance, the shootings happening to minorities with law enforcement, some law enforcement are physically and psychologically abusing minorities. Therefore, when encountering someone with a weapon is it necessary for law enforcement to apply so much force toward the aggressor where there needs to be more than two shots fired. This is where they are not applying McGary’s condition of proportionality. McGary urges that if a person is willing to use physical violence to defend oneself from an abuser it must be balanced. If it were taken into court and a person were to murder their offender the physical or psychological distress would not balance between the …show more content…
I was in an abusive relationship and being in an abusive relationship that destroyed me mentally, emotionally, and physically and I could say I still suffer from those wounds psychologically. I can assume that McGary might suffer from his psychological wounds in the words of racial oppression. I believe McGary and I can somewhat agree that psychological abuse can still be as damaging and can cause lifelong distress to a person. Although, I completely appreciate McGary had to say, I wish he would have gone more in depth into the three conditions because it all depends on the situation one is, nonetheless I couldn’t agree more on how to apply physical violence whether a person is being physically abuse or psychologically