Let's discuss...The French Solution!

Keep your plans in one place. Free account.

Attendees discuss political violence, moral responsibility, and whether change can be pursued through force or dialogue.

AI summary · From the event listing

Is there a point where political violence is justified? Or even morally required? The state has a monopoly on the use of force, and upholds the norm that political violence is beyond the pail. However, the younger generations in at least the UK and US are more in favour of political assassination than ever before. Angered by the apparent corruption and malice of their leaders and feeling powerless to foster change via peaceful means, in an increasingly technocratic share-holder driven system, this sentiment is rising. The major faiths and many other wisdom traditions warn against the use of force unless absolutely necessary. In the Bible, even Moses was forbidden entry to the promised land for merely striking his staff against a rock to bring forth water, instead of speaking to it as God commanded. Do we run the risk of ourselves being banished from a better future, if in our frustration we resort to force rather than engaging in good faith dialogue? ————————————————————————————————————————————————————🧠 Food For Thought: > Who has the right to take a life? > Is violence necessarily bound to falsehood, the way of deception? > If violence is the only way to save current society, is it worth letting it be destroyed to avoid use of force? ————————————————————————————————————————————————————🗣️ Quote "Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Peace, War, Lying - Live Not by Lies (1974).

South Bank