What do you think?
Rate this book
Can Political Violence Ever Be Justified?
Violence – from state coercion to wars and revolutions – remains an enduring global reality. But whereas it is often believed that the point of constitutional politics is to make violence unnecessary, others argue that it is an unavoidable element of politics. In this lucid and erudite book, Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings address these issues using vivid contemporary and historic examples. They carefully explore the strategies that have been deployed to condone violence, either as means to certain ends or as an inherent facet of politics. Examining the complex questions raised by different types of violence, they conclude that, ultimately, all attempts to justify political violence fail. This book will be essential introductory reading for students and scholars of the ethics and politics of political violence.
140 pages, Paperback
Published March 25, 2019
8 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 24, 2019
I found this book accidentally on a bookshop shelf in Basel on a short trip there. It got my attention in the middle of all the political violence we see around us every day from wars to protests. I have recently read This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook and was impressed with the ability of the extinction rebellion to keep their protests and shutdowns non-violent while challenging the police and authorities enough to arrest them.
Thinking about using a form of violence, especially in the service of a "just cause" is not always easy to resist. What political person never asked themselves if it wasn't justified to strike back when attacked unjustly by the police, soldiers, political thugs, or by the structural violence of colonialism and global capital. Many say that it is justified to do so, some still have strong reservations.
The authors are unambiguous though, the introduction of the book immediately tells us that there is no justification, ever, for the use of political violence. From there, they go on to explore what is politics, what is political violence, and what does it mean to justify. The go from simple to complex: from straight forward consequentialist and rights arguments to justify violence to others that quote necessity and even aesthetics and heroism. They use the arguments of thinkers on all those and debunk them one by one.
I find the arguments here resonate with me on several levels. But it is never that simple. The book is concise and cannot answer all questions on all situations. For example, they argue that anarchist violence such as that of the Black Block in anti-capitalist protests is not justified, particularly because it is anti-anarchist as it introduces hierarchy into the protests of warriors and others and because it doesn't achieve what it says it would. But then I find this a little lacking in nuance: is destroying properties without harming people violence? do policemen acting as an oppressing force of protest still retain their right to safety while inflicting violence? isn't a strict non-violence approach a carte blanche for the state to use violence with impunity? The authors attempt an answer to some of those questions but not all.
I think of the case of Syria, especially after having read the detailed account of the Syrian rebellion in Sam Dagher's Assad or We Burn the Country: How One Family's Lust for Power Destroyed Syria and how the Syrian regime pushed what started as peaceful protests towards violence and an open conflict that it was in place to win while attempting to justify its own violence. The Syrian revolution may have started to lose the moment parts of it turned violence. In that sense, it is a case to consider despite my belief that the Syrian regime would have annihilated protesters whether they turned violent or not. See! not so simple.
What will remain in my mind is the argument from Hannah Arendt who deals with political violence from a different angle: there is no such thing as political violence, they cannot co-exist as politics in itself disappears once violence is presented.
Thinking about using a form of violence, especially in the service of a "just cause" is not always easy to resist. What political person never asked themselves if it wasn't justified to strike back when attacked unjustly by the police, soldiers, political thugs, or by the structural violence of colonialism and global capital. Many say that it is justified to do so, some still have strong reservations.
The authors are unambiguous though, the introduction of the book immediately tells us that there is no justification, ever, for the use of political violence. From there, they go on to explore what is politics, what is political violence, and what does it mean to justify. The go from simple to complex: from straight forward consequentialist and rights arguments to justify violence to others that quote necessity and even aesthetics and heroism. They use the arguments of thinkers on all those and debunk them one by one.
I find the arguments here resonate with me on several levels. But it is never that simple. The book is concise and cannot answer all questions on all situations. For example, they argue that anarchist violence such as that of the Black Block in anti-capitalist protests is not justified, particularly because it is anti-anarchist as it introduces hierarchy into the protests of warriors and others and because it doesn't achieve what it says it would. But then I find this a little lacking in nuance: is destroying properties without harming people violence? do policemen acting as an oppressing force of protest still retain their right to safety while inflicting violence? isn't a strict non-violence approach a carte blanche for the state to use violence with impunity? The authors attempt an answer to some of those questions but not all.
I think of the case of Syria, especially after having read the detailed account of the Syrian rebellion in Sam Dagher's Assad or We Burn the Country: How One Family's Lust for Power Destroyed Syria and how the Syrian regime pushed what started as peaceful protests towards violence and an open conflict that it was in place to win while attempting to justify its own violence. The Syrian revolution may have started to lose the moment parts of it turned violence. In that sense, it is a case to consider despite my belief that the Syrian regime would have annihilated protesters whether they turned violent or not. See! not so simple.
What will remain in my mind is the argument from Hannah Arendt who deals with political violence from a different angle: there is no such thing as political violence, they cannot co-exist as politics in itself disappears once violence is presented.
December 21, 2023
Engaging enough broad outline of all of the concepts & moral arguments for & against political violence. Comprehensive & relevant af but i had the distinct sense that the final conclusion was only made because it was so interesting, and not because it is actually a good, watertight argument. Of course violence can never be morally good, & all institutions founded on violence, even if it is the violence of resistance, will be flawed - but as they argued right before the final chapter, justifying it comes from the stance of necessity and as a way to limit, not avenge structural violence. This book would have been a lot stronger if the “against” argument was either placed first, or if Hannah Arendt’s views were more substantiated. Right now it is just a bit haphazard because 70% of the book argues more compellingly against what the book is trying to conclude with. Also idk if it was the edition i bought but there were quite a few grammatical and spelling mistakes 🤓 Still a great beginners book to the whole concept of political violence & this particular area of deontology!!
February 9, 2026
an easy-to-digest piece of media to learn about what's the right thing to do, especially when the world's political state is getting fractured and brutal overtime.
is this right if we kill Charlie Kirk for voicing his opinions, even though his take spreads hate, fear, and division? is this right when Hamas uses violence to reclaim peace and land for its people, even when it kills civilians?
while reading this book, my ideas kept clashing, my perspective kept shifting, and my stance kept altering. i found myself arguing against my own beliefs and the familiar logic of my political echo chamber. at the end of the day, i still think political violence can be justified, though it is always fragile, always costly, and always haunted by the lives it consumes.
for all the lives lost in the name of politics, justice, or peace, may they rest in peace.
is this right if we kill Charlie Kirk for voicing his opinions, even though his take spreads hate, fear, and division? is this right when Hamas uses violence to reclaim peace and land for its people, even when it kills civilians?
while reading this book, my ideas kept clashing, my perspective kept shifting, and my stance kept altering. i found myself arguing against my own beliefs and the familiar logic of my political echo chamber. at the end of the day, i still think political violence can be justified, though it is always fragile, always costly, and always haunted by the lives it consumes.
for all the lives lost in the name of politics, justice, or peace, may they rest in peace.
March 26, 2020
General insight of arguments about the justification of political violence. Interesting but difficult to understand if you dont have enough background on the thinkers mentioned. Good way to philosophy about the violence and non-violence justificatory means, consequences (or not, or maybe)...
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews