A few more thoughts on nonviolence

I was out of town this weekend visiting some friends in the eastern part of the state (more on that fab place later) and rbella and I started talking about nonviolence. The main theme of our discussion was whether or not nonviolence gives practitioners a moral edge or any other kind of advantage. I've blogged about this some previously and it seems that my real question around this issue comes down to how we're defining 'moral'. Yes, I realize it's a question of semantics but it seems important.

It seems apparent that a nonviolent reaction would *always* be the best reaction to hope for but I don't necessarily agree. Although I agree that keeping people from smacking each other around is an excellent goal and that nonviolent resolution is almost always a desired means and end, I think that there is a distinct possibility that nonviolence could be transformed into either passivity or apathy. Refraining from any action or taking a stand because you're 'nonviolent' and defending your beliefs could lead to violence.

Okay - I'm obviously not doing too well putting down my thoughts on this. It's late, I've been driving for four hours and I'm going to put this on hold until tomorrow. Sleep well :)