This paper aims to provide structure and insight to the relatively unexplored and undeveloped question of if, when and under what circumstances, violence might be considered an appropriate conflict resolution strategy. The topic of deliberate violence is generally not considered in models of conflict management or resolution, and the authors believe this is a “blind spot” in the literature. While violence is obviously not a desirable outcome, the authors argue that there are specific situations and contexts in which it might not only be appropriate, but may actually be the best strategy for reducing or minimizing future harm, or to achieve desired outcomes.
The authors explore the question from a variety of perspectives including moral and ethical ones, as well as considering multiple levels of analysis from interpersonal and dyadic conflict to global conflicts between nation-states.
The authors present a structured decision-making framework and suggest that much violence in the world today may be the result of erroneous estimation of consequences and probabilities, and that the application of a systemic “calculus” of violence could result in reduced violence and suffering overall.
The authors hope this paper will help actors make decisions about potential violence in more rational and quantitative way, and ultimately will serve to reduce overall violence by avoiding its use when not supported by a structured and rigorous analysis.
