The Injustice of Violence Against Protesters

Toward the end of our symposium on Monday, Dr. Johnson mentioned that all four of the philosophers we were talking about seemed to be in opposition to the events at UC Davis, in one way or another. It doesn’t stop there, though; I can think of ways in which almost all of the philosophers we’ve covered would oppose those same events.

Beginning with the philosophers covered in the symposium, Kelsen would disagree with the UC Davis violence because it does not further discussion on what justice means to either party. Also, based upon the assumption that the police committing the assault are also part of the 99% (whether they like to admit it or not), the reasoning behind their actions, and thus their idea of what is just, appears questionable. If these officers weren’t busy pepper-spraying non-violent students, they could be having a rational discussion and possibly coming to some important conclusions. Nozick’s disapproval comes simply from his idea that anything more than the most minimal government is in violation of the people’s rights. It’s obvious that Rawls would not see the events as beneficial to the least advantaged, but rather the opposite. Using his concept of the veil of ignorance, his standing should become even more clear: no one would want a society in which he could prospectively become victim to police brutality. By Rawls’ thinking, this is an indicator of an unjust action. Marx would assuredly be in opposition also, as police violence visited upon peaceful protesters who are fighting against a capitalist system simply furthers the divide in an effort to prevent the system’s collapse.

Going back a bit to touch on previously covered teachings, I’d like to look first at Kant: he would automatically disagree with the police, as their actions could never be willed as a universal principle. In fact, he might even think that allowing for protest or peaceful assembly should be upheld as one such principle. Using Mill’s system of utilitarian justice wouldn’t promote the officers’ actions either, since they were physically and mentally damaging to countless people. As we have seen, these actions have become commonplace at (often peaceful) protests, furthering their continuance and their harmful effects on society. Even Plato and Aristotle would surely agree that the events at UC Davis were unjust. They were harmful, not beneficial, to the greater good. The officers committing the violence were not allowing reason to be in control, but were giving in to their appetites. Given Aristotle’s idea of justice being a mean between two extremes, we can ponder what those extremes would’ve been in this situation. To me, it seems that violent conflict (as we saw occur) and passive submission would be the extremes. Thus, the golden mean and justice were not achieved.

So many of the philosophers we’ve covered would have most likely disapproved of the police actions, despite having lived centuries apart, in different countries, different eras, different forms of government. A vast portion of the general public is in an uproar about this particular incident and all of those that have come before it. So, when so many are able to find fault and injustice in these actions of police violence against protesters, why is it still ongoing? Why does it appear that it won’t stop anytime soon?