Violence in Scripture

Yet, I don't think we should altogether cut violence out of the media we consume (assuming that the media we consume includes the books we read). The scriptures include countless stories where the heroes use violence. Nephi kills Laban. David kills Goliath. Ammon killed at least a few Lamanites. And who knows how many people Captain Moroni killed, yet we're told that "if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever" (Alma 48:17). He sounds like someone we should be like, and he was the leader of an army.

I don't think that violence is always bad. If it was, it would have been bad for Nephi and Ammon and Captain Moroni to be violent, meaning that they were all setting bad examples. I am convinced that there are some circumstances under which violence is acceptable, and sometimes maybe even good.

Maybe violence is only good when God commands it. Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, Ammon supposed that he had been commanded to use violence as well, and Moroni also was following God's commandments by going to war. Maybe the use of violence was okay at those times because God said it was okay.

But that reminds me of the Euthyphro Problem, which asks if things are good because God commands them or if God commands them because they're good. Previously, I said that I think that God's laws aren't actually God's laws. I don't think He made them up. I think that He learned them, and now He's teaching us. I think that there are underlying reasons for all of God's commandments, and that those reasons go deeper than "because God said so."

So, what does that mean for violence? Would that mean that Nephi killing Laban, David killing Goliath, and Captain Moroni killing an untold number of Lamanites would all have been the right thing to do, even if God hadn't expressly commanded them? I think so, but then the question is "Why?" Why would violence be acceptable and even commendable then, when it normally isn't?

It may be that God subscribes to the Greater Good philosophy (actually, I think that philosophers call it Utilitarianism, but I may be remembering that wrong). Maybe, violence is normally wrong, but it becomes right when it accomplishes a greater amount of good. The death of Laban was justified by the good it brought about, the killing of Goliath spared countless lives, and the Captain Moroni was waging his war in defence of the Nephites. In each case, more harm was prevented by the violence than was caused by it.

I have to guess that that's the key. Violence is the right answer when it is the best way to bring about the greatest good. Still, there are some problems with this philosophy, and I wouldn't mind going into them later. For now, I feel fairly certain that there are times when violence is bad and there are times when violence is good. Most media still uses violence too often, but that's not to say that violence is never acceptable at all.