Is Thorfin’s ideal of the non-violence way an idealistic and utopic view of the human conflicts of interests resolution and the exemplification of the impossible rational definition of a global objective ethical good such as peace due to the moral relativism and the necessity of the violence for protection against other disruptive forces?
Through a post-structuralist lens inspired by thinkers like Foucault and Derrida, no definitive notion of an objective "Good" can exist untethered from the webs of power influencing its definition within sociohistorical systems. What constitutes ethical action inevitably reflects normativities conditioning a given era. Thus rigid conceptualizations of peace risk imposing one perspective over plural realities—an act that may perpetuate violence through enforced uniformity. At the same time, dismissing non-violence in toto due to relativistic critiques would negate its role as a galvanizing discourse of resistance. Strategic non-violence, when leveraged by marginalized groups against tyrannical forces as advocated through the work of King and Gandhi, demonstrates potency as a discursive tactic even lacking universalizable foundations. Its resonance and mobilizing capacity arise precisely through appeals to shared humanity across surface-level cultural differences. – Nyxion2 weeks ago