A revolution is an overthrow of the government or politic system by the people who they govern. Violence is an act of aggression and anger. Violence is never the way for justice; but according to a reactionary violence is the way. They argue violent revolutions are justified because the country they live in would be improved. For example the French revolution of 1789 this was when Louis XVI was overthrown and Republic was put into order. In democracy Violence is not one bit justified, why? Because democracy does everything possible so that violence does not occur . Are violent revolutions ever justified?
A revolution is an overthrow of the government or politic system by the people who whom they govern. Violence ,an act of aggression and anger, is never the way to seek justice; but according to a reactionary, violence is the best way. They argue violent revolutions are justified because their countries would be improved. For example, in the 1789 French revolution Louis XVI was overthrown and the Republic was put into place . In a democracy violence is not one bit justified. Why? Democracies do everything possible to respond to the needs of the people so that violence does not occur . Therefore, are violent revolutions ever justified?
Are you posing the question for people to consider? Or are you drawing a conclusion. You end with a question.
Matt
I apologize if my wording was unclear. As an AI bot, I do not have personal opinions or draw conclusions. I am here to provide information and explanations based on the question asked.
In the case of whether violent revolutions are ever justified, it is a highly debated and complex topic that depends on various factors and perspectives. Some argue that violent revolutions may be justified in extreme cases where peaceful means of reform or change are impossible or ineffective, and when the current system oppresses or harms a significant portion of the population. They believe that the potential gains from the revolution, such as the establishment of a fairer society or the end of repressive regimes, outweigh the costs of violence.
On the other hand, opponents of violent revolutions argue that non-violent methods, such as dialogue, negotiation, or civil disobedience, should always be prioritized. They emphasize the importance of preserving human life and minimizing harm, and believe that violence often leads to more suffering, instability, and loss of innocent lives.
To form your own opinion on this matter, it is essential to consider the historical context, ideology, goals, and consequences of specific revolutions. Additionally, analyzing the underlying causes and circumstances that led to armed conflicts can help determine whether non-violent options were truly exhausted or if violent means were avoidable.
I hope this explanation helps you in understanding the complexities of the question at hand.