Yale Law III: Reason and Violence

In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the third essay amongst the three finalists:


The reason offered for society’s rejection of violence often boils down to the axiom that violence is wrong. Yet it is fair to ask: why it is wrong? At this point the respondent would probably assert that violence is antithetical to coexistence and that coexistence is a prerequisite for society’s success. Alternatively, they may respond that causing pain is inherently unjust and violence cannot exist without pain.

But if all reasons underpinning the rejection of violence are rooted in rational reasoning, what happens when violence is rationalized? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them offered a compelling and reasoned argument to commit violence.

The cynical and pragmatic thinker may agree with the above reasoning and conclude that the degree of justness attributed to acts of violence is simply a product of the position that the one committing the violence is in. Still, for those who wish to establish a universal rule against violence, what principles can we employ that will ensure acceptance?

Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be non-rational. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that which each individual has created as their own unique truth. If Humanity is inherently subjective, it would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.

Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?