Coe and Page- Violence, Non-violence, and the uses of coercion

These two short articles tried to decide what violence is and is not, as well as when, if ever it is acceptable to use violence.

Coe says that violence is "the taking away of the means of life and action" and "preventing men from securing these means". He brings up the point then of an embargo. By refusing to do something, you can cause "violence". To him, the line between violence and non-violence is very unclear. In regards to the use of violence, he asks the question, if we do nothing aren't we harming the next generation by not protecting them? His answer is that if by resorting to coercion we give the next generation a better chance to grow into adults who can live and thrive, coercion is acceptable. But if it won't help, then some other method needs to be found and used. Coe does question whether force will ever accomplish any good. Finally, by action or inaction, good and bad can come from it, but good things must still be done- "in any case the children should be fed".

Page believes that unless we find a way to use nonviolence effectively and administer justice alongside negative peace, the victims will just take up violent means to get what they think they deserve. To him, the hazy line is between what is acceptable coercion and unacceptable- ethical and unethical. Finally, he gives three options for how we can deal with human suffering, all of which may lead to more suffering, but says that "suffering is inescapable".
1)resistance by violence
2)inaction
3)nonviolent coercion