Political Violence Explained: Ethics, Extremes, and Social Forces

The Dr. Bo Show with Bo Bennett, PhD

The Dr. Bo Show is a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. It is the podcast of social psychologist Bo Bennett. This podcast is a collection of topics related to all of his books. The podcast episodes, depending on the episode, are hosted by either Dr. Bennett or Jerry Sage, discussing the work of Dr. Bennett.

Understanding Political Violence: A Look Through Extremes and Ethics

Hi, I’m Jerry Sage, your host for this episode, filling in for Dr. Bennett. Today, we’re going to explore a difficult but essential topic: political violence. It’s one of those subjects that’s as complex as it is sensitive, and it’s often surrounded by heated debates and strong feelings. But rather than taking sides, our goal is to unpack the issue thoughtfully — using logic, reason, and a good dose of critical thinking.

The Argument from Extremes: Seeing Beyond Black and White

One useful way to examine political violence is through what’s called an argument from extremes. This isn’t a fallacy here but a tool to help us understand how issues aren’t always black and white. Let me explain.

• Picture this: You want the tax rate to be 14%, but a political figure pushes for 15%. Is it even remotely acceptable to assassinate that politician because of a 1% tax difference? Almost everyone would say no — that’s unreasonable and extreme.
• Now, consider a dictator who orders the killing of everyone outside an “acceptable” skin color range. Would some say it’s morally justifiable to assassinate that leader? Many would argue yes — that’s a very different situation with much higher stakes.

The key takeaway here is something called the Goldilocks bias: people generally believe that their own views fall right in the “just right” zone of this spectrum, and everyone else is wrong. Unfortunately, extremes will always exist — it’s part of human society and psychology. There is nothing we can do about this.

Legal vs. Moral Questions

It’s important to recognize that assassinating a political figure is always illegal. Laws aside, the moral question is much trickier. What is the “right” thing to do? Is it ever morally acceptable to commit such an act?

Philosophically, this leads us to two major routes:

1. Utilitarian or greater good approach: You do a bad action if it results in a greater overall benefit.
2. Kantian ethics: Some acts are inherently wrong, no matter the consequence — “bad” is “bad” for any reason.

On the surface it looks as if those who subscribe to the Kantian ethics may have the moral high ground. But what if they don't see the assassination of a "bad person" as an "inherently wrong" act? And who among us can predict the future to adequately say what will ultimately result in the "greater good"? We can ignore this for now, just know that people often lean on established moral frameworks to justify their actions and beliefs, yet do so as a crutch, bypassing the difficult moral reasoning often needed in such situations.

Does Assassination Stop Harmful Ideas?

Say we’re dealing with a leader who spreads hateful and harmful ideas. Does removing that person from the population make the world better? Let’s consider both sides:

• Pro: The individual can no longer spew hatred or incite violence.
• Con: The ideas themselves don’t disappear. Sometimes they even gain more attention and sympathy after the assassination.
• There’s also an argument that living in a society where people are assassinated for their beliefs—no matter how repugnant some may find them—creates a more frightening environment than one where those beliefs, however vile, are confronted peacefully.

The Social Equation: The Environment for Political Violence

When we talk about political violence, individual choices get shaped by bigger social forces. This is crucial in understanding why it happens and how it might be reduced.

• The Role of the Media: Media can amplify a person’s most extreme statements, while ignoring their more moderate ones, creating villainous caricatures instead of nuanced portraits of a flawed human being.
• Political Leadership: Sometimes leaders fail to condemn political violence; worse, they may encourage or pardon it, signaling tacit approval.
• Vilification of Opponents: Treating politics as a zero-sum game where the other “side” is evil, rather than political rivals with legitimate views, lowers the barrier to violence by dehumanizing opponents.

What Can We Do?

Political violence isn’t going anywhere as long as there's an extreme segment of the population willing to use it. But social forces do provide opportunities to reduce it. Here are a few key paths forward:

1. Elect Moderate Leaders: It is important to note here that "moderate" is defined by majority positions held among the electorate, not any one person or party's label they may or may not put on an issue. Leaders whose policies better reflect the majority’s sensible views reduce polarization.
2. Choose Leaders with Compassion: Empathy and respect for rivals reduce hostility and encourage dialogue.
3. Avoid Extreme Media: Refrain from supporting outlets that thrive on outrage and exaggeration. Less viewership means less incentive.
4. Call Out Falsehoods: We all can combat harmful deception by pointing out hyperbole and lies — especially those that align with our own biases.

Ultimately, political violence is a symptom of deeper fractures in our society — fractures both in how we think and how we interact. Addressing it means tackling those root causes with clear thinking and moral clarity.

For more thoughtful content and resources on critical thinking, philosophy, and practical reasoning, make sure to visit Dr. Bo’s bookstore. You’ll find books and materials that help sharpen your understanding and empower you to engage with the world in a calm, rational way.

Thanks for listening — this has been Jerry Sage filling in for Dr. Bennett. Stay curious, stay thoughtful, and above all, stay kind.