Abstract

In this article, I argue that Gandhi can prefer violence in cases, but still morally object to all forms of violence. Even though this can seem to be a contradiction, nonetheless, one can prefer an action without thinking that action is morally justified. Next, I explore the objection that preferring a violent act, such as violent self-defense, over a act that is not violent, such as running away, seems to prefer an action that is more violent to one that is less violent. I argue that because Gandhian nonviolence is a much broader concept than simple "no violence," violent self-defense is actually closer to a nonviolent act than running away. This is done by making a distinction between nonviolence (positive state of love and virtue) and un-violence (simple lack of physical violence).