Violence vs. Nonviolence — What's the Difference?

Unlawful use of force.

Acting without aggression or harm towards others.

Swift and intense force.

The use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change.

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

A strategy for resolving disputes without physical conflict.

The intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.

A method of protest that seeks to achieve goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience.

Extreme vehemence or fervor.

Moral philosophy that rejects the use of violence.

Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."Internationally, violence resulted in deaths of an estimated 1.28 million people in 2013 up from 1.13 million in 1990.

Nonviolence is the personal practice of not causing harm to one's self and others under every condition. It may come from the belief that hurting people, animals and/or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and it may refer to a general philosophy of abstention from violence.

Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury

Lack of violence.

Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena

The doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gaining political objectives.

Extreme or powerful emotion or expression

A philosophy that rejects the use of violence, and instead seeks to bring about change through peaceful responses even to violent acts.

Distortion of meaning or intent

The theory, doctrine, or practice of peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate.

Extreme force.

Peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate

Physical action which causes destruction, harm, pain, or suffering.

Widespread fighting.

(figuratively) Injustice, wrong.

(obsolete) ravishment; rape; violation

(nonstandard) To subject to violence.

The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action, whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.

Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.

Ravishment; rape; constupration.

To assault; to injure; also, to bring by violence; to compel.

An act of aggression (as one against a person who resists);

The property of being wild or turbulent;

A turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.

Proponents of nonviolence often use strategies like civil disobedience, public demonstrations, and international advocacy to draw attention to oppression and seek support.

The main difference is that violence involves the use of physical force to achieve goals, while nonviolence relies on peaceful, non-aggressive strategies.

Yes, notable examples include the Civil Rights Movement in the USA led by Martin Luther King Jr., and the Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi.

Violence can lead to psychological issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression.

While violence can occasionally lead to immediate goals, it often results in negative long-term consequences such as retaliation, further conflict, and loss of life.

Nonviolence is fundamentally about avoiding physical harm, but it can include psychological pressure, economic disruption, and intense confrontation, albeit non-aggressively.

Ethical arguments against violence typically include the sanctity of life, the potential for escalation, and the moral implications of harming others.

This is a subject of much debate; some argue that when all other methods have failed, violence might be necessary, while others believe that nonviolent methods should always be prioritized.

Yes, violence is sometimes considered justifiable as a form of self-defense when faced with an immediate threat.

Yes, nonviolence has been a powerful method for political and social change in many historical contexts, such as the Indian independence movement and the American civil rights movement.

Nonviolence fosters community and solidarity by uniting participants in a common cause without the divisiveness that violence can create.

Violent movements often use force to instigate change quickly, while nonviolent movements rely on gradual persuasion and moral authority to build support.

Nonviolent resistance can be slow to effect change and may not be effective in all situations, especially against extremely repressive regimes.

Media coverage can amplify the effects of both violent and nonviolent movements, influencing public perception and policy response.

Children and communities can suffer long-term damage from exposure to violence, including social, psychological, and economic impacts.