When do we turn the other cheek?

 

I suppose that no one would prescribe "violence" as a solution to a problem -- unless reasonably assured that this would serve the intended purpose.

Thus, violence as a solution to a problem would mostly appeal to those who believe (rightly or wrongly) that their side would emerge the clear winner -- and within a reasonable time frame, and without too heavy collateral damage.

Violence may also sometimes appeal to some, despite being assured of grave injury or death as a result of this. I suppose this is possible only when such persons are under the grip of a "higher" motivation -- such as one of attaining heaven, or martyrdom in defense of a principle, dharma, religion, nation or whatever.

Coming to more practical situations...

What if some one slaps me? Do I slap back, or do I show the other cheek? Is there a "fit-all" response that would apply under all circumstances where some one may get slapped? Let us consider a few such circumstances….

• A grown-up person (say, the parent or teacher) slapping a child, or a child slapping a grown-up in a fit of tantrum

• A policeman slapping a citizen, or a citizen slapping a policeman

• A crazy person holding a gun, slapping a sane unarmed person -- or shooting at others, including at armed policemen.

Seen in the practical contexts as above, it is obvious that neither "showing the other cheek" nor "slapping back" are appropriate responses – if we ignore the context!

The actual response to a "slap" would naturally need to be more nuanced. Where you voluntarily accept the "authority" of the person who slaps, you may simply take it as a "feedback", feel sorry, and try to avoid such situations in future.

Where the miscreant is a child in a fit of tantrum, the grown-up may physically restrain the errant kid, or may even impose a punishment of some sort (including a mild and benign return slap) to discourage such behavior in future.

A citizen slapping a policeman would get arrested or fined under the provisions of the law. In case of a crazy person with a gun in his hand, the obvious response would be to try and disarm; and apprehend the individual – so that greater harm is avoided. If in the process, the gun totter gets killed, this may reluctantly be accepted as man-slaughter, not amounting to murder.

But in all cases (and more particularly, in the last case), I would say that it is important to react within the bounds of law, with intent to minimize collateral damage. When punishment is imposed on the offender, this should be more as a deterrent by way of imposing reasonable cost on anti-social behavior, rather than as moral retribution. It would be disastrous to respond in anger, or from a position of moral righteousness -- for such response would invariably trigger an "arms race" fueled by competitive outrage as would be felt by the partisans.

At the end of the day, our objective is to mitigate problems, and certainly not to aggravate these. Mitigation does not mean the final elimination of a problem -- but the containing of this within acceptable limits. It is futile to seek a "final solution" -- attempts towards this only worsen an already bad situation.

There is one other circumstance that I did not include in the list above. This is when a powerful and self-righteous bully "slaps" a physically weaker, but rebellious, person -- with intent to brow beat the person into submission.

It is under this special circumstance that "turning the other cheek" can be the appropriate response. But this is possible only when the physically weaker person possesses the moral strength and courage required to practice non-violence, in the face of violence. 

Whatever the case, it is such indomitable resistance to oppression by the oppressed -- non-violent or otherwise --  that has driven the evolution of human societies built on the principles of justice and equity.