I think the previous posts asking to define terms were right. Violence needed to be defined, but also the term solution needs more context, for instance, a matter may be considered to be resolved by one party in a two party interaction, but not by the second party. If we are interpreting resolution from the perspective of both parties, it is not resolved, but if we're just taking the position of the first party (for instance this party may be the one perpetrating violence) then the position may seem resolved.
OP defined violence as physical aggression for the purpose of this discussion, so I'll use it in that context.
The other thing to point out is that many problems have multiple ways to resolve issues with physical aggression being just one option out of many. Violence in an instance where there are multiple ways for one to resolve a problem may be a choice, but it is often the least preferred choice due to the risks and consequences associated with it. This is largely the realm of ethics and principles.
That being said, when another party has already opted for a violent resolution, the use of ethics is largely inapplicable. These situations are commonly called "lifeboat scenarios" (I also call them rabid-dog scenarios), where the use of ethics and principles are most likely going to result in a situation where you are in mortal peril. For ethics to be an effective tool requires there to be a choice. Choosing between living and dying is generally not a choice so much as it is an imperative. However, often times a situation is treated as one of these lifeboat scenarios when it is in fact, not so. This may be done out of ignorance or out of malevolence or sometimes out of laziness. Politicians are the most well known example of this, most often treating a situation as do-or-die with their solution being the only one and all others resulting in catastrophe.
@Fox Fire
To be technical, good and evil don't exist. Existence is something physical, something that can be measured and interacted with in a physical sense. Hydrogen gas physically exists. The number 2 does not exist. Humans may use concepts such as numbers and abstract properties like good/evil for various purposes, but we cannot say they exist simply because we think about it.
You say opposites must exist simply because they define each other. I would contend this is flawed. To demonstrate: Reality exists. It can be measured, interacted with, etc. The opposite of reality is fantasy. Fantasy does not exist. It cannot be measured or interacted with.
We can conceptualize of what is an opposite, but to say opposites exist, at least in a physical sense, cannot be said with validity.
You used the concepts of pacifism and war as an example. We can conceptualize both, however in an interpersonal scenario we cannot have the physical expression of both at the same time. I cannot be at war with you while simultaneously being at peace with you. Likewise a physically real bar of chocolate may have the conceptual opposite of a chocolate bar comprised of antimatter, but only one of those is going to exist in my hand at a given time (most often it will be neither).
As for governments, I would highly contend with the idea that they arose for the purpose of survival of the species or that they are essential (or even ethical). It's not really the topic of the discussion, so as not to derail the thread, I'll leave it at that. I will however say that cooperation (win/win scenarios) are generally considered preferable (except to human predators, sadists and sociopaths) compared to domination/violent scenarios (win/lose). This is why when you go to a store the interaction you most often see is the voluntary exchange of goods (cash for groceries) rather than robbery.
Edited by Iron Helix, 29 September 2013 - 07:26 AM.