Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly.
Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.
It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example.
> Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.
Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?
EDIT: for instance paying someone to do physical harm. How would you assess this?
And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?
Tell me, if I outsource the physical act of harm, say by paying someone to beat someone else up, would you say I am not violent?
So assuming that you are saying that hiring a hit man isn't violent, but the hit man doing the deeds is:
We are now looking at a definition of "violence" that apparently includes the tantrum of a four year old (physical attack with the intent to do harm) but does not capture hiring killers or the actions of most dictators of the last 150 years.
To be honest this doesn't sound like a useful definition and certainly doesn't match the emotional reaction the word "violence" evokes. What is the word meant for then?
Give me some leeway here, by the way—I am allowing myself to be “socratized”…