Why Do Some Ethical Systems Justify Violence, and What Makes Them Appealing?

Why do some people choose ethical systems that justify the use of violence? With so many approaches to ethics available, it’s annoying that some align with frameworks where violence is considered an acceptable means to achieve certain goals. Is it because they view violence as the only effective way to bring about change or because history shows it works? Perhaps they see their cause as so morally urgent that it justifies the harm caused. Could it also stem from a sense of survival or the need to protect their group at any cost?

At the same time, violence often creates more problems than it solves, leading to long-term instability and harm. Why, then, do people continue to embrace systems that condone it? Is it due to a lack of viable alternatives, or do they believe the ends outweigh the consequences? What drives some individuals to accept violence as a solution, while others prioritize non-violent methods? I’m curious to hear your perspectives.