Re: My forum pet peeve: "I never got in a fight - the ultimate self-defense!"
nonviolent de-escalation can be a part of a comprehensive self defense program....in theory. How exactly do you train and measure it though?
How much control do you really have over another's actions and decisions?
adopting a non-violent posture, controlling space, not blocking your opponents exit, using non-violent hand gestures, language skills are fine.
They are not a substitute though for dealing with the physical aspects of aggression or violence.
I have found that working on the physical aspects and dimensions of things tend to inform the non-physical aspects and provide you with the space/time you need to make other choices that may lead to a non-violent de-escalation.
I think we have to be careful to not allow our desires or philosophies influence how we should train.
I don't believe their are ethical and non-ethical ways to approach martial training. It is simply "marital training". If we train properly, hopefully it will provide us a larger spectrum of choices we can make in a violent encounter. IMO, we shouldn't exclude certain aspects of training or adopt skewed methodologies because they seemingly present a "more ethical" solution or fit a particular "philosophical alignment". In other words we should train in what might be referred to as a "amoral" way.
Once we understand the use and applications of what we have learned, we can then apply whatever moral, ethical, or philosophical overlay on what we have learned to adopt, synthesize, or integrate these things into our decision cycles.
I think a program of study that adopts a pre-determined strategy such as non-violent de-escalation is doomed for failure when it meets another person who does not share the same belief system. This is usually the case in most situations that involve violence anyway!