the illusion or reality that taoism is simply a form of psychological thinking or sophistry that can in this instance help interpret or understand violence can belittle the important humility that it doesn’t necessarily possess absolutes in any answer. in this context of possessing no absolutes what tao can offer instead is its pluralism, which isn’t simply sceptical but also broadens horizons of thought to what might for example be better understood as natures of violence within nature rather than simply behavioral symptoms of person-hood.
yet even in all its sophisticated or even simplistic explanation, if this were said to be the case, it can not necessarily change the perspectives of those unwilling to truly listen to its possibilities. the reasons for this can be manifold and even taoism or the tao might not go without relevant justified critique.
thus i consider the first question to ask is what the tao might say about the nature of such a topic?