let’s assume for now morals and values are subjective.
Occasionally violence is necessary.
For example: a person may be surrounded by physically and mentally abusive people, and in order to protect himself and/or his friends and neighbors, he has to retaliate.
It’s not always possible to escape abusive people, and rarely is it possible to educate them, sometimes it’s necessary to defend yourself and others, and sometimes it’s necessary to punish abusers.
Another example: say there’s no jobs available, or no decent jobs (jobs that aren’t too demanding and pay enough so that you and yours can live comfortably), and say there’s no government programs, or decent ones, if you can’t pack up your things and move to a better place, it may be necessary to steal, especially if the people you plan to steal from have inordinate wealth and resources and are squandering them on frivolities.
However, if a person is merely under the impression violence is necessary when it’s not, than they need to be reeducated and/or segregated from the rest of society, because their false needs are coming into conflict with the true needs (like the need not be physically and mentally abused or have their wares stolen) of others.
Even if a person has no sympathy, and on top of that is a sadist, it’s irrational, even from their own standpoint to live by the sword, because odds are, they’re going to die by it, and you know what they say, live fast die young.
So as lustful as they may be for inordinate wealth and power over others, in all likelihood their power will eventually be stripped from them, and they’ll be imprisoned or executed.
So their psychological ‘need’, if it can be called that, to have inordinate wealth and be sadistic, is coming into conflict with their own other, arguably greater needs, like the need to be, well, alive, to be safe, secure and live comfortably.
Now there are a few people who slip through the cracks, and aren’t punished by the law or vigilantes, but they are just that, few and far in between.
Punishment comes in all forms, people who don’t break the law, but who’re mentally abusive, they usually were abused, and will wind up abused again, and alone, and at a disadvantage psychosocioeconomically, it’s a cycle.
It’s usually better to swim with society rather than against it, especially when society is treating you reasonably fairly (there’s no such thing as perfect fairness).
But there is a time and place for everything, including degrees of rebellion and revolution, I wouldn’t say it’s always better to swim with the current (I’m trying to be balanced here, find the middle course between being social, antisocial and asocial).
Of course you can’t always convince people of such things, and you don’t have to, people who’re violent still, need, to be incarcerated or in extreme cases, executed, because society has needs of its own, and some conflicts of interest are inevitable.
A lot of people who’re abusive, thou not all, are extremely imbalanced physically, mentally and emotionally, and if their physical and mental health and sanity could be restored, than they’d be able to see the foolishness and futility of their ways.
I could get into objective morals and values but for now, I’ll leave it at the subjective.