Sorry mummyxtwo I don't want to sound like I'm picking a row with you, I feel this is more a dilemma than an argument anyway.
My moral instincts, or 'take' is, I hope the same as all level-headed, sentient, human beings and that is that violence is abhorrent. But there are all kinds of shades of grey here.
You say Don't teach your child to stand there cowed and helpless But what does that actually look like or mean if you have a child alone, cornered and being struck by a bully? Would you like to see your child fall to the ground crying and take the blows until the bully is satisfied he's hurt him enough, or fight his way out and get away? I know you hate it, (the violence that is) so do I, but these situations do very sadly occur and quite often.
violence is wrong, therefore not justified in any circumstances.
I don't agree, I believe that in exceptional circumstances the moderate use of violence to defend ourselves is justified. I mean I wouldn't wag my finger at Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto by the Nazis, awaiting the gas chamber, for trying to shoot their way out.
As I said, it's up to us to teach our kids the importance of not responding to every bit of physical, playground argy- bargy by throwing punches and wrestling people to the ground. But to judge what kind of situations they can defend themselves in. When and how best to do that.