Ethics of forced removal of violence from society.

[Quantum Quack]

Is there any objective way of measuring which/whose morality is better? And is there an acceptable way of establishing such a "better" morality - especially if the other (violently) disagrees?

this I believe is a good question and one that would be difficult to answer properly.

Morality needs to be proved to have an objective premise for starters. There is some argument to suggest that morality does indeed have an objective imperative. In that the evolution of sustainable success of a social structure requires the evolution of morality. [ re: E.O.S.S. Evolution of sustainable success]
It is obvious that for evolution of nature requires the ambition of sustainable success other wise the evolution would fail. Sustainability to some extent is inherent in all we observe around us but is it permanently sustainable ?

Social moralities have evolved over time with the issue of sustainable success at heart IMO. As morality and ethics reflects a better understanding of self and how to achieve a more permanent evolved state.
So if morality has an objective imperative then it must evolve to wards sustainability there for the question:

Is there any objective way of measuring which/whose morality is better? And is there an acceptable way of establishing such a "better" morality - especially if the other (violently) disagrees?

has some chance of finding a solution as the greatest argument would be that morality is a subjectively formulated belief system [ which it is, yet with an objective imperative driving it IMO]

 

[flameofanor5]

Why would we need to use violence in defense of something that wont be happening? Who will cause us to defend ourselves when we are incapable of physical violence?