There is a very broad spectrum of personal violence - from people who believe violence should be used to solve every problem they can as it becomes an option to do so, to the other end of the spectrum to suggest violence should never be used to solve any problem whatsoever. At one end is people who may self-identify as authoritarians or dictators. Their "moral value", if it is one, is that might makes right. The other end is quite clear as people who self-identify as pacifists who hold the moral value that personal violence is wrong. But, even these extreme ends can further separate. Someone could say we cannot use violence against any life at all including plants, and must subsist on pure sunlight only for our food.
The historic perspective of our world is that dictators are associated with brutality and pacifists are associated with spirituality. The historic trend is to move towards peacefulness. The pacifist is more concerned with being moral (or principled), while the dictators have been more concerned with getting things done at the cost of anyone who gets in their way as pragmatism. Most people think of brutality as a bad, and spirituality as a good. This sense conveys responsibility that most people have avoided... to draw the fine line between what is too much violence and say one should not step further than that.
The reason we don't usually draw that line our selves about when violence is okay is because we give that responsibility to someone else, most often by voting, and drawing their lines as ours. However, it is unethical to vote away your personal responsibilities as a blank check, and generally leaves you holding the bag of responsibility for what your elected person did, as you approved of that with your vote. When you vote for someone who does wrongful violence, you have done wrongful violence. If a politician orders the military to go on an unjustified expedition leading to a human dying, and you voted for that politician, you are personally responsible for that death.
People consider wrongful violence against others as having severe and heavy consequences, and they are correct. For this reason, it is better to evaluate peaceful solutions first. But this actually isn't the way most people think. They simply thing about what is most pragmatic, violent or not. For example, if a problem of someone crashing a high-speed car, a first reaction by some is to consider banning faster cars. Of course by banning they mean to use violence, such as to place someone in jail if they insist on driving a faster car. But they didn't even so much as think about a non-violent method first! They were thinking about pragmatics without considering morality as principles first.
The people who do consider this line often arrive at the non-aggression principle (NAP) or the Porcupine Principle. "Aggression [violence] is only for stopping wrongful acts of harm by others. Aggressive (physical) force is stoppable with (physical) force, but words only with words." -Caroasi (reference through signature)
This is the most popular clear principle that draws a line between justified and unjustified violence. There are also general guiding natural rules which are also principles, not based on pragmatism but rather following ways of virtue that are hoped or expected for everyone that don't have exceptions.
There are also other principles as natural rules that can be more or less restrictive along this line. "Natural Rules We follow the rules of nature because that provides effective and positive consequences without any mandate.
Golden Rule Care for others at least as well as you care for your self. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Carbon Rule Live and let live. Leave others alone as they leave you alone.
Noble Gas Rule Words against words, blades against blades. We limit our self to expression against wrongful expression, not force."
-Caroasi
Rather than looking at every situation and coming up with the correct idea with context, virtuous people will come up with proven principles that don't simply use someone's personal opinions at the time. Logic can be used to justify anything, and so instead of using it to justify whatever you want whenever you want it, it is better for society as a whole to use it to develop principles that minimize exceptions. When society uses more principles than pragmatics, it will be an authentic civilization. Until then, it is a house without a foundation blowing around in a tornado.
If you cannot base what you're doing on fundamental principles with minimum exception, that is a path towards unjustified violence against others. Before voting for someone willing to use violence, or before using violence your self, you have a personal responsibility to draw the line on what would be unjustified or not and to know where anyone doing your bidding aligns on that topic. If you don't accept the Porcupine Principle (non-aggression principle), then please tell me what principles do you have to draw that line? And if you do accept the Porcupine Principle, how far does that stretch... does it include violence against financial fraud for example?