Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It works out just fine if you don’t think self-preservation is the most important aspect of life. Buddhist moral development demands realizing the temporary nature of life. A massacre is just another means by which one’s life ends. A person is still responsible for upholding moral principles.

        • BitSound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I realize we’re probably not going to convince each other over some internet comments, but that’s not a philosophy I’d sign up for. Morality is subjective, and I’d rather choose moral principles that don’t involve me accepting being massacred.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.

        • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a lot of things one can conclude from the ‘temporary’ nature of life (we know of several species whose sole cause of death is ‘eaten by predator’ or ‘died in an accident’ so life is not neccesarily temporary) and the buddhist interpretation seems to be a bit defeatist to me. “Life is short so I may as well throw it away” would have gotten humanity extinct at several points in history. If all life lived according to this mindset nature would be imbalanced and collapse immediately. Why should the deer rum from the wolves? Why should the rabbit from the fox? Without a drive to survive life would not have evolved past the microbial stage because there would have been no selection bias favoring individual genetic traits. As a result no single trait would get popular enough to get life out of the microbial stage. Now there can be a discussion about whether or not life should have evolved but that’s on another page entirely.

          • mayoi@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You cannot reason that life shouldn’t have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved.

            • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              among the reasons why that argument would never occur this is one of them. Another is that anyone seriously holding that belief should, unless they are a hypocrite, not be among the living anymore

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is no need of hate. You can defend and retaliate, but hate is pointless. Do it out of necessity, out of love of your neighbors and the need to protect them, not out of hate to the attackers. That’s what it is about.

    • sngoose@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a curious question: Would that also apply to your loved ones being savagely killed?

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol, I told her recently that if she dies giving birth to our child, I will be totally devastated. I didn’t have a mom because she did giving birth to my sister when I was baby.

        But, if someone is responsible for her death, of course I’ll be both devastated and vengeful. Even so, a part of me will want peace and serenity, and that part of me will see accepting what happened is the best way to do that.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can do no violence but also feel sorrow at violence being done. Not only are those stances not incompatible but I’d argue they’re in alignment. Violence, done by you, to you or simply involving others, is an occurrence to weep for. Some people are being put through unnecessary pain and some people are of an unsound mind and believe putting others through pain is justified.

          I won’t judge someone who defends themselves for self preservation but I will applaud someone who continues to try and deescalate violence even as it’s being enacted on them… though I will clarify this is all at the adult level, children take some time to come to awareness of who and what other people are and are still growing into their full selves.

    • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d argue removing the bandits ability to cause further dismemberment by means of violence against them and being consumed by rage and hatred are two different things.