Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn’t violence.
For example, suppose you’re walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.
On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Violence is a form of escalation. One should never cause a conflict to come to a new height and should only resort to something if in response to anything of that same height.
Also, if a ruler of a nation resorts to that, it shows they’re not a great/effective ruler. Fluency in how to rule is determined by how much peace you can accomplish with as little change as possible. Less is more, as they say. If you have to punish people too often like some are doing, you’re violating that “less is more” rule.
this is where the mythological concept of sin sorta helps. So its a bad thing but basically you decide at what point doing the bad thing is worse than other bad things but you can't ever make it not a bad thing. You just accept its price at some point and its ultimately and individual decision and I don't think many will know until that moment. For myself I try to avoid it as much as I can but I don't know in what situation I will be driven to it.
It's always a matter of degrees. The bigger the injustice, the more violence is justified to rectify it. It is in the disproportionality, in my view, where the problem arises.
Never forget that humans are just barely evolved apes. Sometimes a swift knock to the head is required to activate those neural pathways to discourage anti-social behavior. Not always, but also not never. Claiming otherwise is just self-aggrandizing moralization that people use to make themselves sound and feel superior.
Striking someone that could cause lots of violence to others otherwise...
Of course violence would be the last resort in this case as well, in my opinion, but it would be the lesser evil.
Some people use violence to fuel their morbid curiosity.
Can it help an individual who delves into such topic through discussions and material?
If I’m out by myself and I see someone hassling an employee, I get some enjoyment out of being a Large, Unpleasant Man™ and hassling them right back. It’s funny how little they care about their little problem when some random weirdo who doesn’t work there gets involved.
I think it is hard to list all the situations but in the end it boils down to situations where both you personally as the person considering using violence and the average person could live with that decision in the long term. Both because that covers situations where you personally are a lot less or a lot more concerned with the consequences of your actions than the average person. And the average person instead of every single person because there are always some individuals whose views on the matter are a bit too extreme to be practical. Maybe instead of the average person it might make sense to use something like “90% of the population” but in the end you can’t measure things that accurately anyway.
Add comment