β² 71 βΌ When do you think violence is justified? (kbin.social) submitted 2 years ago by ReallyKinda@kbin.social to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml 93 comments fedilink hide all child comments Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a βnobleβ end?
[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] BitSound@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) It's a nice thought, but doesn't work out so well permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] BitSound@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] darq@kbin.social 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] mayoi@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] sngoose@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Just a curious question: Would that also apply to your loved ones being savagely killed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Yes, hate does not solve anything. Gun does. permalink fedilink source parent [+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] BitSound@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) It's a nice thought, but doesn't work out so well permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] BitSound@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] darq@kbin.social 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] mayoi@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] BitSound@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] darq@kbin.social 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] mayoi@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[β] BitSound@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] darq@kbin.social 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] mayoi@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[β] mayoi@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[β] neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 point 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] sngoose@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Just a curious question: Would that also apply to your loved ones being savagely killed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Yes, hate does not solve anything. Gun does. permalink fedilink source parent [+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Yes, hate does not solve anything. Gun does. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent