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

      • @BitSound
        link
        101 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
        link
        fedilink
        41 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 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.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      31 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.