this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43776 readers
909 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a β€˜noble’ end?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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