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

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months 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
      9
      ·
      8 months 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
      4
      ·
      8 months 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
      ·
      8 months 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
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months 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
          8 months 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