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

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year 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
        3
        ·
        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.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 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.