Asklemmy

43340 readers

2067 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

When do you think violence is justified? (kbin.social)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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