Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I agree there exists a noble virtue in a life conducted according to a personal principle (e.g. "nonviolence") - especially when it bears the risk of personal loss or harm. For example, to take the "high road" of principle may require that one to "turn the other cheek" in the face of harm or to never raise one's hands in aggression towards another human being. And that is a very difficult thing to do – I can respect someone who is strong enough to live that way.
However, for me, that philosophy falls entirely apart when you accept responsibility for the well-being of other people (e.g. as a father with family or as a leader of a town, city, state or nation). It is one thing to be willing to sacrifice your own health and life for principle … but should you sacrifice the lives of the people you govern (or love) to satisfy your personal principles?
|
Ultimately, the responsibility of one lies in him or herself. Let me put it this way. I have a 2 year old daughter. At one time ot another 24 hours a day, my wife or I are near her. If someone were to try and hurt her or take advantage of her, I would not sit in front of the state capitol building with a sign. If she were taken for monitary gain (ransom, slave labor), I or my wife would simply confront - stand between her and the kidnapper - and try to resolve the issue. "What are you doing?" and a simple posture would deter many, but not all. Let's say that this person has a knife (we've overused guns in the hypothetical situations posed in this thread). This person wants to do me bodily harm. I can stay between him and my daughter without hurting or killing him. If I were to try and take the knife, for example, I would not need to hurt him. We can go through hypothetical situations until we are blue in the face [fingers], the point is that I believe that I can live and even be responsible for my daughters life without being violent, under any circumstances.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Note: Leadership of a “movement” is a different matter, however. As an iconoclast for ideals, Ghandi’s influence in history and world consciousness is undeniable. I’ll leave it to the reader to research Mahatma Ghandi’s effectiveness as a responsible husband to his wife and father to his children.
In my opinion, self-proclaimed “non-violent” purists thrive in self-indulgence but suffer in positions of responsibility for the well-being of others.
|
My daughter is not dead or injured because of my philosophy. Because of a man like Ghandi, I have learned that there is an outlet for my furstration with violence. In fact, I can take a passive role in decreasing violence in the world. Ghandi's teatment of his family was and is enexcusable, but it doesn't negate his great work. No one is perfect, and we all have our demons.
[QUOTE=longbough]However, I don't believe that
all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.[/QUOE]
I recognise that not all violence stems from a lack of self control, or anger, or rage, or anything dishonorable. I know that much violence comes from self defense. I have no illusions about that. "However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
In your case that would be true. But for me I’m not concerned with the issue of “victory” because for me it’s a purely practical issue, not a purely philosophical one.
If I cause harm to another individual because they posed an otherwise unavoidable threat to my family then my decision to act represents a simple equation: his/her life vs. my loved one(s) life (lives).
The need to make such a decision is the consequence of his/her initiative - not mine.
|
Moral equasions offer a dangerous prescedent for negotiating one's morality. What use are morals if you do not adhear to them? Also, a fight takes two or more. One person cannot fight.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Does it mean I have no qualms about doing it? Not at all. If I ever killed another person ("justifiably" or not) I will most certainly endure the psychological and emotional aftermath for many years ... probably for the rest of my life.
I don't look forward to facing that possibility, but currently I believe I may have to accept that burden some day if the lives of my family are at stake.
|
I appreciate that you do not take this lightly, nor would I expect you to. The logical conclusion from your responses and points is that you are educated and thoughful, and more importantly sympathetic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
But FAILING to protect my family also bears an emotional and psychological burden - one that would be more unplesant to face. I couldn't forgive myself if I had to choose this path.
|
I realize that. Either way, this is a terrible situation that no one wants to find himself or herself in. The one difference between us is a simple difference of perspective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Perhaps in your “moral” sensibility I have “lost” because I resorted to violence. Fine. The value of my entire life doesn’t revolve around a singular philosophic principle.
|
This is hardly my only moral, and there are other related morals attached to this one. In fact, most people have a very intrecit system of morals that each have their limits, in fact mine could even have their limits after all I make this post being of sound mind. I don't know how I would respond if my daughter were in danger and I were in a position to help her. The closesest I have come to that was a bad cold she had a year ago.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I don’t believe that life is constructed solely of moral dualities. Not all choices are clearly “right” or “wrong.” “Moral dilemmas” are, by definition, those cases where personal principles come into conflict – and where every option has a measure of “good” and “bad.”
I believe life isn’t simple. If I choose to steal bread to feed my family I have weighed the consequences and made a commitment. If I choose to let my family starve rather than steal I have chosen the path of a different principle. I believe life is full of ugly decisions in an imperfect world. The purest life can only be conducted in isolation beyond the complexities of people, community and political strife. Maybe that's why "holy men" often live as celebate hermits without possessions or responsibilities.
IMO If life was meant to be “pure” without conflict … then what’s the point of living? That’s what I believe.
Do I feel at peace understanding that I have the means of committing violence with a firearm? Of course not. But it is my choice.
If your choice is different - I can't venture to say you were "wrong" - only that your balance of principles is different.
|
Agreed and understood.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I don’t have a gun just because society says I can justifiably kill people. That's not what responsible gun ownership is about.
|
I understand that. You have a gun because you've taken a different path on your feelings about violence. In the extreme situation where you or one of your loved ones is in danger, you have a gun as the absolute last resort. I understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
Should I consider you a more dangerous person because you mentioned you are adept at martial arts? How would you feel if people said that your training just means you are a violent person? How would you feel if the laws determined that you, as a martial artist, has a greater potential for violence against your family and/or society because you have chosen to learn skills specifically designed to cause injury or death? How would you feel if, because of that, you had to register with the local sherrif every time you move to a different county?
|
I do not think you are dangerous because you have a gun. I think you could be dangerous to someone who puts you into a situation where you would use that gun. If I were a gun owner, I would not be dangerous to anyone. My gun would be in a safe, in the basement, behind the old dresser. It would be in a place where no one could get at it, even me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
As a fellow practitioner of martial arts I believe that the principle of knowledge (e.g. in martial arts) is a greater empowerment. Like you I believe I have become even less prone to violence when I became more proficient in learning martial arts. That’s because the study of martial arts gives knowledge and self-awareness especially in the face of adversity.
|
It's all very Daoist, I know, but in understanding violence I was able to get a better perspective of peace.