3 ms·

If someone punches me without any provocation (or even a reasonable consequence) and I am pretty sure they'll do it again without provocation, the only reasonab

If someone punches me without any provocation (or even a reasonable consequence) and I am pretty sure they'll do it again without provocation, the only reasonable thing to do is defend oneself by hitting back. That is actually most of the basis of martial arts (in almost all forms), so it's a pretty solid idea. I wouldn't do it if I knew they were in a gang and I'd likely end up dead, but that is a reasonable consideration of the situation.

mcantor 16y ago
I believe that those qualifications are important, though. And they're different for every person. You wouldn't do it if they were in a gang. What about Gandhi? ("Whenever you are confronted with an opponent. Conquer him with love.") What about Buddha[1]? What about Jesus? ("Turn the other cheek.") Are they all unreasonable fools--were they "doing it wrong," beyond the shadow of a doubt? Or were their considerations reasonable? Aikido is a notable exception to your point about martial arts. I highly suggest Aikido and the New Warrior, an excellent book of modern anecdotes describing what it really means to practice "the way of loving harmony." I'm not saying that hugging is the only way to respond to bullies. In fact, I'm not even saying that I would hug an aggressive bully instead of punching. My point is that you cannot simply say "Quid pro quo, break his nose" and be done with it. Life is more complicated than that. [1] http://viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/non-violence-ahimsa.htm http://viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/...: 'You're a fool' said the veteran, 'What if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?' Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently, 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma, it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it. 'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'
- invisible 16y ago
  Those cited above likely had others that were less moral attitudes that were willing to break from rank to save the higher up. Jesus is not a very good example for many reasons, but the others lived by very different rules and morals. Morality is very different from reasonable consideration of facts. I do not want to die so if I know someone will respond with that type of revenge I will avoid causing that. If Gandhi were alone in an alley and started being beat up on, the morality may hold him from fighting back but that doesn't make the risk of dying any lower.
  - mcantor 16y ago
    I agree that morality and mortal danger have no correlation. I haven't been trying to argue that, though--if there's someplace where it seems like I was, please point it out so I can clarify. In your first paragraph, are you saying that a Buddha/Jesus/Gandhi is only a pacifist because he expects lesser Buddhists/Christians to defend him with violence...? Also, I doubt that Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh would claim that their morality decreased their risk of dying. Their point is that it doesn't change anything (for them).

mcantor 16y ago

I believe that those qualifications are important, though. And they're different for every person. You wouldn't do it if they were in a gang. What about Gandhi? ("Whenever you are confronted with an opponent. Conquer him with love.") What about Buddha[1]? What about Jesus? ("Turn the other cheek.") Are they all unreasonable fools--were they "doing it wrong," beyond the shadow of a doubt? Or were their considerations reasonable? Aikido is a notable exception to your point about martial arts. I highly suggest Aikido and the New Warrior, an excellent book of modern anecdotes describing what it really means to practice "the way of loving harmony." I'm not saying that hugging is the only way to respond to bullies. In fact, I'm not even saying that I would hug an aggressive bully instead of punching. My point is that you cannot simply say "Quid pro quo, break his nose" and be done with it. Life is more complicated than that. [1] http://viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/non-violence-ahimsa.htm http://viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/...: 'You're a fool' said the veteran, 'What if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?' Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently, 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma, it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it. 'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'

invisible 16y ago
Those cited above likely had others that were less moral attitudes that were willing to break from rank to save the higher up. Jesus is not a very good example for many reasons, but the others lived by very different rules and morals. Morality is very different from reasonable consideration of facts. I do not want to die so if I know someone will respond with that type of revenge I will avoid causing that. If Gandhi were alone in an alley and started being beat up on, the morality may hold him from fighting back but that doesn't make the risk of dying any lower.
- mcantor 16y ago
  I agree that morality and mortal danger have no correlation. I haven't been trying to argue that, though--if there's someplace where it seems like I was, please point it out so I can clarify. In your first paragraph, are you saying that a Buddha/Jesus/Gandhi is only a pacifist because he expects lesser Buddhists/Christians to defend him with violence...? Also, I doubt that Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh would claim that their morality decreased their risk of dying. Their point is that it doesn't change anything (for them).