You address questions that I have grappled with for many years. Can violence be acceptable, even necessary, in order to prevent great harm? I have come to the same conclusion as you namely that it depends on the intent behind the action. I think it makes a great difference if I decide not to defend myself against an attack because I don't want to hurt anyone (then it is my decision to suffer) or if I watch how somebody is being attacked and don't interfere because I am against violence. No matter how noble the intentions of the bystander are, the result defies these noble intentions: the aggressor commits a crime with resultant bad karma (if you subscribe to this idea), the victim suffers terribly and maybe loses their life and is therefore unable to fulfill their potential in life, and you as bystander are guilty of choosing your spiritual ideals over the very pressing needs of a fellow being.
I think it is our duty to act when we have to opportunity and means to do so. I have no idea how brave I would be in a given situation, I just hope that I wouldn't be a total coward.
So, thank you for sharing your thoughts. They are helpful.
Indeed! Context is everything. I used to be very unquestioning in my non-violence stance, but as I entered into a deliberate anti-racist practice, I started to notice how often the messages I got about non-violence were entwined with the white-washed version of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. that paints him as a 'good' Black man doing protest in 'The Right Way'. I began to notice that calls for non-violence are often actually calls to maintain the status quo or to take a both-sides approach of neutrality in situations where doing nothing is not actually neutral.
You address questions that I have grappled with for many years. Can violence be acceptable, even necessary, in order to prevent great harm? I have come to the same conclusion as you namely that it depends on the intent behind the action. I think it makes a great difference if I decide not to defend myself against an attack because I don't want to hurt anyone (then it is my decision to suffer) or if I watch how somebody is being attacked and don't interfere because I am against violence. No matter how noble the intentions of the bystander are, the result defies these noble intentions: the aggressor commits a crime with resultant bad karma (if you subscribe to this idea), the victim suffers terribly and maybe loses their life and is therefore unable to fulfill their potential in life, and you as bystander are guilty of choosing your spiritual ideals over the very pressing needs of a fellow being.
I think it is our duty to act when we have to opportunity and means to do so. I have no idea how brave I would be in a given situation, I just hope that I wouldn't be a total coward.
So, thank you for sharing your thoughts. They are helpful.
Indeed! Context is everything. I used to be very unquestioning in my non-violence stance, but as I entered into a deliberate anti-racist practice, I started to notice how often the messages I got about non-violence were entwined with the white-washed version of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. that paints him as a 'good' Black man doing protest in 'The Right Way'. I began to notice that calls for non-violence are often actually calls to maintain the status quo or to take a both-sides approach of neutrality in situations where doing nothing is not actually neutral.
I wrote another piece similar to this one as Nazi present has increased, which goes into the Karmic view a bit more, and the idea that violence is not by default from a place of hatred, but can come from a place of wrathful protection and love: https://open.substack.com/pub/kschatch/p/how-to-lovingly-punch-a-nazi-fab6353d90dc?r=ntqgr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Helpful and timely. Thank you.
_/\_