My Brief Critique on Ahimsa (i.e. non-violence and non-resistance)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



WrathfulDwarf
Before you all go Mahatma Gandhi on my post try to understand the following. If mankind is indeed aggresive, savage, brutal, and also violent...why would you adopt such philosophical beliefs of non-violence or non-resistance? Would it be better to adopt a certain philosophy base on self-defense rather than take a non-violent stand?

Why would you allow an individual to inflict injury and pain to your body? What do you really prove by being resistant? Is it some kind of martyr fanaticism that would drive you NOT to defend yourself?

We have minds that tells us how to think. We have hands that can be clench into fists and hit back. We have legs that possess might enough to kick an attacker. Use them on self-defense!

Now that have given you these comments. Take note that I'm NOT claiming that non-violence isn't effective. But I'm saying that ANY agressor attacking ME or one of my LOVE ONES. Will be getting an ass kicking!

Discuss.

Wesker
I couldn't agree more. The natural instinct is to fight back and defend. Human beings live in a world where survival is the oldest game and by far the most important when push comes to shove. While I could say that nonviolence in many cases shows a trascending of such instincts, I could never understand it. I could never sit still and let someone harm me or my loved ones. Not for faith, not for principle, and not for country either.

Fishy
Non violence is one of the most effective ways to stand up against somebody. Ussually in larger scales.

Imagine if in Iraq, all those freedom fighters/terrorist would have dropped their weapons and would have formed a wall around Baghad refusing to let the Americans enter. If the people in Palestine would have dropped on the ground in mass numbers as the bulldozers came to destroy their houses?

Do you think that either one would still have been hurt? The media would love it.

How people can use it on small scale I really don't understand, I probably couldn't even do it on a larger scale, but it does have its uses then.

Mindship
Sometimes violence is necessary, no question about it. Non-violence, however, is as Wesker put it, a transcension of the baser reactions. It is something to strive for, to move us to the next level, so to speak, of becoming mature and truly civilized. BUT...it must be intellligently applied, or those who fail to defend themselves will perish, possibly taking with them all their admirable goals of something better.

Wesker
Nonviolence may be a goal for a better society, but since we still live in a world where Really Bad Things happen to people, violence is a prefered way of defending one's self.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Wesker
Nonviolence may be a goal for a better society, but since we still live in a world where Really Bad Things happen to people, violence is a prefered way of defending one's self.

There has never been a better society as in Utopian society. There have been rich cultures and prosperous nations. But a better society? never! Not even the Greeks or the Romans could have boasted such claims. This is why I can comprehend the belief that by accepting a beating from an attacker can be consider a noble or courages act. It isn't, it just shows weakness and sadistic behavior. We're humans....we can defend ourselves and hit back.

Ushgarak
You say not to go all Gandhi, WD. But he got far more by passive resistance than he ever would have gotten in a bloody revolution. I think you should address that.

WrathfulDwarf
That I won't dispute. His achievements were suscesful. However, since this is a critique of the philosophy of non-agrresion. I'd rather not address it. If I do it basically cancels my original post. But you or anyone else is welcome to provide it if they like.

Wesker
Then let me address these question by question.



Probably for the same reason one would advocate self-control: because we want to realize our rational nature and trascend the basic instincts and urges of being mere animals.



I would think so. In certain situations, only harm or violence can stop evil from continuing its destructive path. (Though I will point out that the effects of such defensive measures can be hard to realize before the fact. Case in point- people using extreme measures to protect themselves that drastically effect others for ill, or escalate into worse conflict. That's really another discussiont though) If a gunman is forcing his way into your house, he intends to kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal all your possessions, would you be justified in killing him or maiming him to prevent it? Yes. You could not be considered morally good to stand by and let it happen, or adopt a positon of non-violence if violence is the only option you would have to save what you live for and those you have a duty to protect. Some could argue that you could nonviolently take him down and apprehend him, but that's just ridiculous. Why take that chance? Why risk trying to disarm or judo throw a gunman when you can shoot him or stab him and end it right there?

We could get into "Where does one draw the line", but I think the above scenario is pretty straight-forward: you do what you have to in that case. It isn't like you're being mugged or having your rights stolen; this is far more immediate and personal.



I wouldn't. Pain acts as a natural motivator to living beings. We hate it. We naturally try and avoid it. It hurts when you stick your hand on a burner. Why would you cause damage to yourself or allow it when you could avoid it? What is moral about allowing someone or something to harm your body?



Apparently. It's a belief in honor and a code that trascends mortality and physical being. Faith, really.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Wesker
If a gunman is forcing his way into your house, he intends to kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal all your possessions, would you be justified in killing him or maiming him to prevent it? Yes. You could not be considered morally good to stand by and let it happen, or adopt a positon of non-violence if violence is the only option you would have to save what you live for and those you have a duty to protect. Some could argue that you could nonviolently take him down and apprehend him, but that's just ridiculous. Why take that chance? Why risk trying to disarm or judo throw a gunman when you can shoot him or stab him and end it right there?

In a situation sucha as that there really is no morals to worry about. You just take action. Your in a position to take a stand and defend yourself and your love ones. Is impossible to take a non-violent approach. I don't see how can anyone would disagree....unless they expect the gunman to say "I'm sorry...I didn't meant to break into your home".

Wesker
Well, being nonviolent rarely pays off. You could cite Gandhi as being one case where it did work, but you could also list millions of other situations where it would literally bite you in the ass.

Illustrious
Originally posted by Wesker
Well, being nonviolent rarely pays off. You could cite Gandhi as being one case where it did work, but you could also list millions of other situations where it would literally bite you in the ass.

You could also cite the Civil Rights movement in America as nonviolent protest.

The thing is, nonviolent protest only works when you have sufficient influence and other factors. You have to take advantage of another human tendency: an eye for an eye.

If a large group were to rally and protest nonviolently, there is no one that could reasonably do anything to break it up efficiently. They can't use strength of arms, as that would be engaging in combat and would violate the moral codes that would likely only turn more people towards their cause. They could not overpower them in strength of numbers, they would be fighting the nonviolent masses. They couldn't attempt to silence their viewpoints, as that many individuals would almost undoubtedly have the right to speak and have their opinion heard.

You're right. If someone were to strike me, I'd kick their ass. But that's micro versus macro. A different argument in its entirety.

Great Vengeance
Non-violence only works like said before in large scale situations, and it requires the force being resisted against to have some kind of moral codes or beliefs. For example protesters in communist china getting massacred, protesting doesnt work if your enemy is barbaric and will kill you without hesitation.

Ushgarak
Yet in being peaceful protestors who were then killed they have probably done far more for their cause than a violent protest ever woulkd have done. China is on the back foot because of its actions.

I do have a certain respect to those that abhor violence so much that they will never take violent action under any provocation. They would not expect the gunman to stop. They just hold dear that answering violence with violence would be morally wrong.

TheOne101
The fact that someone like you say that has taken up a vow of non-violence would sit there and let a gunman do such things in front of them makes me sick to my stomach.

By taking a vow of non-violence to the point and sense that you wouldn't prevent someone with a gun or knife from comming into your home, raping your wife, and doing whatever else to your kids is denying the very thing that makes us what we are. Violence is a part of humanity. Without it we woldn't be where we're at now and we wouldn't be going where we're going. Without violence and action, standing up for yourself and loved ones makes you inhumane. You are becomming a tiny little voice in the voice of society saying "Don't fight, put that gun down, he is only raping you wife because he is mentally ill." Bullshit, If you become completely pacifistic to that point then you should no longer consider yourself a human being.

Ushgarak
Well, quite a few people would disagree, and would in fact say that being driven to violence is denial of what we should be.

Once more, Gandhi was a proponent of such total non-violence. Much as what he wanted was eventually ruined by others, it certainly has its place, and to dismiss such people as not human is very intolerant indeed. Perhaps you are worried that such people are actually superior humans?

True pacifism, if you are committed to it, is a noble thing. It says that a certain thing is wrong, and sticks to that regardless of circumstance or provocation. It's not in the least bit hypocritical, which makes it a whole lot better than many mainstream beliefs.

TheOne101
Them being superior to me is not and was not my purpose or fear. Violent is what we ARE. key word, you said being non-violent was what we strive for. But as far as im conscerned we're still working on it so by all means, kick some ass. With the amount of stupidit, racism, ignorance, arrogance, etc in this world it is just too big and too F'ed up to have pacifism on a global scale. If fighting became completely illegal all over in all shapes and forms then fine, whatever, but nothing as god as that sounds will last. or would last.

Wesker
I have to say, there's nothing noble in allowing harm to come to your wife and kids all in the name of an ideal is moral laziness. If a good man sits there and does nothing while evil works, is he still a good man?

Tangible God
You could relate this to the death penalty. If someone were to kill your wife, your parents, your siblings etc., could you honestly defend your standpoint of "two wrongs don't make a right?" Would you truly see nothing wrong in letting the person who murdered your loved ones live?

It's on a lesser scale than that, but if someone were to attack you, unless you are physically unable to do damn thing, your going to try and fight back to protect yourself; it's human nature. And if someone were to threaten the lives or safety of those you cared about, and you had it in your ability to stop them, why would you NOT?

Wesker's right, it's not an ethically or a morally good thing to stand by and let it happen. Though the law might not see it the same way, how could you go on tolerating yourself knowing that you let harm come on to those who did not deserve it?

TheOne101
I agree with you Tangible, and Wesker.
It's denying your human nature thereby making you In-humane. If you want to deny what you are then go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when people start taking advantage of it.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I have to say, there's nothing noble in allowing harm to come to your wife and kids all in the name of an ideal is moral laziness. If a good man sits there and does nothing while evil works, is he still a good man?

In my book he isn't...unless he's mentally challenge or physically disable.

Janus Marius
And that's more of not being able to help than not willing to help.

We judge people by the actions they can control to a certain extent. Sitting there and saying "I'm Gandhi" doesn't solve the problem of immediate danger to your family.

Tangible God
True. And it's obvious Gandhi had no notion of bloodshed, but he was a smart guy, and I'd bet anything that he knew that Ahimsa was the ONLY way to challenge the British. He couldn't fight them through force of arms. Hell, the guy may even have considered violence if it came to it.

WrathfulDwarf
Yeah, I agree Gandhi wasn't stupid but then again he was facing the British. Even if you see them as the bad guys the British have a sense of humanity in them. Gandhi knew that a non-violent approach was the only way he could persuade the British to leave.

If it would have been a someone else instead of the British (a more brutal and less humane enemy) you think Ahimsa would have work? Hell No! Gandhi would have been the first one to pick up a rifle and fight to the death.

Tangible God
Exactly.

Janus Marius
Yeah, the approach works, but only against a certain foe.

ahimsa
love love love

~DEARS .... smile You can read upon the true nature of ahimsa ... For the PROTECTION of SELF, HUMANITY AND ALL SPECIES smile .... If a lion kills a deer ... he is doing so because his spirit is innocent to the hurt ... and is doing so to protect .. feed his family ... instinct

~If a man enters your house and grabs your child ... you .. a.) kill the man ... and this mans own family ... own child feels the pain .... you descover the man was deathly poor and wanted to kidnap your child ... have you eliminated the problem? Has your child .. a young spirit learnt?

or b.) restrain the man ? ..... We all share one divine spirit ... we call this 'life' ... whatever religion / philosophy .... Ahimsa ... is a word to represent / describe the essence of our nature ... what all our spirits need to become eternally whole ... in harmony.

HURT = represents a sensation ... one our spirit dislikes / we dislike ... we are blessed with a hightend awareness of the true meaning of life ... which is LIFE .... our spirit tells us not to hurt ... do we listen?

~If there is a war .... you are a soldier ... you are walking through a forest and come across one enemy soldier .... face to face ... he has no gun .... WHAT do you do??? .... I personally couldnt ..... If i new nothing of ahimsa ... i would still experience a sensation of 'Gosh' ... listen too your spirit .... you walk away ... you smile .... / or you kill him and think .... gosh He Was Just Like Me ..... this is AHIMSA

When you see 'Non Violence' its not litoral .... okay dears smile I am devoted to ahimsa ... but if I saw a child being hurt ... I would do everything to help the child .... I wouldnt fight the person causing such violence .... as what would be the point ..... i would be hit ... beaten myself .... i would not utter a word ... I might be forced to restrain the *person* .... Ahimsa - is about Humanity ....

ahimsa
ITS NOT ABOUT ACTION ... its about reaction ..... its deeper .... Ghandi new this smile Martin Luther King new this .... Mother Teresa new this .... fight (strive) to SAVE, HELP, DEMONSTRATE .... NOT TO KILL .... smile

Please think my dears smile Hurt - creates - Hurt .... The more people that realise it ... the less hurt .... our spirits .... world will be saved ... we will become one .... eternally whole smile

Much love x

King Kandy
Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Yeah, I agree Gandhi wasn't stupid but then again he was facing the British. Even if you see them as the bad guys the British have a sense of humanity in them. Gandhi knew that a non-violent approach was the only way he could persuade the British to leave.

If it would have been a someone else instead of the British (a more brutal and less humane enemy) you think Ahimsa would have work? Hell No! Gandhi would have been the first one to pick up a rifle and fight to the death.
They asked Gandhi if he would advocate nonviolence against Hitler, he said yes.

inimalist
I think it is a bit inaccurate to charactize Ghandi as "non-violent", and especially his tactics. Violence was at the core of his campaign for independence, just not as the aggressors. The purpose of his demonstrations was presciesly to get the British forces to overreact, and essentially shame his own and the British people into resisting such an oppressive rule. Violence was integral to why his tactics worked, if the British had not beaten him and his followers, there would have been little impetus for independence.

The comparison to the Nazis is less apt, but lets not ignore the resistance movements that engaged in sabatage and other things that crippled the Nazi war machine, without being inherently "violent".

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
I think it is a bit inaccurate to charactize Ghandi as "non-violent", and especially his tactics. Violence was at the core of his campaign for independence, just not as the aggressors. The purpose of his demonstrations was presciesly to get the British forces to overreact, and essentially shame his own and the British people into resisting such an oppressive rule. Violence was integral to why his tactics worked, if the British had not beaten him and his followers, there would have been little impetus for independence.

The comparison to the Nazis is less apt, but lets not ignore the resistance movements that engaged in sabatage and other things that crippled the Nazi war machine, without being inherently "violent".
Yeah, that was the point... I think its pretty obvious "non-violent" is supposed to mean that the people practicing it won't be violent.

inimalist
They didn't fight back, true, but they went out with the intention of provoking a violent reaction.

red g jacks
"Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
They didn't fight back, true, but they went out with the intention of provoking a violent reaction.
Yeah, but I don't think Gandhi's crowd ever actually tried say that their non-violent tactics meant that there would be no violence on either side.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, but I don't think Gandhi's crowd ever actually tried say that their non-violent tactics meant that there would be no violence on either side.

for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"
I'm curious what kind of resistance it is you think will never result in any violence.

inimalist
Its more that I think there is a difference between tactics that promote non-violent protest (such as those in Egypt, where they weren't trying to shame the regime into collapse) vs Ghandi, who explicity set out to have violence done to him.

but tbh, depending on how we define violence, resistance at its core may be violent in nature

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"

I don't see why. It's not as though they were showing anything that wasn't true or real, just bringing it to the fore.

inimalist
of course they were. I'm not passing a judgement on Ghandi, simply saying that I don't think "non-violence" acutally articulates the point he was trying to make, especially considering his position required the violence of the british regieme

elfirrepins
I believe the reason why we view things as such is because of our genes. We try not to follow what ends up following us. Violence is an automatic trigger because it is in our genes. And it all starts at the beginning when we were all a part of the circle of life that is survival.

We had to teach ourselves to be violent so that we could live. Throughout time though, we have evolved our intelligence as such that we could take out a planet with a simple press of a button. In the end, we took the circle of life for granted, and it had changed our perspective of life itself.

When we took survival for granted, we took violence for granted. Hence the reason people believe in growth.

inimalist
Originally posted by elfirrepins
I believe the reason why we view things as such is because of our genes. We try not to follow what ends up following us. Violence is an automatic trigger because it is in our genes. And it all starts at the beginning when we were all a part of the circle of life that is survival.

We had to teach ourselves to be violent so that we could live. Throughout time though, we have evolved our intelligence as such that we could take out a planet with a simple press of a button. In the end, we took the circle of life for granted, and it had changed our perspective of life itself.

When we took survival for granted, we took violence for granted. Hence the reason people believe in growth.

violence is as much a part of our genes as is altruism

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
They didn't fight back, true, but they went out with the intention of provoking a violent reaction. Perhaps 'passive aggressive' would be better? It doesn't have the same noble ring, though.

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
Its more that I think there is a difference between tactics that promote non-violent protest (such as those in Egypt, where they weren't trying to shame the regime into collapse) vs Ghandi, who explicity set out to have violence done to him.

but tbh, depending on how we define violence, resistance at its core may be violent in nature
Anyone who goes out and protests when he knows the police will react violently is promoting a violent reaction... The nonviolence of ghandi was to simply go do things against the will of the police and let what comes comes... if Egyptian protesters had gone to make salt instead, the result would have been the same regardless of intent.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.