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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then let me address these question by question.

If mankind is indeed aggresive, savage, brutal, and also violent...why would you adopt such philosophical beliefs of non-violence or non-resistance?

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.

Would it be better to adopt a certain philosophy base on self-defense rather than take a non-violent stand?

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.

Why would you allow an individual to inflict injury and pain to your body?

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?

What do you really prove by being resistant?

Is it some kind of martyr fanaticism that would drive you NOT to defend yourself?

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.