"murder Most Foul, As In The Best It Is.."

[WanderingTaoist]

After purusing the "Politics and Current Events" forum, I happened upon a thread where _____ was discussing his experiences in the armed forces, and before long the topic of conversation turned to ethics.

If the topic hasn't been thouroughly exhausted, I'd like to raise it again here, but more generally:

What are your thoughts on the ethics of killing and warfare? Do "ethics" and "killing" even belong in the same sentence? Is it ever acceptable to kill another person? What about war? Is war ever justified?

[scameter]

Well, if we're speaking entirely from the view of ethics and without anyone's personal beliefs, such as a religion, as a bias, then I think killing can be considered ethical when the death of one or a very small number of people can prevent the death of many people in the current or future, and that war is only acceptable for defense, which is not really even war it's self on my opinion.

[WanderingTaoist]

Well, if we're speaking entirely from the view of ethics and without anyone's personal beliefs, such as a religion, as a bias, then I think killing can be considered ethical when the death of one or a very small number of people can prevent the death of many people in the current or future, and that war is only acceptable for defense, which is not really even war it's self on my opinion.

Why don't we bring people's personal beliefs and religion, I don't think that's too much of a bias. It'll probably keep things interesting.

Taking religion/spirituality into account, would your answer to those questions change, scam?

[scameter]

Definitely, as various religions and personal beliefs have their own ethical standpoints. Christianity views ethics mainly from a sin orientation, that our physical bodies are polluted by our original disobedience to God, but that if we act out of selfless service to God, and thus in a loving, selfless, compassionate sense, we can act without sin. But, because Jesus cleared sin, our actions only matter in this lifetime; our sins here do not affect our souls. In Buddhism, the ego is what creates karma, when acts are done in the interest of it, and karma creates and allows to persist the cycle of birth and death. To become enlightened, enter Nirvana and thus escape this perpetual cycle, one must shed their karma, which is done through not acting by the ego, but rather in a selfless manner. To Taoism, the quality of one's actions is usually dictated by how much they are in-tune with the natural flow of nature. This is why Yin, or passive femininity, is encouraged above Yang, or aggressive masculinity, in Taoism, because Yin simply goes with the flow of nature passively, instead of intruding upon said flow with the egoistic will of an individual, which is more in a Yang sense. Judaism is really pretty similar to Christianity, just substitute all the Jesus stuff with the Ten Commandments as being crucial. And I cannot really comment on Shinto, Hinduism or Islam, because I am rather ignorant of their ethics.

[Starry_Canopy]

What are your thoughts on the ethics of killing and warfare? Do "ethics" and "killing" even belong in the same sentence? Is it ever acceptable to kill another person? What about war? Is war ever justified?

I can only give my views as I don't know what the official views of any religion is on these matters.

"ethics" can condone neither killing nor war, the latter because it involves violence and also killing.

Killing puts an absolute end to the possibility of any further interaction/ development of that aspect of our selves that mirror the person whom we kill. It also puts a stop to all the further developments/ changes that the person killed could have experienced were he/ she not been killed. I don't think that any person can arrogate to himself the power to inflict that final stop to either party. No one has that right, as far as the putting an end to the victims experiences and opportunities for further growth/ change. As far as the killer himself is concerned, he can as well put an end to changes/ developments in the 'mirrored aspect' of the victim within his own self by just having to do nothing with it rather than kill the victim.

War is disgusting. As we grow up, don't we gradually become more refined and settle differences by verbal discussions/ fights rather than come to blows physically? War is just an ugly regression even beyond the physical fighting of children, where the intent is not just to hurt, but to hurt beyond endurance and death. Anyone who says that the war is for a just cause is using a future, that could be changed by present actions other than war, to justify inflicting untold misery on others in the present. I don't think anything can be more hypocritical than that.

After saying all this, I would like to say that war or killing in self defense is morally acceptable to me, though the injunction of the divine personalities is that we should rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I am afraid that I am too weak to be able to do that, ie. offer no resistance or to stop someone who is coming to kill me or my family/ friends and to do so, if necessary, by killing him first.

[WanderingTaoist]

Definitely, as various religions and personal beliefs have their own ethical standpoints. Christianity views ethics mainly from a sin orientation, that our physical bodies are polluted by our original disobedience to God, but that if we act out of selfless service to God, and thus in a loving, selfless, compassionate sense, we can act without sin. But, because Jesus cleared sin, our actions only matter in this lifetime; our sins here do not affect our souls. In Buddhism, the ego is what creates karma, when acts are done in the interest of it, and karma creates and allows to persist the cycle of birth and death. To become enlightened, enter Nirvana and thus escape this perpetual cycle, one must shed their karma, which is done through not acting by the ego, but rather in a selfless manner. To Taoism, the quality of one's actions is usually dictated by how much they are in-tune with the natural flow of nature. This is why Yin, or passive femininity, is encouraged above Yang, or aggressive masculinity, in Taoism, because Yin simply goes with the flow of nature passively, instead of intruding upon said flow with the egoistic will of an individual, which is more in a Yang sense. Judaism is really pretty similar to Christianity, just substitute all the Jesus stuff with the Ten Commandments as being crucial. And I cannot really comment on Shinto, Hinduism or Islam, because I am rather ignorant of their ethics.

Very good summary, scam :) Do any of the religions you mentioned effect your personal views?


After saying all this, I would like to say that war or killing in self defense is morally acceptable to me, though the injunction of the divine personalities is that we should rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I am afraid that I am too weak to be able to do that, ie. offer no resistance or to stop someone who is coming to kill me or my family/ friends and to do so, if necessary, by killing him first.

I'm not so sure you're "weak" for believing this, Starry_Canopy; let me ask you this: who is ultimately harmed the most by murder, the victim or the murderer?

There is a natural inclination to think that it is the victim who suffers the most harm, but I would hold that it is in fact the murderer who harmed the most. Everyone is going to die eventually; hence the murderer was not robbing the victim of anything she was not going to lose at some point anyway. I don't even think we can say that the victim would have lived for years had the murder not occured; maybe she would have been hit by a truck three seconds later. We don't know when we are going to die, we have no control over time. The murderer cannot take the past from us, since the past is over and cannot be touched, but he can't take the future from us, either, since the future has not yet arrived, is not ours, and there is no garuntee how long the future is anyway. All the murder can rob from us is our life in the present moment, which is fleeting.

The murderer, on the other hand, has become exactly that---a murderer. That is a permanent change; you cannot undo a murder. If he has committed murder ("murder" here meaning "mindful unlawful killing", not self-defense, not somebody becoming insane and not realizing what they are doing), then he is, and always will be, a murderer---regardless of whether or not he repents, he has murdered, and by our definition murder implies killing out of malice, greed, or unhealthy emotional attachment. In murdering, you taint the only thing we can truly be said to "own" in this life---you taint who you are.

And so, Starry_Canopy, it seems to me that in self-defense you are not only protecting yourself and your family, you are ultimately rendering your assailiant the greatest service possible---you are preventing him from becoming a murderer. Of course, it's not necessary to kill this individual in order to prevent him from becoming a murderer; it's merely necessary to render him incapable of comitting the act. Which means that should be your primary priority in defending yourself. In many, probably most cases, it is possible to stop somebody from killing you without killing him.

If in defending yourself you wind up unintentionally killing your assailiant, that is unfortunate, but you have nevertheless succeeded in preventing him from harming himself. Ultimately, though, it if one cannot defend oneself without killing one's assailiant, then you should accept your fate. You aren't losing anything that you wouldn't have eventually lost.

[scameter]

Do any of the religions you mentioned effect your personal views?

I don't really have personal views. I accumulate knowledge, ideas, thoughts and wisdom, attempt to sculpt away the bullshit (for lack of a better word) in these until I get to the core or truth of them, and I then assimilate them into my base of knowledge. My personal views derive from this base.

[WanderingTaoist]

I don't really have personal views. I accumulate knowledge, ideas, thoughts and wisdom, attempt to sculpt away the bullshit (for lack of a better word) in these until I get to the core or truth of them, and I then assimilate them into my base of knowledge. My personal views derive from this base.

Very interesting! The truth itself belongs to nobody, but is something we all participate in...it sounds like you show great wisdom in not seeking merely to develop "your own view", but to seek the truth itself..."He who hears not my words, but the logos behind them," as Heraclitus would say, I suppose. :D

I suppose I should've asked, has your understanding of the truth been at all influenced by the refinement of the various religious traditions you mentioned earlier?

[Starry_Canopy]

There is a natural inclination to think that it is the victim who suffers the most harm, but I would hold that it is in fact the murderer who harmed the most. Everyone is going to die eventually; hence the murderer was not robbing the victim of anything she was not going to lose at some point anyway.

If that were so, when a thief steals our money, why don't we think that "anyway we were going to part with it some day, so why bother"? :lol:

No, I don't think that's correct! The muderer was robbing the victim of the rest of his life, how much ever it might have been, and robbing it with a finality - without any chance of being able to reverse it.

[WanderingTaoist]

If that were so, when a thief steals our money, why don't we think that "anyway we were going to part with it some day, so why bother"?

It seems to me a number of religions and philosophies advocate exactly this! I can't see a devout Buddhist being especially upset over a roberry (or having that much to rob, for that matter! :D). And Jesus says something along the lines of, "When a thief steals your coat, run after him and offer him your shirt as well."

The muderer was robbing the victim of the rest of his life, how much ever it might have been, and robbing it with a finality - without any chance of being able to reverse it.

Assuredly so! But the murderer has also become a murderer--without any chance of being able to reverse it. Surely it is worse to lose something permanent rather than something that one is going to lose anyway?

[Starry_Canopy]

Assuredly so! But the murderer has also become a murderer--without any chance of being able to reverse it. Surely it is worse to lose something permanent rather than something that one is going to lose anyway?


The only difference between the murderer's predicament and the victim's loss being that one was self-inflicted, whereas the second was imposed by someone else, persumably against one's wish! :)

It seems to me a number of religions and philosophies advocate exactly this! I can't see a devout Buddhist being especially upset over a roberry (or having that much to rob, for that matter! ). And Jesus says something along the lines of, "When a thief steals your coat, run after him and offer him your shirt as well."


Exactly! That's why I said that I was weak, spiritually weak, as I cannot carry out those enlightened injunctions :)

[WanderingTaoist]

The only difference between the murderer's predicament and the victim's loss being that one was self-inflicted, whereas the second was imposed by someone else, persumably against one's wish! :)

There are those, such as Epictetus, who hold that only you can inflict good or evil upon yourself; what is imposed upon you by others is neither good nor evil. Plato held similiar doctrines:

"We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them." -- Epictetus

"Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they can't harm me." -- Plato ( The Apology? I think?)

The second quote I think is key; harming is "to make something worse with respect to what it is" to crudely paraphrase Socrates. I might be dead, but who I am, and my relationship with the Universe, is not changed by that fact.

Exactly! That's why I said that I was weak, spiritually weak, as I cannot carry out those enlightened injunctions:)

It's certainly difficult! If you're weak in this regard, you're not alone! You've definitely got me in the same boat as you 99.9% of the time! :)

[Starry_Canopy]

There are those, such as Epictetus, who hold that only you can inflict good or evil upon yourself; what is imposed upon you by others is neither good nor evil. Plato held similiar doctrines:
"We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them." -- Epictetus
"Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they can't harm me." -- Plato ( The Apology? I think?)
The second quote I think is key; harming is "to make something worse with respect to what it is" to crudely paraphrase Socrates. I might be dead, but who I am, and my relationship with the Universe, is not changed by that fact.

I am sorry, Taoist, but this is going over my head!

Philosophers were also only human beings, not God. So it seems to me that their views don't mitigate the fact that some infernal @#&%^@ drove a bullet or knife into me and ended my life 9assuming I was the victim), though I would have preferred to go on living. I do believe that whoever it was had better pay for what he did to me and learn that that is unacceptable to me as it is to a vast majority of others.

It can, ofcourse, be argued that I must have asked for it in some way. But then, where was the murderer's free will sleeping when he chose to murder me rather than exercise his discretion and make known his displeasure in a more acceptable way? I did not kill him, did I?

If what the muderer did was acceptable, then the logical conclusion is that the suicide bombers are the most noble and intelligent; Noble because, after killing someone, they don't hang around to obtain the sympathies of those who feel bad for them that they have tainted themselves irrevocably; intelligent because they escape the tainted remaining portion of their lives by choosing to die, instead, and enjoy the less odious state being enjoyed by their victims!

Yet we detest them, don't we, and don't look up to them as examples to emulate?

How's that, for an argument? :)

[sonrisa]

this topic can, for the most part, be summed up in 4 words:

thou shalt not kill

the exception, of course, is if your own life, or somebody else's life is in imminent danger from an attacker. Even then it is preferable to try to disarm the attacker without killing them, but often that is not possible

[scameter]

Very interesting! The truth itself belongs to nobody, but is something we all participate in...it sounds like you show great wisdom in not seeking merely to develop "your own view", but to seek the truth itself..."He who hears not my words, but the logos behind them," as Heraclitus would say, I suppose.

:D I appreciate the compliment, and actually... that quote is pretty accurate of what I do, partially.

[WanderingTaoist]

It can, ofcourse, be argued that I must have asked for it in some way. But then, where was the murderer's free will sleeping when he chose to murder me rather than exercise his discretion and make known his displeasure in a more acceptable way? I did not kill him, did I?

If what the muderer did was acceptable, then the logical conclusion is that the suicide bombers are the most noble and intelligent; Noble because, after killing someone, they don't hang around to obtain the sympathies of those who feel bad for them that they have tainted themselves irrevocably; intelligent because they escape the tainted remaining portion of their lives by choosing to die, instead, and enjoy the less odious state being enjoyed by their victims!

Yet we detest them, don't we, and don't look up to them as examples to emulate?

I think you must have misunderstood me! (I don't think my last couple of posts came out all that clear; sorry :( ) I'm not arguing that murder is acceptable; on the contrary, I think it's a heinous crime. But ultimately, the only one the murderer harms is himself; thus we should try to prevent murder, because if I were to murder you, I would be making myself worse.

[Starry_Canopy]

Yes, sorry, Taoist! I was under the impression that you were letting the murderers off too lightly! :lol:

[Michael]

Anyone who justifies the killing of fellow humans is simply afraid to surrender.

[spiritual_emergency]

Wandering Taoist But the murderer has also become a murderer--without any chance of being able to reverse it. Surely it is worse to lose something permanent rather than something that one is going to lose anyway?

What is permanent about being labelled as a murderer for the course of a lifetime that you are going to lose anyway?

The underlying question is, what is the value of life and specifically, life on this plane of existence? As but one example, I recall reading here somewhere (I think it was in a discussion related to Hinduism) that this life is considered to be our only opportunity to liberate ourselves -- a human form seems to be considered necessary to complete that act. If this is true, then at minimum, the murderer has denied the victim this opportunity.

ultimately, the only one the murderer harms is himself

I would agree that in every murder scenario there is often more than one "victim" but I could not agree that the only one harmed is the murderer. At most, this assumes that the murderer will feel guilty for the rest of his or her natural life -- assuming that he or she is actually capable of such feeling, for some murderers have absolutely no remorse for their actions. Those who kill are often quite capable of presenting justifications for doing so. As but one example, Hitler believed that by removing the "Jewish strain" he was creating a superior race of human beings. It wasn't an act of brutality to him, it was an act of service.

For me, there is also the critical matter of those "planes of existence" to consider. As but one example, many moons ago I encountered an individual who believed that any harm being inflicted from one human being to another is nothing more than a form of karmic justice, i.e., if I murder you then it must be because you murdered me in some past life and my act of brutality is merely a necessary act of rebalancing the status quo between us. I can't see the rationale in that argument because it seems to me that if you kill me and I kill you, we're merely acting out a pattern of negative conflict. Presumably, in our next life together, you might kill me yet again for having killed you in the present lifetime we shared. How many shared lifetimes would it take before the score between us settled out at "even"?

Yet another argument I've encountered is that "souls" will write scripts with one another on "the other side" and then come into this venue we call "the human form on planet Earth" to play out the script. This also does not sit rationally with me -- if you know how the game is going to end, why play the game? Surely, our higher selves must have better things to do than make up murder mysteries for entertainment purposes.

Yet another argument I've encountered is that everything is god so it just doesn't matter. The victim is god, the murderer is god, the knife, the gun, the anguish -- it's all just one of the many multifaceted expressions of god. I feel there is some truth in this statement yet it also leaves me feeling deeply conflicted. To accept that statement as an absolute truth seems to nullify any purpose or meaning to life. It implies that as human beings we have no power, no control, and are all merely pawns in the expression of a higher power regardless of how we may personally feel about that. Could that be the "ego" rearing it's ugly head in discontent or is god just the biggest bully and the sooner we can accept that, the less we'll struggle against that force? If that is so, why do all religions emphasize compassion for others? And what are we to make of the brutality that routinely occurs in sacred texts such as the old testament or the underlying violence of the bhagavad gita?

I'm reminded in this moment of a couple I only very, very briefly interacted with (in the online environment). They had a web page dedicated to their five year-old daughter who had been raped and then strangled. When considering the harm inflicted by that act am I only to consider whatever woundedness drove her murderer to those actions? What about the pain of her unlived life? The pain of her parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and even those individuals whose lives she may have touched in some fashion had her own means of expression not been taken from her? Truth be known, if I had been there and I'd had the means of doing so, I think I would have gladly killed her murderer to spare her life. I would justify that action by calling it the higher justice or perhaps, the lesser evil.

How does this kind of murder vary from that of euthanasia, or abortion, or eating the flesh of an animal, fruit or vegetable whose "life" ended to benefit your own. When we draw breath we are transforming the oxygen we breath into carbon monoxide -- are we "killing" oxygen in the process? Is there one of us who could claim to have never "killed"?

When we look at this question of ethics and killing I think we have to look at as much of the picture as we can hold. Death is an even greater certainty than birth for it cannot be said that everyone who should be born will be born, but certainly, everyone who is born will die. There is no escaping death therefore the matter of concern becomes the how and when of death. If we didn't have bodies, if we didn't live on this plane of existence, we could frame those questions in an entirely different manner and come up with entirely different answers, but the point of the matter is that we do have bodies. That said, there are some forms of harm that are more grievious than others. Perhaps the best we can do is to inflict the least harm, but there is not a one of us who can escape inflicting harm to some form of life at some time in our own lives. On the other hand, the following story suddenly comes to mind...

In one of his previous lives, the Buddha was born as the youngest of three princes.* When he was only five years old, the three princes were in a forest playing together at hide-and-seek and other games.* As they were walking in the forest, they came to a cave where they saw a wounded female tiger with five cubs. The mother tiger was very weak and was unable to provide food for the baby tigers.* The Buddha's older brothers went to search for some food, and they asked the young prince to stay near the cave to take care of the mother tiger and the five cubs.

While the Buddha was taking care of the wounded tiger and her five cubs, he began to think that it was not proper to kill other beings and give their flesh to the tiger. He found some large thorns and pressed them into neck, and as the blood came out, he let the cubs and their mother suck the blood.* In fact, he gave his whole body to the five cubs and their mother as an act of generosity.

Source: The Buddha & The Tiger (http://www.khandro.net/animal_tiger.htm)

Maybe your underlying point Wandering Taoist is this: If you kill me and I value my life then you will have taken something I value from me. It is my action of valuing my life that has cast you as a murderer. If however, I willingly give up my life to you, my own actions have made you not-a-murderer. I'll have to try and remember that should I ever have a knife at my throat. Pain is only pain when you resist it; sacrifice is only sacrifice when you don't want to give it; to be born is to die to a known way of life. Life and death are ultimately, two sides of the same coin. If we did not value life, we would not hold death in such disdain. If we did not fear death, these kind of conversations would be unnecessary and so would the value judgements we apply to them. How might this conversation go if we lived in a culture that mourned birth and celebrated death with presents, streamers and a cake with candles. What would happen if we had always sung a different tune...? "Happy Deathday to you." In the end, it's not just this existence that shapes our thoughts about death and dying, it's our uncertainty with what lies beyond that definitive gate. If it was known without a doubt that death brings lasting happiness, maybe we'd all rush to kill ourselves before anything else could. The trouble is, we don't know that with a certainty, so we cling to this existence and value it above all others. In the process, we create murderers and victims.

[WanderingTaoist]

What is permanent about being labelled as a murderer for the course of a lifetime that you are going to lose anyway?

It's not about being labeled a murderer; it's about being a murderer. A murderer is still a murderer regardless of whether anybody knows about it or not.

The underlying question is, what is the value of life and specifically, life on this plane of existence? As but one example, I recall reading here somewhere (I think it was in a discussion related to Hinduism) that this life is considered to be our only opportunity to liberate ourselves -- a human form seems to be considered necessary to complete that act. If this is true, then at minimum, the murderer has denied the victim this opportunity.

That's a very good point---but surely by murdering someone the murder has ruined his own chances for liberation? The sort of person who would be willing to murder another person (where here "murder" means premeditated, purposeful, unlawful killing) doesn't seem like the sort of individual who is liberated and ready for the next step in a spiritual journey. And murdering has got to screw up your karma worse than practically anything else.

The victim, however, could already be at the point of liberation. And if the victim is not, well, they will be reborn, possibly in a better situation than they were before.

At most, this assumes that the murderer will feel guilty for the rest of his or her natural life -- assuming that he or she is actually capable of such feeling, for some murderers have absolutely no remorse for their actions. Those who kill are often quite capable of presenting justifications for doing so. As but one example, Hitler believed that by removing the "Jewish strain" he was creating a superior race of human beings. It wasn't an act of brutality to him, it was an act of service.

It's not about the guilt the murder will make himself feel---in fact the presence of guilt would indicate that he still has some notion of his karma or his defiled character; to be without guilt after murdering somebody implies that the murderer's soul is truly ruined. If I were to murderer somebody and feel guilty, it would be better than if I were to murder somebody and not feel guilty.

I guess I'm talking more about a metaphysical worsening, a person being worse rather than feeling worse. As I said above, I think that if the person in question doesn't feel some kind of remorse, it's a sign that they've truly ruined themselves.

Truth be known, if I had been there and I'd had the means of doing so, I think I would have gladly killed her murderer to spare her life. I would justify that action by calling it the higher justice or perhaps, the lesser evil.

That wouldn't be murder, then; that would be defending another person's life. Depending on the circumstances, you might be able to defend the child without killing her assailiant, but even if you did kill the assailiant you would be preventing him from making himself worse, which is why this theory allows for self defense. Ultimately, though, the "self" you are defending is the would-be-murderer's; if you stop him, you have prevented him from diminishing his own being.

How does this kind of murder vary from that of euthanasia, or abortion, or eating the flesh of an animal, fruit or vegetable whose "life" ended to benefit your own. When we draw breath we are transforming the oxygen we breath into carbon monoxide -- are we "killing" oxygen in the process? Is there one of us who could claim to have never "killed"?

That's why I think we need to look at murder specifically---even Jain monks end up killing something during the course of their lives. As you've pointed out, it's not possible to live without killing something.

If we did not value life, we would not hold death in such disdain. If we did not fear death, these kind of conversations would be unnecessary and so would the value judgements we apply to them. How might this conversation go if we lived in a culture that mourned birth and celebrated death with presents, streamers and a cake with candles. What would happen if we had always sung a different tune...? "Happy Deathday to you." In the end, it's not just this existence that shapes our thoughts about death and dying, it's our uncertainty with what lies beyond that definitive gate. If it was known without a doubt that death brings lasting happiness, maybe we'd all rush to kill ourselves before anything else could. The trouble is, we don't know that with a certainty, so we cling to this existence and value it above all others. In the process, we create murderers and victims

I agree with you, and yet I don't (if that makes any sense! :D ) You've definitely made a perfect description of how the majority of people conduct their lives---yet if we want to look at things on a spiritual level which is what you're doing (I think), then I think the ultimate ideal is balance. This life is, if nothing else, a necessary stage in a cosmic process or development---therefore we should cerish it, utilize it, and love it---but we should not cling to it, because it is not the end. That doesn't mean we should rush toward death and comitt suicide; on the contrary, we should live our lives to the fullest extent possible---but because we do not call ourselves into this world, and we do not control when we leave it, we should serenly accept death when it does come to us.

The True Men of Old
Knew no lust for life
No dread of death
Their entrance was without gladness
Their exit, yonder, without resistance
(Chuang Tzu)

This does not mean we should drift through life oblivious, but rather, that we should not attach ourselves to this life as if it would go on for ever. As you have very eloquently and clearly stated, the great love of this life and the great fear of what comes after this life are essentially intertwined.

[spiritual_emergency]

Wandering Taoist: That's a very good point---but surely by murdering someone the murder has ruined his own chances for liberation?

Perhaps, but then again, what is liberation? What are the underlying implications that drive that belief? If I kill you and you don't kill me, we could say that I've just blown my shot for liberation whereas your opportunity for the same remains as an option. But saying as much implies that you and I are separate individuals -- even separate spiritual entities, whereas many of the spiritual traditions say that's where we've got it all wrong: we're not separate, especially as spiritual entities. To put it another way, what if it really doesn't matter how we live our lives because in the end, we're all going to return to the oneness of spiritual matter? What if that was true no matter how despicable or brutally or humbly or generously we may have spent our time here?

Most of us would probably have difficulty with that idea. We want to believe that if there is life after death, there are also levels to that existence -- good Christians go to heaven, bad ones go to hell. Good Buddhists secure a place in Nirvana, bad ones end up wandering the ghostly realms of the bardo states. Good Hindus escape rebirth, bad ones end up in another womb and have to repeat the process. Murderers haven't got a hope, non-murderers have better stock options.

I concede that there are states of consciousness in which all applied values fall away from the acts they are intended to categorize. In such states I think it can be said that I am of no more, nor no less value, than a murderer, a pedophile, a saint for there, they are all one. But I also concede that state of consciousness doesn't mesh well with this plane of existence. Here, it seems necessary to apply values and here in this X marks the spot place seems to be where we are.

[spiritual_emergency]

I figured I'd drag in something from my latest batch of wanderings...





Whether or not we believe in survival of consciousness after death, reincarnation, and karma, it has very serious implications for our behavior. The idea that belief in immortality has profound moral implications can be found already in Plato, who in Laws has Socrates say that disconcern for the postmortem consequences of one’s deeds would be "a boon to the wicked". Modern authors such as Alan Harrington and Ernest Becker have emphasized that massive denial of death leads to social pathologies that have dangerous consequences for humanity. Modern consciousness research certainly supports this point of view.

-- Stanislav Grof

Source: Alternative Cosmologies and Altered States (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Alt_Cosmol.html)

[anonymous]

I don't think there really is an excuse for war. It is really childish....When I think of war I think of "my ball is bigger than yours". That's all it comes down to. Who has the best weapons and can take out the most people. I don't understand why they can't just sit around a table and talk it out. No need to get violent and kill innocent people. Then again they send their own people into war and when they die they are honored for "dying for their country" When you think about it it's really idiotic. To die for a piece land...

[WanderingTaoist]

Very pertinent quote (as always ;) ), spiritual_emergency. I think the part at the end is important: massive denial of death leads to social pathologies. I think it's possible to be a complete atheist, but nevertheless have a complete reckoning with one's own death----and I think this reckoning would have same impact upon one as a belief in an afterlife of some kind. Example: many modern existentialists are atheist, or at least agnostic. Yet they are nevertheless concerned with things like authenticity in one's actions. It seems to me that it is simply the denial of death---not necessarily an afterlife---that leads people to behave in a dangerously pathological manner.

I don't think there really is an excuse for war. It is really childish....When I think of war I think of "my ball is bigger than yours". That's all it comes down to. Who has the best weapons and can take out the most people. I don't understand why they can't just sit around a table and talk it out. No need to get violent and kill innocent people. Then again they send their own people into war and when they die they are honored for "dying for their country" When you think about it it's really idiotic. To die for a piece land...

Interesting, particularily that last comment. Scores of Native Americans are of a similiar mind with regard to land, and Rousseau was among the first in Western thought to maintain that "the fruit of the earth belongs to everyone, and the earth itself, to no one." There's a scene in T.H. White's The Once and Future King where Arthur is transformed into a wild goose, and as he flies over the land he realizes for the first time that a nations "borders" are in fact entirely imaginary---if we didn't draw them on maps and act like they were there, they wouldn't otherwise exist.

But tell me, what if your nation is attacked by another? Does one nation have the right to defend itself? What about if one of your neighbors or allies is attacked, and they ask for your help? Should you go to war then? Or should war be avoided at all costs?

[schrodinger]

WanderingTaoist--Scores of Native Americans are of a similiar mind with regard to land, and Rousseau was among the first in Western thought to maintain that "the fruit of the earth belongs to everyone, and the earth itself, to no one." There's a scene in T.H. White's The Once and Future King where Arthur is transformed into a wild goose, and as he flies over the land he realizes for the first time that a nations "borders" are in fact entirely imaginary---if we didn't draw them on maps and act like they were there, they wouldn't otherwise exist.

That’s only because the English didn’t have the manpower to build a Great Wall of England, as did the Chinese. Besides, who cared what happened to the peasants when the invaders came, as long as the King and his knights could take safe refuge behind the castle walls? As far as the Native Americans goes. . . how much of their original land have they got left? Right now the Southern border of USA is far from an imaginary line, with fences, walls, electronic sensors, border patrol and the National Guard all working to keep people out. I, for one, certainly understand this. I worked hard to buy a house with a nice front yard, which I work even harder to maintain as a garden environment. If some strangers passing by simply decided to set down a picnic blanket on my front lawn, perhaps even build a campfire, they would be told to leave. If they did not comply, they would be forced to leave. All of the nice socialistic sentiment about “the earth belongs to no one” breaks down immediately when someone is trampling on your dandelions or crapping in your front yard!

[WanderingTaoist]

I, for one, certainly understand this. I worked hard to buy a house with a nice front yard, which I work even harder to maintain as a garden environment. If some strangers passing by simply decided to set down a picnic blanket on my front lawn, perhaps even build a campfire, they would be told to leave. If they did not comply, they would be forced to leave. All of the nice socialistic sentiment about “the earth belongs to no one” breaks down immediately when someone is trampling on your dandelions or crapping in your front yard!


It would seem, then, that you deem property to be necessary, and hence, the right to defend that property is also necessary. Is defense the only justifiable cause for war, in your opinion? Is there some way by which we can determine whether a war is called for or not? And once started, exactly what kind of conduct is permitted in war? To what extent should we be willing to defend our property?