Best Of

Life is music. And music is elegant math.

Kurzgesagt is on the job. Pointing out how shoddy AI information can lead to the rot of information online through an iterative process of AI using previous imperfect AI slop to remove any bit of trust remaining online. As well as other negative social effects from current AI.

While ethics and judgmentalism are not strictly identical, they are often intertwined in practice. Ethical reasoning involves making judgments about right and wrong, and when applied rigidly or without empathy, it can easily slip into judgmentalism.

Distinguishing between principled critique and unkind condemnation is important, but insisting that ethics is entirely separate from being judgmental overlooks how moral standards are inevitably experienced and enforced in social contexts.

Thus have I heard and found to be true:

There is not much that one cannot justify if one puts one’s mind to it. If one enjoys doing something and is told that it is unethical, one will look for ways to make it seem more ethical, to give oneself, or those who share the same unethical practice, peace of mind.

So it is with those who own guns, for they tell themselves it is for sport, for safety, or for freedom, while overlooking that the weapon they cherish was made for the taking of sentient life. Then they start to say, but a knife kills, and so the justification continues, forgetting that knives were made to carve and create, while guns were made to destroy.

Then some might say, who am I to judge another who chooses to own a gun, all the while continuing to justify something unethical. Some people justify killing, but if those carrying out the killing are not liked by them, then that is a different story.

This no doubt will make some uncomfortable, but Buddhism and Dharma practice can make one feel uncomfortable when facing one’s own shortcomings, reminding us that the hardest truth to face is often the one about ourselves. And I’ve been there and done that on more than one occasion.

This is why I can't stomach AI. Much of the time, it's wrong with its answers. (It's still a work-in-progress as an online resource. Still in the design phase.) Other times, all it can do is pull up random relevant info, without doing any thinking or analysis to go with it. Of course it doesn't analyze; it's not human!

Anyway, whether or not a Buddhist "should" own a gun depends on what the Buddhist would want to use it for. I've always enjoyed target practice, with a bow and arrow, or a gun. It's a harmless hobby or pastime. AI, however, can only envision anyone owning one for the purpose of killing. I find that ridiculous.

Sorry, AI: YOU'RE FIRED!

It is not true that guns have no purpose other than killing. Nonetheless, that's certainly why they were invented, and arguably remains their primary use. To not own weapons would seem to be a logical sub-precept, and was probably considered as such by Gautama, since his people, the Sakyas, followed his teachings and owned no weapons.

Shunryu Suzuki has said that we follow the precepts but are not bound by them. I would interpret this to mean that the precepts do not unburden us from the responsibility of making our own decisions. Life is complex, no generalization can be valid in every set of circumstances. But yes, I will concede that Buddhists should not own guns - that seems just as valid as any other generalization. Perhaps we shouldn't own fly swatters either.