Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hold Up Victim Kills Would Be Robber
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
b) We really cannot say what we would do. If I am held up, do I have a gun? Can I shoot it? Do I have a clear shot? Have I just come from meditation and feel clearheaded so I can act rightly, or do I have a cold, and feel muddled. Does my attacker really scare me, or does he just piss me off? Is my attacker scared of me?
I used to live in Philly, and was walking home one night with groceries. A group of kids were hanging on the street corner (This was just north of North Philly, and a fairly dangerous place) waiting for something to happen. As I approached them, they fanned out to block the sidewalk--perhaps to harass me, perhaps to rob me, I don't know.
I just stopped, put my bags of groceries down, and took on a very irritated look (I was actually pretty scared) and stared them down. I said to them, "Are we going to do this?" and acted like I was ready for a fight. (They could have easily whipped my skinny little butt, but I figured I might as well go out in style.)
They just stared at me, and finally dispersed, to let me pass.
There were no guns pulled, but I think this illustrates that life is rarely either/or. Either I shoot him, or he shoots me. I think today, if someone pulled a gun on me, I would say, "Interesting. You know, I come from Alaska, and I have killed my fair share of animals...I always wonder what it would be like to kill a human being...."
Like I said, if you going to go, go with style.
Having to defend yourself is one thing, but being able to do so with control is another.
Elohim, you really sound perplexed today.
I think there are plenty of universal standards reasonable people can agree to, namely the Golden Rule and things like that. Look, as far as "Bad Things that Wreck The Perpetrators Life" go, one isolated act of gun violence is really pretty much something that one could recover from and not lose the most precious things and people in his life. What about a sexual liason with the beloved spouse of one of your siblings? Seems pretty devasting to me, lots more than the stigma of acting like Rambo for 10 minutes once in one's life.
The Knowledge that our Egos are fictions and that we exist to bring joy and not sorrow to others is pretty much the name of the game. Yes, there are universals, and being reflective about how we live and discussing and weighing the merits or mistakes involved in the the choices people make is an indispensable part of life. As Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living. Once we learn from our mistakes, we learn to do better —unless we are investing all our energy in justifying the person we used to be (and will continue to be on such a disastrous and ill-chosen course).
However, going along with that idea of egolessness, is the principle of forgiveness. To be human is to err, most manifestly that is true. But to forgive is divine. And that we are also called to be.
I find myself in agreement with you. Though we may like to shy away from talk of 'absolutes' or moral imperatives, they are inevitably a part of our everday living. Almost all humans (except of course the guilty of the following act) find rape to be morally repulsive across cultures. Even chimpanzees share this sentiment. Though it may have once served a purpose if only for survival, we could not by any twisting of philosophy or moral debate, ever justify rape rationally.
Where do you get this arrogance from ? This is complete Bullsh#t. This is the definition of ignorance.
Good Day ...
What's the problem? He seems to be echoing my sentiments from earlier in this thread in stating that as I don't believe in a hereafter, I would find it very difficult to be so willing to give up my life for a particular cause, especially this one.
Weather or not you take a life has nothing to do with your feelings about the hereafter or karma or Jesus or buddha .. it has to do with the very real here and now feeling for other human beings.
No sane person is willing to just jump in and give up there life for a cause .. it is a sacrafice .. who's losses are bettered by great gains. It is a job that must be done and those that so flippently say they are willing to give it away are most likely full of crap.
It's religous arrogance at it's finest.
Good Day ...
So, you were a bit perplexed yesterday.
I'm more tham just a bit perplexed myself about how your one day's ruminations could be seen as arrogance.
But then, I guess I have my own visions which assure me all is really well.
By I, I really mean "here" where I am, but I don't want to go around sounding so strange all the time.
Let's not take ourselves or others so seriously. As Rilke says:
Yet we go about like weights,
laying ourselves on everything, from heaviness
enthralled;
o what exhausting teachers we are for the things,
for they achieve eternal childhood.
If they were to take one in inner slumber and sleep
deeply with things—: o how he would become light,
different to a different day, out of the common depths.
Or he would remain perhaps; as they flowered and praised
him, the converted one, who now is their equal,
silent siblings all among the winds of the meadows.
There is but one word and that is Love,
and its signpost is not clinging so hard to Ego-Thoughts,
but letting them come and go gently.
Best of regards.
Always.
your response was unnecessary, unwarranted, unfair, unhelpful and unkind.
Jason,
You're as popular as ever with me and I respect you and everything you've posted here more than I can say. At the risk of causing you to struggle with your ego it may be good for you to know that your posts have always been immensely helpful to me, shedding light and understanding in many, many ways. I'm deeply grateful to you for everything you've taught me and for the example you've set. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
With great respect and admiration,
Boo
Just kidding. I prefer to call you Elohim, 'cuz that's the self you might be projecting, that more-together part of you.
AnyWho, I forgot to give the source for the Rilke quote above
All Things Want To Float,
Yet We Go About Laying Our Heavy Selves On Things
(O, That We Would Convert.)
Sonnets To Orpheus II, 14 by Rainier Maria Rilke
Hear Brigid! Here, Hear!
Now, in regards to the actual statement by Jason, I think that there is a good amount of validity to his intended point. While there may be some common agreements among the people as to ethical standards, there is pretty much always going to be people who don't agree. I know for a fact that there are some people who don't believe in the golden rule & find the determination of good & evil to be entirely subjective/relative.
IMO, Jason was simply raising the point that coming to a common basis for interpretation of right & wrong actions can be incredibly difficult in many situations. Sure there are things that pretty much everyone finds offensive, but there are many, many more grey areas. The disagreement on this very thread attests to this fact. Honestly, it is almost amazing that our legal system functions as well as it does.
metta
_/\_
Palzang
lol
Well, when due process isn't being suspended yes (<--gratuitous jab at the current administration). And, imo, despite it's many shortcomings, we have a very good legal system.
metta
_/\_
There is no harm done. That was not the first time I have been called arrogant, and I doubt that it will be the last. One some occasions, I imagine that I do come off as such. It is to be expected that, when I express my beliefs and opinions and defend my positions on doctrinal subjects often enough, there will be times when my words will be chosen unskillfully and cause perceptions like this to arise. OneSunTemple also raises some very good points.
I think that religious people are just as likely to take life, especially in the name of religion, than non-religious people. The crux of the matter in my previous post was the reasoning behind the use of force in self-defense versus non-violent resistance since, in the context of this discussion, there were religious arguments made against the use of force, and those arguments would not apply to a non-religious person. Maybe I am wrong about that.
OneSunTemple was right, however, that whether or not we take a life has to do with, in part, the very real here and now feeling for other human beings. I suppose that in my mind this would fall under the label of personal morals and ethics. I think there are also other factors such as the strength of the threatened individual's instinct for self-preservation, means of self-defense available, etc., but personal morals and ethics would also apply.
As for the Golden Rule, is the Golden Rule a truly valid universal standard that applies to all living beings, not just humans; and do all humans agree that this is valid? My first inclination is to say no. Referring to what I said before, my own feeling is that there is currently no universal framework, biological imperative, religious authority, ethical standard, or anything else that everyone can agree upon as applying to all living organisms equally.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to argue that people should be able to do anything they want if they believe that it is ok for them to do so based on whatever half-assed reasoning they can come up with. What I am trying to ask is on what grounds do we as individuals, or as a society for that matter, stand in order to judge the actions of another when there is no single standard of right or wrong that all people can willingly agree upon?
It is true that I have had a rough couple of days, and in those couple of days I have seen people do things that go against the Golden Rule for nothing more than profit. To me, this personal experience refutes the idea that this standard is valid and truly universal. So, if anyone desires to prove to me through means of logic and reason that the Golden Rule is a universal standard, I will concede that it is if you can satisfactorily answer these six questions:
1.) What exactly makes the Golden Rule a valid universal standard when everyone in the world does not agree that the Golden Rule is a valid universal standard?
2.) Why should this standard apply to people who do not agree to it or with it?
3.) If there are people who do not agree with it and are forced to live by it or be punished, how can it be said it is a universal standard that we all can agree upon?
4.) Does this universal standard only apply to acts between our own species?
5.) If this supposedly universal standard only applies to actions between human beings, what makes it apply to only human beings and not all other living things?
6.) How can people act in ways that are contrary to the Golden Rule so easily?
Sincerely,
Jason
I don't know about others, but I really do strive to take my spiritual convictions seriously. I am sure there are others things that affect my decision making abilities, not least of which is that the reasoning for the choosing the convictions I chose came from somewhere deep inside of me. (Did THAT make any sense?)
However, once chosen, I take them seriously. I try to meditate/sit/do zazen on a regular basis, I try to show compassion and be present with people, and if attacked, I would try to practice my Buddhist and Quaker values.
There is a middle ground, OneSun.
We are also dealing with a political issue, and alot of our views are based on how we interpret history and where we were raised. I was raised in a more out of the way area, where the half hour it could take for EMS to arrive might mean the difference between life and death. I was also raised with firearms, and know how to safely use them. I also know of several situations where a business owner had a firearm prominently displayed and easily accessed, and a crime was prevented just for that reason. Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a gun store being held up? However, a valid point has been made, that not all people are qualified to handle a weapon. The training simply needs to be available.
I could keep going on about things that were said here, but I don't have much time. Know that I respect everyone here, and their opinions.
Palzang
My answer: Universal does not mean "everyone has to agree." It just means that all members of the class or group under consideration are included, related to, and affected. The Greek word "catholic," universal, also better conveys the world-wide sense of "Broad-in-scope," such as in the phrase, "She has very catholic tastes in music, ranging from reggae to classical, country to hard rock, to jazz and also keen on Indian music and Mozarabic chant."
2.) Why should this standard apply to people who do not agree to it or with it?
My answer: Because pertinent things apply when they are pertinent.
Perhaps one might think my short answer to this is weak. But the only other way I know how to say it is this standard (of thinking about the welfare of others before acting whenever possible) is the only civilized thing we really have. To do the right thing. It is not absolute, though, because we are human and make mistakes, including wrong calls. That is where forgiveness comes in, and amendment of one's course and perhaps even habits and addictions.
3.) If there are people who do not agree with it and are forced to live by it or be punished, how can it be said it is a universal standard that we all can agree upon?
My answer: I have never met a person who thought the golden rule to be something whose "correctness" was debateable. As stated in my answer to #1 above, there is no need for unanimous consent.
Not all the people that will ever be born have yet been born, so by very definition no one is given the right to speak or vote for them.
4.) Does this universal standard only apply to acts between our own species?
My Answer: No, just those who are by definition compatible with our welfare. Aristotle based his Ethics on Human Happiness, and that is the starting point on which I think any reasonable person will agree. But we are the ones who delineate the groups covered by this rule. Say, pets, yes, wild geese: NO!
This would generally include only those creatures we would invite into our homes for a meal, a drink, a gift, a bathroom break, and suchlike. Hospitality, in other words. You simply treat others as though they were all the world. Some call it gracious living. Some just call it good manners!
5.) If this supposedly universal standard only applies to actions between human beings, what makes it apply only to human beings and not all other living things?
My answer: Hospitality, as above. Right now I am taking medicine to kill staph bacteria before they eat up my whole known bloody body. (Gees, sorry for swearing!)
6.) How can people act in ways that are contrary to the Golden Rule so easily?
My answer: Through the greed that comes from the Delusion that they are separate Egos.
These are just my SHORT answers. I hope others will also answer. I reserve the right to post long answers to these questions later.
Your Devoted Friend,
Nirvana
I don't think it's "bad" to kill under certain conditions. It's not really a question of "good" and "bad" anyway, but a question of the results of one's actions. Certainly I would recommend killing staph bacteria rather than letting them feast on you (and probably kill you). But does that action entail the karma of killing? Yeah, though the motivation may be to save your own life (a precious human rebirth), not so much to kill other beings. But like I said before, the karma accumulated in this way is what keeps us on the wheel of cyclic existence. Even if your motivation is good and you never intentionally kill anything, you're still creating the karma of killing every time you walk down the street or take medicine to kill germs or drive your car or eat. You can't live and not kill in some form or other. You can't get away from it. In other words, there's only one way out of this mess, and that's to get off the wheel altogether.
Palzang
To what address do I send the Checque?
I feel so much better now.
With gratitude,
A Survivor
Well duh! :P
hehe... just pokin fun. But you do raise a good point, albeit a little too broad of a statement considering the variety of directions we have approached this from. Anyway, this statement of yours gave rise to this issue in regard to the buddhist view.
Now, if we view this in regard to the wheel of death & rebirth, the kneejerk response of the shooter in this instance was likely at the level of consciousness that of an animal. Granted, we humans are animals. However, I imagine it could be argued that such actions could likely lead to rebirth as an animal, since survivalism is one of the hallmarks of animal realm. It is marked by a very reactive state of mind which is also colored by a clinging to self/existence.
Regardless of whether we can justify his actions on a conventional basis, karmically speaking it was wrong action. It will definitely carry some negative karma/vipaka & is in no way a cause for liberation. And unless this individual had some sort of omniscience or foreknowledge of events and an altruistic intention, his actions certainly did not come from Right View. His mere possession of a gun to use in self-defense, while defensible from a conventional view, is in itself a product of wrong view. Now, perhaps he supports concealed weapons in the opinion that their usage will actually save lives. If this is truly his intention, then I'd say he's in a lot better shape even though there would still be negative karma from the intentional killing. And I still feel it's highly unlikely that this person was able to be in a state of equanimity during this, much less one of loving-kindness or all-penetrating insight. Also, if this person had achieved the 3 knowledges of a buddha (knowledge of past lives), then he would also be able to see how that situation was a ripening of previous kamma, for himself & his assailant and would likely have reacted very differently.
Anyway, just some thoughts to throw in the mix.
metta
_/\_
Correct me if I am wrong, but from the answers that you gave to my questions, it appears that you are saying the Golden Rule is a relative rather than objective standard. If that is indeed the case, then the Golden Rule certainly does not qualify as a universal framework, biological imperative, religious authority, ethical standard, or anything else that everyone can agree upon as applying to all living organisms equally—which basically proves my point (as pointless as my point may be). As a matter of fact, I am not even sure where I am trying to go with this. Perhaps it would be more skillful of me to simply drop out of this particular debate and stick to the topics where I actually know what I am talking about instead.
Jason
um-hmm...
Palzang
My humble apologies Elohim ... my words surely could of been chosen with more care.:scratch:
People today are so proud of there convictions ... our philosophies .. religions .. sciences are tools .. just that .. nothing more ... attach to your convictions no more then you attach to the dirty old shovel in your garden shed .. the momement we serve our tools we are in trouble .. we must use them to make the world better ... the momement you attach to your tools you stop being human.
Turn on the TV any night these days and you here all kinds of people with convictions .. convictions .. convictions ... you also here war .. killing .. war .. killing. Think the two might be connected ?? I do ..
So I am not impressed by those in todays world that stand by their convictions ... BE HUMAN .. that is all you have to do ... BE HUMAN.
Don't get stuck on the religion .. life is what we are after .. not religion... not convictions .. life. Be human that's where truth is to be found and if you ever find yourself in a simalar situation as the fellow that was being robbed at least you know you did the human thing and that is All that one can ask for ..:)
****
On a different note ... it's interesting that native american indians took the lives of animals that they were very close to and were able to make amends to the animal to set things / "karma" straight .. it is interesting that buddhism takes a bit different route. Why so I wonder ?
Good Day ...
Kind Sir:
Something tells me I shouldn't reply to this, but I'm gonna go ahead anyhow, 'cuz my thinking on Intention also got a bit pointless on this thread's offshoot The kamma of killing—intention actions versus unintentional actions. thread under Buddhism 202. I do this only for the sake of someone reading.
The number One is a relative rather than an objective "standard," as it were. In fact, it's a fiction. Nothing really exists in perfect isolation, just relative isolation. Therefore it is an imaginary concept, not real. The false idea of oneness comes from our ability to focus on one thing in apparent isolation, so we think... But nothing really stands alone except in thought itself. It would follow, then, that all our mathematical reasoning based on the idea that 1=1 is wrong. And Therefore, If that is indeed the case, the number one certainly does not qualify as a factor in any universal framework, biological imperative, religious authority, ethical standard, or anything else that everyone can agree upon as applying to all living organisms equally. It's simply wrong to say that anything is one-pointed, because if you look under a microscope, what appears to be one is really many. There are many cells or molecules or atoms that come together to a generally narrow thing we think of as a point, but actually there is no point, but only points. Even the atom can be seen as thousand of disparate particles, with no end in sight for those with unlimited vision to keep seeing deeper and deeper and deeper. Therefore, don't correct my spellling or my selling, 'cuz, cuz, who can say whether one L or three Ls is correct. Indeed, nothing adds up and I'm just gonna smoke the rest of the dope before I forget where I put the stuff.
WHAT AN ARROGANT AND KRAZY POST!
OK, WHO figured out my password and crept on here putting words into my mouth?
PLUS, I DON'T SMOKE DOPE. (Although Bill Maher may and he's OK, only a bit too irreverent for me about some very nice things. But he's generally on the right track, except for the drug themes, of course. I mean you can't pass up a chance to speak out against a thing that hurts so many people...)
Or is/are the the antibiotics taking over my being?
Everyone: KEEP WELL and don't catch any bugs.
Your devoted friend,
Nirvy
Of course, BOTH are mine. But, of course, I'm playing the derned Devil's Advocate in the first. And, of course, I'm not claiming that anyone else was writing. Just some (I hope) gentle fun. I hope the owners of NewBuddhist allow some mild horseplay. I promise never to give my password away or hint at what it might be or to attempt to log on to anyone else's identity and/or to attempt to try typing into the password box under any other identity, save my own. There. I hope that covers me.
Not having your Sterling qualities, many of us, such as good Elohim and naughty me, let go of our wits sometimes and don't really know how to listen to the other guy.
It's just part of the tenor of our times. It used to be that the restraint we inculcate into our children was assumed to be the way that mature adults treated each other in public. Not Anymore! Compare Johnny Carson to Jay Leno, or TV hosts in your Great Britain today and yesterday. Johnny Carson was soft-spoken. Jay Leno SHOUTS all the time. The news channels have people shouting at each other, not waiting for one another to speak in turn. Everybody's shouting and nobody's truly listening.
As I said elsewhere on this site or elsewhere a few days ago, we inculcate Restraint into our children, but reward the Press and certain Celebrities to let go of it almost entirely. A civilization without civil restraint is on a precipice and ready for a great fall.
Again, Pilgrim, thanks for your interest in this turn of this discussion.
Until that time, let's wrap up the meeting, write up the minutes, and file them under 'Miscellaneous'.....
Thanks all.