| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jetgraphics
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:21 pm Post subject: Question for gnostics |
 |
|
Here's a philosophical question: Is harmless survival superior to harmful
survival?
In other words, is "supporting one's right to life" by one's harmless
action, morally superior to supporting one's life by deliberately injuring
another's person or property?
Or is there a moral "fine print" that excuses injury "for the greater good"?
TIA |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Question for gnostics |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:21:43 -0500, jetgraphics
<jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Here's a philosophical question: Is harmless survival superior to harmful
survival?
In other words, is "supporting one's right to life" by one's harmless
action,
|
Is there such a thing as harmless action or even harmless inaction?
Every time we take a step or breathe, we kill bacteria. If we build a
house we displace, starve, and/or kill animal life on the site. I
realize your question is related to human life and property, but
"harm" in the widest sense is the issue which disturbs me most.
| Quote: | morally superior to supporting one's life by deliberately injuring
another's person or property?
Or is there a moral "fine print" that excuses injury "for the greater good"?
|
"Survival of the most" - this is a commonsensical dictum of hyletic
ape society. Spiritual tradition frequently says that there are times
in which there is no legitimate means of physical survival; some say
that physical living - not to mention the question of fighting for
survival - is a huge evil in itself.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jetgraphics
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:25 am Post subject: Re: Question for gnostics |
|
|
penitent leper wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:21:43 -0500, jetgraphics
jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> wrote:
Here's a philosophical question: Is harmless survival superior to harmful
survival?
In other words, is "supporting one's right to life" by one's harmless
action,
Is there such a thing as harmless action or even harmless inaction?
Every time we take a step or breathe, we kill bacteria.
|
I am limiting the set of victims to human beings.
| Quote: | If we build a
house we displace, starve, and/or kill animal life on the site. I
realize your question is related to human life and property, but
"harm" in the widest sense is the issue which disturbs me most.
|
Perhaps, it would be better to state the set of "sentient beings" - which
might exclude humans and include others 
| Quote: |
morally superior to supporting one's life by deliberately injuring
another's person or property?
Or is there a moral "fine print" that excuses injury "for the greater
good"?
"Survival of the most" - this is a commonsensical dictum of hyletic
ape society. Spiritual tradition frequently says that there are times
in which there is no legitimate means of physical survival; some say
that physical living - not to mention the question of fighting for
survival - is a huge evil in itself.
- pl - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Question for gnostics |
|
|
jetgraphics <jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> wrote in message news:<100g78nrpvqhnce@corp.supernews.com>...
| Quote: | Here's a philosophical question: Is harmless survival superior to harmful
survival?
In other words, is "supporting one's right to life" by one's harmless
action, morally superior to supporting one's life by deliberately injuring
another's person or property?
Or is there a moral "fine print" that excuses injury "for the greater good"?
TIA
|
Siddhartha Guatama was reportedly attacked by a dude named Mara.
Mara is the Buddhist Satan if you will, but in this legend he
is a real man leading an large army of elephant-riding Marutes.
Determined to throw down the newly enlightened Buddha, Mara's
forces came at him with everything they had. Mara himself
used his Siddhi powers to rip out a whole mountain-top and
throw it at Siddhartha the new Buddha. Siddhartha responded
with lethal force.
Engaging what the Buddhists call the "sphere of heat" he
expanded said plasma-sphere until the huge chunks of rocks
were burnt to a cinder, resembling 'flying chariots' and
the ashes as floating flower petals. The men were allmost
all dead; the Buddha had won!
Buddhists keep trying to claim that this story was metaphor
but it was not. The Buddha might have later vowed not to
hurt another being, but then there are stories that he still
ate meat, dying from bad jerky at his death. So who knows?
It seems to me that in answer to your question, you gotsta
do what you gotsta do to stay alive. If the Buddha had died
we wouldn't have Buddhism today, so thank god he was strong
enough to do what he had to do at that moment. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: Question for gnostics |
|
|
jetgraphics <jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> writes:
| Quote: | Here's a philosophical question: Is harmless survival superior to harmful
survival?
|
of course
| Quote: |
In other words, is "supporting one's right to life" by one's harmless
action, morally superior to supporting one's life by deliberately injuring
another's person or property?
|
absolutely
| Quote: | Or is there a moral "fine print" that excuses injury "for the greater good"?
|
survival is no greater good.
destruction of worldly existence is the one and only valuable good.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Question for gnostics |
|
|
jetgraphics <jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> writes:
| Quote: |
I am limiting the set of victims to human beings.
|
that's perverse
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
