Gray ethical and karmic issues
-
When will they come? Technically, we need to eliminate 90% of all present human lives in this world just to have sustainable pollution or we can really pray that technology improves drastically to reduce pollution. Can we exactly improve the numbers of naturally occuring disasters?Originally posted by jacqn:fastest way of decreasing population are natural disaster. Just look at the tsumani, earthquakes, bird flus.. -
You are just like Adam from the show HeroesOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:When will they come? Technically, we need to eliminate 90% of all present human lives in this world just to have sustainable pollution or we can really pray that technology improves drastically to reduce pollution. Can we exactly improve the numbers of naturally occuring disasters?
Released a virus to kill 90+% of humanity... -
Isn't it oxymoronic to destroy mankind so that you can save mankind?
-
AEN is just pure nonsense from watching too much Lost and Heroes.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You are just like Adam from the show Heroes Released a virus to kill 90+% of humanity... Nevertheless, I just did some rough workings off the Kyoto Protocol report from the different countries that did submit their air pollution reports and came to this conclusion that only a WMD effect that wipes out 90% of the human race can humans continue to thrive in a renewable environment. So pray AEN, kindly tell when is the event horizon? -
mahawarrior, there is irony in many things and my thoughts is one of them.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:Isn't it oxymoronic to destroy mankind so that you can save mankind? -
Off-tracking from the topic...
I've only mentioned once who I was and you can still remember? Besides I seldom post here using my previous account. Hmm...do you know me in person?
Anyway, I have a reason for creating a new account. So please don't mention my previous nick again. I took a risk by revealing once who I was since I reckoned that few people come to this forum. Let me remain...anonymous...
Okay...go back to your discussion. -
I have read several of your postings before and I do find some of them of great interest.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:Off-tracking from the topic...
I've only mentioned once who I was and you can still remember? Besides I seldom post here using my previous account. Hmm...do you know me in person?
Anyway, I have a reason for creating a new account. So please don't mention my previous nick again. I took a risk by revealing once who I was since I reckoned that few people come to this forum. Let me remain...anonymous...
Okay...go back to your discussion. -
I don't think that asking about real-life application of Buddhist teachings towards war and violence has no or little relevance cos they appear hypothetical. To me, it's very real and important.
Almost every guy in SG has done National Service. Korea, Israel, Taiwan has compulsory NS like SG too.
In the name of defending our country, or defending our sovereignty (like China and Taiwan) we kill. In the name of getting resources for our resource-depleted country (like Japan in WWII), we kill.
As soldiers, and not high-ranking officers, and more importantly as Buddhists, it's better to make up our minds about such moral dilemmas earlier during peace times than to decide using 'free-will' or 'personal wisdom' during troubled and chaotic times.
Even if I'm just a battalion or platoon commander, as a Buddhist, I need to think whether I should just follow orders to lead my men to kill (out of defence or to attack for resources or out of retaliation) or think of what else I can do to help as many people as possible under my command, who do not want to kill due to personal or religious convictions, to 'get out' of the sticky dilemma. If not possible, then I just resign on my own or desert during the war if there's no choice to resign. -
If you're all by yourself, you can go ahead and resign or desert your army during the war. You either suceed and survive, or your country's people catch you as traitor and kill you.Originally posted by Spnw07:I don't think that asking about real-life application of Buddhist teachings towards war and violence has no or little relevance cos they appear hypothetical. To me, it's very real and important.
Almost every guy in SG has done National Service. Korea, Israel, Taiwan has compulsory NS like SG too.
In the name of defending our country, or defending our sovereignty (like China and Taiwan) we kill. In the name of getting resources for our resource-depleted country (like Japan in WWII), we kill.
As soldiers, and not high-ranking officers, and more importantly as Buddhists, it's better to make up our minds about such moral dilemmas earlier during peace times than to decide using 'free-will' or 'personal wisdom' during troubled and chaotic times.
Even if I'm just a battalion or platoon commander, as a Buddhist, I need to think whether I should just follow orders to lead my men to kill (out of defence or to attack for resources or out of retaliation) or think of what else I can do to help as many people as possible under my command, who do not want to kill due to personal or religious convictions, to 'get out' of the sticky dilemma. If not possible, then I just resign on my own or desert during the war if there's no choice to resign.
But if you have a family or your love ones behind, things aren't that straightforward anymore.
Many a times, we may claim that it is okay to defend our own nation. The compulsory conscription of our nation's male youth are also justified as a need for self-defense.
But let us be reminded once again that many a times, things aren't so straightforward...there's only a thin line of difference between defense and attack.
Take the Six-Day War for example. The Israeli army launched an offensive against a coliation of Arabian armies during 1967 on grounds that the coliation army is preparing for an invasion of Israel. In a way, one could say that Israel was trying to defend it's soverignty, hence, it's initiation of aggression on the Arabian countries is justified.
Fair enough. Yet when the Israeli forces proved to be much stronger than the Arab coliation forces, the Israeli troops went beyond their defensive roles and went on to occupy territories that were not theirs. Such territories included the holy land, Jerusalem. Their justification: their occupation was just a reclamation of their ancestral homeland granted to them by God.
See? Defense and attack is not so clear cut after all. Neither is such wars hypothetical. In cases where defense turns into aggression, the lines of morality is blurred.
Who is it exactly that you are serving? The people, or the leaders? You may think of yourself as a righteous soldier trying to defend his sovereign land. But are you sure you are not just the little pawn in a grand battle chess played by your 'leaders'? You may think you are helping your own people by defending them against aggressors. But who exactly are you helping? Who are you harming?
In the discussion of Buddhist morality and ethic, let us be less idealistic and rigid, saying this is correct, that is wrong. In an environment or situation where you have no choice but to do bad for a greater good, strictly following the Five Precepts (for example) may not prove to be so helpful at all times. The 'Noble Eight-fold Path' is perhaps not the straight path that we as children are taught to be, but one that's rather curvy, full of sudden twist and turns. What is 'right', and what is 'wrong'?
As I've mentioned in previous posts, when you're captured by enemy troops, surely you are not going to tell them honestly where your country's vulnerable points are, neither are you going to keep yourself alive knowing that you may sucumb to their torture to force you to reveal what they want. When you happen to come across a sensitive information belonging to the enemy troops, surely you'll have to steal it, for they are not going to hand it over on a silver plate. -
Surely, there is no right and no wrong but you must live with what you did or do.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:If you're all by yourself, you can go ahead and resign or desert your army during the war. You either suceed and survive, or your country's people catch you as traitor and kill you.
But if you have a family or your love ones behind, things aren't that straightforward anymore.
Many a times, we may claim that it is okay to defend our own nation. The compulsory conscription of our nation's male youth are also justified as a need for self-defense.
But let us be reminded once again that many a times, things aren't so straightforward...there's only a thin line of difference between defense and attack.
Take the Six-Day War for example. The Israeli army launched an offensive against a coliation of Arabian armies during 1967 on grounds that the coliation army is preparing for an invasion of Israel. In a way, one could say that Israel was trying to defend it's soverignty, hence, it's initiation of aggression on the Arabian countries is justified.
Fair enough. Yet when the Israeli forces proved to be much stronger than the Arab coliation forces, the Israeli troops went beyond their defensive roles and went on to occupy territories that were not theirs. Such territories included the holy land, Jerusalem. Their justification: their occupation was just a reclamation of their ancestral homeland granted to them by God.
See? Defense and attack is not so clear cut after all. Neither is such wars hypothetical. In cases where defense turns into aggression, the lines of morality is blurred.
Who is it exactly that you are serving? The people, or the leaders? You may think of yourself as a righteous soldier trying to defend his sovereign land. But are you sure you are not just the little pawn in a grand battle chess played by your 'leaders'? You may think you are helping your own people by defending them against aggressors. But who exactly are you helping? Who are you harming?
In the discussion of Buddhist morality and ethic, let us be less idealistic and rigid, saying this is correct, that is wrong. In an environment or situation where you have no choice but to do bad for a greater good, strictly following the Five Precepts (for example) may not prove to be so helpful at all times. The 'Noble Eight-fold Path' is perhaps not the straight path that we as children are taught to be, but one that's rather curvy, full of sudden twist and turns. What is 'right', and what is 'wrong'?
As I've mentioned in previous posts, when you're captured by enemy troops, surely you are not going to tell them honestly where your country's vulnerable points are, neither are you going to keep yourself alive knowing that you may sucumb to their torture to force you to reveal what they want. When you happen to come across a sensitive information belonging to the enemy troops, surely you'll have to steal it, for they are not going to hand it over on a silver plate. -
It's often not just about ourselves, but also how our actions will affect others, and of course, how do we know how our actions can affect others.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Surely, there is no right and no wrong but you must live with what you did or do.
If I have to kill five people to save five hundred people, I'ld probably feel guilty and my concience would prick me for killing that five person. But it doesn't matter because I've save five hundred people. -
Who gave you the right to judge which five to kill?Originally posted by annoy-you-must:It's often not just about ourselves, but also how our actions will affect others, and of course, how do we know how our actions can affect others.
If I have to kill five people to save five hundred people, I'ld probably feel guilty and my concience would prick me for killing that five person. But it doesn't matter because I've save five hundred people. -
That's not my point here...Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Who gave you the right to judge which five to kill? -
Point taken boss.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:That's not my point here... Understood your sentiments.