Non-violence

[MikeNovack]

Considered both as a tactic and a moral position. Some of the questions that might be discussed here:
1) Are there any societies/cultures where this is fundamental? Are such societies/cultures possible ? (viable against other societies/cultures? Is it possible that we humans just aren't this sort of critter?
2) As a tactic, is it always viable? Is it sometimes viable even against an unlikely opponent? (example: The "Rosenstrasse Protest" worked against the Nazi regime. Why?)

Suggestion -- it might help if folks who have experience with discussions on the topic spoke first. So like a "show of hands" first. How many of you have (voluntarily or otherwise) been in "non-violence workshops", etc.? << I have, a lot -- often a prerequisite for taking part in an action >>

[Impenitent]

if you limit human violence to that against other humans- this made be interesting

all animals kill to eat- yes plants are alive

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable

verbal abuse could be considered violence if the party that is spoken about understands the abuse

as a tactic it is usually efficient and universally accepted in most societies - violence (limited via police action) will befall those who disobey the laws... but this is imperfect

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

if you limit human violence to that against other humans- this made be interesting
<< I was picturing that meaning. For THIS thread. >>

all animals kill to eat- yes plants are alive
<< Eating plants not necessarily killing them. Some might even benefit (birdsfoot trefoil unlikely to survive/thrive in a pasture unless that pasture is being grazed). When we humans eat plants, in many cases we aren't killing them and in additional cases, though USUALLY how we consume them, we could take measures to leave them alive. >>

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable
<< ask a Jain ---- or any vegetarian --- vegans go farther than vegetarians inn this regard, but the topic was abut killing >>

DO YOU WANT TO START ANOTHER THREAD ON "AHIMSA" (the literal meaning of the Sanskrit is "not harming")


verbal abuse could be considered violence if the party that is spoken about understands the abuse
<< legally, that's what assault is --- interesting adding that "understands" --- we don;t USUALLY make it a requirement that the violence be effective. Are you suggesting that if somebody is shooting at you but has a lousy aim and so misses you have not been subjected to violence? >>

as a tactic it is usually efficient and universally accepted in most societies - violence (limited via police action) will befall those who disobey the laws... but this is imperfect
<< extremely recent most places, and not as universal as you think. even here. How accepted usually depends on what your peaceful protest action is in advocacy for. >>
-

[Impenitent]

if you limit human violence to that against other humans- this made be interesting
<< I was picturing that meaning. For THIS thread. >>

all animals kill to eat- yes plants are alive
<< Eating plants not necessarily killing them. Some might even benefit (birdsfoot trefoil unlikely to survive/thrive in a pasture unless that pasture is being grazed). When we humans eat plants, in many cases we aren't killing them and in additional cases, though USUALLY how we consume them, we could take measures to leave them alive. >> fair enough

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable
<< ask a Jain ---- or any vegetarian --- vegans go farther than vegetarians inn this regard, but the topic was abut killing >>

DO YOU WANT TO START ANOTHER THREAD ON "AHIMSA" (the literal meaning of the Sanskrit is "not harming")


verbal abuse could be considered violence if the party that is spoken about understands the abuse
<< legally, that's what assault is --- interesting adding that "understands" --- we don;t USUALLY make it a requirement that the violence be effective. Are you suggesting that if somebody is shooting at you but has a lousy aim and so misses you have not been subjected to violence? >>

the difference is intent and returning the slight in kind... shooting someone for calling you a name and then calling it self-defense doesn't really work... then again...

as a tactic it is usually efficient and universally accepted in most societies - violence (limited via police action) will befall those who disobey the laws... but this is imperfect
<< extremely recent most places, and not as universal as you think. even here. How accepted usually depends on what your peaceful protest action is in advocacy for. >>
-

nothing to do with "peaceful" protest (expressions of disapproval are rarely peaceful) - restraining and confining (either is a violent action) lawbreakers is what police do- those lawbreakers are usually not turning themselves into the police department

-Imp

[Walker]

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable
-Imp

It is in Tibetan Buddhism. Not enough veggies in Tibet.

[MikeNovack]

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable
-Imp

It is in Tibetan Buddhism. Not enough veggies in Tibet.

Please start a thread on "Ahimsa" to discuss that. Here just dealing with violence toward other humans.

Now as for THIS from impenitent
"nothing to do with "peaceful" protest (expressions of disapproval are rarely peaceful) - restraining and confining (either is a violent action) lawbreakers is what police do- those lawbreakers are usually not turning themselves into the police department

a) Peaceful expressions of disapproval in fact are often non-violent. LAW has nothing to do with that (might specify that even peaceful actions are illegal and you know little about OUR history or current events in places if you think otherwise. I suggest that perhaps you have not taken part in many (peaceful) protests on behalf of an unpopular cause if you have never experienced a violent response.

b) obligation to turn oneself in --- merits discussion as its own topic elsewhere. Even as a matter of law, going to differ jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And do note that it may be a NECESSARY part of the action << when intentional non-violent lawbreaking is being used to get the matter before the courts -- for example here, not possible to challenge the constitutionality of a law without an actual case.

[Impenitent]

killing could be considered violence, but killing for food should be acceptable
-Imp

It is in Tibetan Buddhism. Not enough veggies in Tibet.

Please start a thread on "Ahimsa" to discuss that. Here just dealing with violence toward other humans.

Now as for THIS from impenitent
"nothing to do with "peaceful" protest (expressions of disapproval are rarely peaceful) - restraining and confining (either is a violent action) lawbreakers is what police do- those lawbreakers are usually not turning themselves into the police department

a) Peaceful expressions of disapproval in fact are often non-violent. LAW has nothing to do with that (might specify that even peaceful actions are illegal and you know little about OUR history or current events in places if you think otherwise. I suggest that perhaps you have not taken part in many (peaceful) protests on behalf of an unpopular cause if you have never experienced a violent response.

organizing a picket line, stand and march for some cause, can easily turn into blocking entrance into a business... strike for machinists or whatever are often dispersed as bad for business... peacefully marching for mothers or something in front of an abortion clinic often get shut down even quicker - ironic violence against violence

b) obligation to turn oneself in --- merits discussion as its own topic elsewhere. Even as a matter of law, going to differ jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And do note that it may be a NECESSARY part of the action << when intentional non-violent lawbreaking is being used to get the matter before the courts -- for example here, not possible to challenge the constitutionality of a law without an actual case.

-Imp

[Walker]

Please start a thread on "Ahimsa" to discuss that. Here just dealing with violence toward other humans.

No need to start another thread just to say that in terms of ethics, Buddhism is not limited to vegetarians.
That's enough information for the curious.
Ahimsa also applies to humans.
So does himsa.

That's all I had to say.

[Walker]

JK had this to say.

Peaceful state of mind:

“Is this problem of violence out there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in yourself the question arises, ‘How am I to live in a world full of violence, acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?’ That is the inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom From The Known, Vietnam era

To support that observation, years ago I read, in print, that even the prison guards treated Nelson Mandela with the respect of royality, due to his peaceful presence.

His wife was another story.

[Walker]

Please start a thread on "Ahimsa" to discuss that. Here just dealing with violence toward other humans.

You used the magic word for the brush off, so I did as you requested, although I only had to revive an old one that had died on the vine.

So, the way I figure it, fairness should urge you, or any philosopher, to answer a relevant question in return for the effort.

Question:
If Iran and not the Brits had ruled India, do you think that Gandhi’s oppositional tactic of non-violence would have had the same reaction from The Regime?


Clue: I once read that in olden days in the Middle East, non-compliance with the state (or most powerful) religion did not always mean kill the infidels. Non-compliance simply put heavy taxes on the non-compliant. So, you could say infidels had a choice ... go broke or leave town. But, there's a lot of Indians in India.

[Impenitent]

if Iran had occupied India, Ghandi's law degree might not have been attained in England

-Imp

[Walker]

if Iran had occupied India, Ghandi's law degree might not have been attained in England

-Imp

If Iran had occupied India, they might also have conquered South Africa.

So, supposin' Iran ruled India and not South Africa, and Gandhi went to school in England ...

[Impenitent]

if Iran had occupied India, Ghandi's law degree might not have been attained in England

-Imp

If Iran had occupied India, they might also have conquered South Africa.

So, supposin' Iran ruled India and not South Africa, and Gandhi went to school in England ...

Iran in Ghandi's time was undergoing many political changes - electing a parliament and drafting a constitution... they were generally pro-western civilization

if you mean the post 1979 revolution Iran, that's a different question entirely

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Clue: I once read that in olden days in the Middle East, non-compliance with the state (or most powerful) religion did not always mean kill the infidels. Non-compliance simply put heavy taxes on the non-compliant. So, you could say infidels had a choice ... go broke or leave town. But, there's a lot of Indians in India.

A) Well Iran (Persian Empire) did once reach as far as into India. Of course that was long before Islam (or Christianity either).

B) We need to understand nuances with respect to "Infidel". Christians and Jews considered fellow followers of the Book, same God, and while could be subject to civil disadvantages, not supposed to be killed for not being Muslim. It is people the Muslims consider "pagan" that were infidels that could be killed.

C) There were times/places in Muslim history where no civil disadvantages for Jews and Christians.

[Walker]

Also, Gandhi wasn't alive during the Persian Empire and even if he was, and even if Persia ruled India as England ruled India under the same conditions as when England ruled the roost on the subcontinent, in other words if the difference between Iran running the show in India immediately pre-1947, and England running the show in pre-1947 India, would be in the government, and if ...

... As England did during Gandhi's inspired passive-resistence, Iran would have access to violence and weapons.

What do you think they would do with them? Would they tax their subjects the way the Brits taxed the American colonies?
What would they do if the Indians didn't pay up, and didn't leave town but would have been required to leave their valuables behind if they did?

*

However, regarding the thread topic ...

How would the Iranian government of today react to Gandhi's tactic of non-violent passive-resistance ... if they still had weapons.

Hint: The 40,000 or so civilians slaughtered by the Iranian government had no weapons, and the government did.