Some years ago, being a Good Samaritan, I intervened in a situation which resulted me being attacxked by a knife weilding fellow who was quite intent in putting an unseemly hole or two in me. After the incident, as I played it back in my head, I was realized if I had to, I would have killed him, though during the incident there was no thought of that. There really wasn't much thought at all.kirk5a wrote:tiltbillings wrote:If it is an insult, then don't accept, but it was hardly meant as such.
No? I took the implication that if others lives were to be dependent upon my choices, I would do nothing to save them or that they would surely come to harm.
clw_uk wrote:I think a good point would be to view it in terms of laymen and monks and nuns
Monks and nuns have made a dedication to the precepts and to nibbana, with a renouncement of wordly life, for them, killing wouldn't be an option
However laymen, while accepting the Buddha, have only taken the basic precepts and are very much a part of wordly life and being a part of worldly life would mean taking worldly action, in extreme situation, such as in the case of the Third Reich
I can think of a good thought experiment which is quite widely used in ethical philosophy - If you had a time machine, would you go back and kill Hitler as a baby, or as a teenager or at any point before he joined the German Workers' Party?
Users browsing this forum: phil and 4 guests