Religious Roots

The discussion on Tuesday raised several interesting questions about the moral and ethical principles that inform our understanding of nonviolence. All of the religious traditions gives us guidelines about things we should do -- love one another, be in right relationships, eschew attachment, seek enlightenment, suffer yourself rather than impose suffering, see the unity of all existence, and things we shouldn't do --- don't kill, do not act of out anger, do not desire.

Are these essential elements for understanding Nonviolence? Are they sufficient? Are they a useful guide for thinking about how we should choose to behave? In what contexts? As individuals? As nations?

Holmes and Gan pose the question as: how do proponents of nonviolence suggest we respond to the violence and wrongdoing of other? Wink in particular is interested in this question as well. Does a moral stance of refusing to be violent make your a doormat? What in these readings helps us begin to think about how we might answer this question. Are the answers compelling. Why or Why not?

Tolstoy (49) argues says that some people believe that “to do deeds of violence and to kill people is not always bad, but that there are circumstances when it is necessary and even moral.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? What does Tolstoy say about it?

Tolstoy objects to the notion that there is such a thing as justifiable violence. Why? Why does he take an absolutist position?