Andrew Hardy-Violence

As a member of one of the historic peace churches,The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers,  this post speaks volumes for me. From a young age I've been taught that alternatives to violence or any hateful action always exist. Without a supernatural explanation for these beliefs I've come to agreeance with them from what I hope is a rational explanation. The two abstract explanations are Kant's moral imperative and Samudaya Sacca, or the second noble truth of Buddhism, which states that all suffering comes from desire. With the assumption that all human life is precious, it is simple to eliminate any action of willful harm, such as racism or aggressive war, because those are implemented for personal material gain in some way, which I find inexcusable if they are taken at the cost of another person's rights and life. Where the discussion becomes more controversial is when there is a belief that such harm is enacted for the "better good". Not only is this abstract idea of "good" mistaken, but no evidence of violence being used to solve oppression being successful. The Iraq War (which could be argued was also for material gain), in no way reduced the pain and harm of people within the Middle East, where hatred and bigotry exist even now. The Civil War (which could be argued was selfish in nature as well, as the north had tremendous economic gains from it.), did little to end the true injustices of African-American's in this country. It was not until a non-violent approach, almost a hundred years later, was fairness, at least in the law-books implemented. As I finish Ugetsu Monogatari while I write this post, my resolution rings true. Greed, and the moral sacrifices made to obtain your desires, only cause harm for yourself, and all around you.