First, the quote to bear in mind, "The injunction against the taking of human life is so strong, the only way most people can break it is to convince themselves that their life, their welfare, or the life of their family is menaced by their enemy and that, therefore, the enemy must be removed." A quote to support the answer to the question, "Why do humans kill one another."
Killing another human being. When the quote states injunction I tend to give it the meaning that instinct, an instinct so deep regarding the survival of the human species that it takes some special circumstance or special mental change that allows one to take a life. Not animal but human. Sometimes humans also have a difficult time taking an animal life as well. That is another post.
It might be said that all killings are a result of self defense. The quote intimates this feeling. Then one might say, "what about revenge or jealousy?" Jealousy might be a lead in to revenge, i.e. one who is jealous may anticipate a need for revenge. Revenge returns one to a position of self-respect and reestablishes the persons sense of worth and power in their own eyes.
All other considerations may fall under the guise of power - money being the most common of all. Does not power, revenge, jealousy and money provide an impetus to defend oneself from either an actual or perceived need to kill in self-defense? Doesn't the perceived infraction of any of these make one an enemy and don't we other those to make it easier to kill? Even the martial adage of the empty hand provides a believer a means to other a person so that one or more of these categories requires they defend themselves sometimes ending in the loss of human life.
The adage, "I come to you with only karate, empty hands. I have no weapons, but should I be forced to defend myself, my principles or my honor; should it be a matter of life or death, of right or wrong; then here are my weapons, karate, my empty hands." — Ed Parker - March, 1957
Isn't this quote actually allowing a person permission to move another human into the category of adversary or enemy thereby requiring defense and that allows othering so one can feel justified in taking the type of actions that could lead to death? Is it possible that the only reason one might take the life of another is if they feel that they must defend themselves regardless of the perceptions of either party?
Can it be true that the only and one reason a human can take the life of another human is by declaring self-defense even if it is called self-defense, revenge or jealousy, etc.?
Can all the reasons actually fall under the heading of self-defense even if not a truly acceptable reason for taking human life? Is this possibly the reasoning underlying all human thought to justify, at least in the mind of that person in that moment, their reason for claiming self-defense even when a human life is lost?
Or would it better be stated that killing is always dependent upon power and whether is is abused or misused to subjugate others. Is this enough reason to kill? Do we as martial artist and professionals allow for such discussion in what we do be it teaching or applying self-defense or protecting against those who would damage or kill others? How far do martial artists or self-defense experts take it to teach such things so loss of life can be avoided?
Lots of Questions with lots of answers. Which are acceptable to society and which are not? More questions. Is the justification justified? Does it ever end? Can it end? How do we foster a society that has no further need for such things?
No comments:
Post a Comment