Do We Have The Right To Defend Ourselves?

When two nations want to go to war with one another, they often eagerly demure that they have the right to defend themselves. Yet, this is a bogus moral argument designed to shut up opposition. The thought of having a right to defend oneself gives justification to otherwise questionable action to which we feel entitled. It is not based on morals, but on a primitive, animalistic response. Just like a dog bites back when hit of bit, we feel an urge to lash out at an aggressor. And so we often do. Does the dog have the right to defend itself? Or does it do just as a dog would do? In all honesty we should rephrase our argument and take out the moral undertone. "As we are human animals", we could say "we will attack back when attacked". We need no morals for counterattacks (except for restraining them).

In many life situations it is warranted to act according to our animalistic side. As we are animals, we eat and drink when we feel hungry and thirsty. I am grateful for having animal impulses as neither I nor any animal would otherwise survive. Yet, there are plenty of situations in life that should not be run by animal instincts, but rather by our intelligence and compassion. Especially when it comes to aggression, we should question the animalistic response and ask ourselves: "While I can act like an animal and have the urge to do so, is it good for me, my opponent and everybody who is watching and learning from my example?"

My dear brothers and sisters in the Middle East! I assure you, it is not good for anybody that you fight. Amongst other reasons, you have become a beaten dog for one another. Everybody knows that beating a beaten dog is futile. Use your intelligence and your compassion in lieu of your animal instincts to strengthen your opponent. Give them food, drink, medicine, education, land, participation, and freedom. Instill hope and good will in the other. While there is not moral right to defend yourself, only animal instinct, it is your moral right to pursue happiness. And while it may feel "wrong", you could consider it "right" to extend your hand, and thus eventually, bring about long-term peace.

Is Our Nature “Good” Or “Bad”?

Most biologists would consider our nature to be “bad” because they view us as inherently selfish. To scientists we deserve this attribute as we have an inborn tendency to seek relative advantages over others, a tendency that can only be curbed via acquired information from our culture. We may feel inclined to reject readily this scientific stance because we neither exhibit open aggression nor passive aggression (such as willful indifference). In fact, we may frequently listen to others, help others, and while slipping occasionally, have good intentions with regard to our fellowmen and women.

However, the scientists’ point of view should not be dismissed based on this argument. Aggression in any form including the conscious experience of competitiveness is not a necessary hallmark of selfishness in the biological sense. All that is needed is behavior that assures that our genes have a better chance to become propagated than others’. As our genes are not only in our body, but in our families’ and groups’, we could still be considered selfish when we behave lovingly towards others. And is it not easier to give to our own children, to our own religious groups, and to our own people? Indeed, taking care of “our own” above all others seems like our most important moral duty. This, as well as the fact that humans are plenty aggressive and willfully indifferent makes me accept that in this sense, my nature is “bad”.

The Buddhist and Hindi response to the question of our mind being either “good” or “bad” is diametrically opposed to the biological one. While our conditioned behaviors are recognized to be frequently “bad”, our nature is considered “good”. Our true or non-dual nature (Atman in Hinduism; Buddha-nature in Buddhism) is our awareness of the “All” to which we belong. While we often obstruct this awareness and may not even know that we have it, it remains fully operational in us all. As our nature is not separated from the rest of the world, but simultaneously impacting it and being impacted by it, it is considered an unlimited, creative source. Consequently, our nature could not be inherently selfish as it is not a self at all, but a dynamic process reflecting the entire web of existence. And because this web is viewed as “good” as in constructive and marvelous, our nature is viewed as “good” too. As I concur that I am not independent from a wider, dynamic context that is our awesome existence, I too view my nature as “good”.

Both introduced understandings of our nature have merit. Confusion comes about as biologists use the term “nature” very differently from Eastern philosophies and religions. Our biological nature is simply not our Buddha-nature. The former refers to our genetic tendencies; the latter to the workings of our mind. We could conclude that our biological nature allows for Buddha-nature that is the awareness of the “All”. Then again, we could say that the “All” to which we belong has created our biological nature. Yet such discussions are superfluous; there need not be rivalry on matters of truth. Each understanding tells us something else about who we are as people; where the pitfalls are; and what we wish to aspire.