Despite this downside, Jainism is all about ahimsa (non-violence) and by making this their primary cause they effectively thwart any possibility of real-world violence between people - hell is for the after life and not this one. — TheMadFool

It's an idealistic idea, but hard to implement in the real world. Jains have been known to sweep the road ahead of their feet to avoid crushing the souls of ants. They also wear masks to avoid inhaling mosquitoes. But what about the souls of those innocent plants they rip from Mother Earth, boil to death, and gnash with their teeth?

Ahimsa seems to be the basic principle of Vegetarianism carried to a logical extreme. "First do no harm" was the prime feature of the Hippocratic oath. But. like most ideal principles, it has always been hard to follow in practice. For example, a surgeon has to do harm in order to do good. In real life, there are always good exceptions to good rules. To wit, I eat the flesh of innocent animals that have been harmed without their consent. But their protein eventually becomes an integral component of my own body. So now we are "one flesh". That's good for me, no? For us? Hmmmm. :chin:

Give it time. If it ever becomes popular enough.

One of the many pacifist ("look we are good people") groups with the age old cosmic justice motif. Nice. Who started it and what are members told to do and where? Who calls the shots basically.

I think for serious consideration, if violence is the aspect of Jainism in view, then a somewhat careful and considered laying out of just what violence means to a Jain is a necessary preliminary step. The link helps, but unless all Jains die shortly after birth of starvation, there seem some contradictory elements.

Unfortunately because having a place of torture (hell) as part of your religion amounts to condoning and accepting extreme forms of violence. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily; if they believe that this is simply the nature of reality, then there is no question of condoning or not condoning, but the injunction would just be to accept what must be accepted.

Give it time. If it ever becomes popular enough. — Outlander

It appears that all religions actually preach non-violence in the form of love but yet they've all devolved into systems that not only tolerate but also advocate extreme forms of brutality. However, note the fact that for other religions, resorting to the sword/torture doesn't amount to renouncing those religions - violence is ok in them. The same can't be said of Jainism - it's impossible to be violent and a Jain at the same time.

It's an idealistic idea, but hard to implement in the real world. — Gnomon

Personally speaking, this "this-is-too-idealistic" refutation of good ideas is one of the many major obstacles for humanity. Indeed, given the status quo it's nigh impossible to put into practice the Jain version of ahimsa but before one judges it as not a good idea think of slavery. Slavery was the norm for thousands of years; granted that this dark chapter in human history lasted so long for the same reason you think Jain ahimsa won't work (too idealistic) but don't forget that slavery has been abolished (at least on paper).

For example, a surgeon has to do harm in order to do good. — Gnomon

Violence is defined in a way that doesn't include surgeons or doctors or professions that might have to inflict some amount of pain to do good.

I think for serious consideration, if violence is the aspect of Jainism in view, then a somewhat careful and considered laying out of just what violence means to a Jain is a necessary preliminary step. The link helps, but unless all Jains die shortly after birth of starvation, there seem some contradictory elements. — tim wood

Good point. I don't know if this helps but whatever a Jain considers violent, it definitely includes what most people (from other religions) consider as violence.

Also, you've made the same objection to Jain ahimsa as Gnomon. There's the matter of practicality - Jain ahimsa is, let's just say, "too idealistic" but what's idealistic and what's practical are not fixed for eternity - there was a time when appendicitis was a death sentence and hoping someone suffering from it would survive was "too idealisitc" but in this day and age, it's just something that needs a good surgeon's attention for an hour or so on the operating table.

Not necessarily; if they believe that this is simply the nature of reality, then there is no question of condoning or not condoning, but the injunction would just be to accept what must be accepted. — Janus

Accepting reality is one thing and inventing one is a different thing. Of course, reality has a side that we don't like - pain - and being aware of it is a good thing. However, imagining a world of eternal torment (hell), in my humble opinion, while possibly indicating our utter dread of suffering, also, quite unfortunately, reveals that each and everyone of us has, within us, the seed of extreme violence.

granted that this dark chapter in human history lasted so long for the same reason you think Jain ahimsa won't work (too idealistic) but don't forget that slavery has been abolished (at least on paper). — TheMadFool

Ancient arguments in favor of slavery were mostly fatalistic : "that's just the way it is". But modern abolition movements were successful in changing traditional social systems, not so much due to philosophical arguments, but to concurrent technological substitutes for slaves (machines). Even though most tech-advanced nations today have officially abolished slavery, those with sluggish economies and low technology are still unofficially dealing with black-market slavery.

Likewise, mano a mano violence is on the decline in civilized societies, not directly due to religious or philosophical arguments, but to modern alternatives such as police and lawyers. In their recent books on the global decline in violence, both Pinker & Shermer admit that we still have a long way to go. And neither mentions the idealist philosophy of Ahimsa, or the divine commandment "thou shalt not kill", as a contributing cause of the on-going trend toward non-violence. Instead, it was technological proxies (nuclear weapons) for old-fashioned fisticuffs, and pragmatic political changes (laws & enforcement) that began to move violence from individual Macho retribution, to World Wars, to guerilla-actions (Al Qaeda) & nation-state (e.g. ISIS) retributive justice, and then to the restorative justice of local & international courts of law.

Don't get me wrong. I think philosophical moral ideals are necessary to worldwide ethical improvements, but practical on-the-ground cultural & technological changes (agriculture, cities, laws, etc) are the effective tools for implementation of those ideas. For example, in the future, when everybody has a robot for grunt-work and sex-work, human slavery may fade away. And when rational, unbiased, emotionless robots do our policing and warring, human violence may no longer seem necessary, to put our primitive feelings of anger, jealousy, envy, & such into practice. Unfortunately, post-apocalyptic sci-fi, makes even that kind of progress seem unobtainable, due to the inherent evils of un-evolved human nature. Personally, I am hoping that Pinker & Shermer are correct, that man's-inhumanity-to-man may eventually be eliminated by our progressive understanding and control over ourselves. Yet, even that notion may be too idealistic. But then, I am a stubborn philosophical optimist. :cool:

Modern Slavery : https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

Better Angels of our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

But modern abolition movements were successful in changing traditional social systems, not so much due to philosophical arguments, but to concurrent technological substitutes for slaves (machines). — Gnomon

Ok. I agree that some ideas like Jain ahimsa are, let's say, unrealistic and probably too much to ask from a species that's, to tell you the truth, just another ape. However, the fact of the matter is that there seems to be a huge gap between chimpanzees, allegedly our closest relative in the animal kingdom, and humans in terms of how they participate in the "game of life". While a chimpanzee is incapable of doing anything that's against its "nature", humans, on many occasions, have demonstrated an ability to rise above their "instincts". I don't know about you but, speaking for myself, I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal being too idealistic.

I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal being too idealistic. — TheMadFool

Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists.

My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:

Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html

I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal beingtoo idealistic. — TheMadFool — TheMadFool

Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. The best refutation of idealistic proposals is popular indifference.

My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:

Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html[/quote]

PS__What we need now is a modern update on Ahimsa and Quakerism that is appropriate for our multicultural modern societies. Several years ago, I was involved in the idealistic Universist Movement, intended to unite non-religious people into a campaign for a non-faith-based rationale for a peaceful society. As an internet phenomenon, it gained members quickly, but just as quickly faded away as internal divisions arose. The idealist concept of Universalism didn't have the right-stuff to attract practical and self-involved people to make the necessary compromises and commitments. My own proposal is the BothAnd philosophy, but it's too philosophical, too idealistic, and not appealing to the realistic masses --- or to philosophical critics.

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

Accepting reality is one thing and inventing one is a different thing. — TheMadFool

Sure, we might say they were inventing reality, but that doesn't have any impact upon the fact that they believed they were realizing and accepting reality.

Sure, we might say they were inventing reality, but that doesn't have any impact upon the fact that they believed they were realizing and accepting reality — Janus

Is hell a part of our reality?

Is hell a part of our reality? — TheMadFool

You mean a perceptual part?

You mean a perceptual part? — Janus

Well, you said "...accepting reality". In what sense do we have to accept hell as part of our reality?

I didn't say that, I said the Jains (like the Buddhists) thought that hell or the hells are part of reality that must be accepted.

However, imagining a world of eternal torment (hell), in my humble opinion, while possibly indicating our utter dread of suffering, also, quite unfortunately, reveals that each and everyone of us has, within us, the seed of extreme violence. — TheMadFool

If hell is real, then the religions might believe that they have a duty to inform. You may not believe it, but their warning of it is not in the least an act of violence. They would ask that if someone heeded the warning and thereby avoided hell, then how could that be an act of violence?

Is suicide an act of violence toward the self?

Probably a tiny minority of Jains still practice ritual suicide Sallekhana. Though the religious context probably mitigates any harm such an act might normally entail for us Westerners. They would not see it as violence toward the self.

"It is not considered as a suicide by Jain scholars because it is not an act of passion..." — Wikipedia: Skallekhana

I didn't say that, I said the Jains (like the Buddhists) thought that hell or the hells are part of reality that must be accepted. — Janus

Are there any instances of severe torment lasting aeons on earth? That's part of the definition of hell.

If hell is real, then the religions might believe that they have a duty to inform. You may not believe it, but their warning of it is not in the least an act of violence. They would ask that if someone heeded the warning and thereby avoided hell, then how could that be an act of violence? — Wayfarer

All I'm saying is this: hell is a place of violence and a mind that can imagine, in gory detail, various ways of being tortured for eternity in the most painful way possible has, in it, the seed of unparalleled violence just waiting for the right circumstances to sprout into something diabolical.

I think ‘violence’ is the wrong term here. Imagine you eat something poisonous and become violently ill. Are you ‘the victim of violence’ in that case?

As far as I know Jains and Buddhists don't generally think that what exists on the earth, or the earthly plane, exhausts the totality of reality.

I think ‘violence’ is the wrong term here. Imagine you eat something poisonous and become violently ill. Are you ‘the victim of violence’ in that case? — Wayfarer

What would be the correct term then? Ahimsa = non-violence.

Also, as a matter of clarification, harming oneself is a different kettle of fish. Don't criticize the rule by stressing on the exceptions.

As far as I know Jains and Buddhists don't generally think that what exists on the earth, or the earthly plane, exhausts the totality of reality. — Janus

Yes, they have to invent new worlds, hell being one, to complete their belief systems.

Unfortunately because having a place of torture (hell) as part of your religion amounts to condoning and accepting extreme forms of violence. This makes it possible for people to turn violent in the name of religion - as a form of (divine) justice for instance. — TheMadFool

Maybe it just siphons that potentiality of violence because retribution happens afterlife. The judgement is outsourced so Jains can keep the faith and perform ahimsa here and now. The belief in hell might counteract a natural propensity for retributive acts (an eye for an eye).

I think ‘violence’ is the wrong term here. Imagine you eat something poisonous and become violently ill. Are you ‘the victim of violence’ in that case?
— Wayfarer

What would be the correct term then? Ahimsa = non-violence.

Also, as a matter of clarification, harming oneself is a different kettle of fish. Don't criticize the rule by stressing on the exceptions. — TheMadFool

In Jain and Buddhist religion, there is no judging God who punishes evil-doers, so the bad karma that leads them to hell is solely their own doing.

I think your conception that the idea of hell is 'violent' is mistaken.

If the worst of mankind - mass murderers, genocidal dictators - go to the same fate as the best, then where is the logic in that? You're perfectly entitled to believe that life is a purely physical phenomenon and that when the body dies there is no further consequence of action. But the religious traditions don't see it that way.

I've noticed this book on the subject.

You are still failing to try to put yourself in their mindset. From their point of view they were not inventing anything, but accepting what they believed had been revealed to them by sages.

Maybe it just siphons that potentiality of violence because retribution happens afterlife. The judgement is outsourced so Jains can keep the faith and perform ahimsa here and now. The belief in hell might counteract a natural propensity for retributive acts (an eye for an eye). — Nils Loc

Interesting thought. So you're saying hell contributes to the practice of ahimsa by appeasing people's desire for justice for the wrongs that are done to them with the promise of divine retribution?

However, this doesn't square with facts as they stand - hell is, as we know, and ubiquitous concept and all major religions have it as part of their belief but all of them seem to permit violence of one kind or another (in the name of religion).

Perhaps things would be worse without the idea of hell - people would seek retribution in this life and we don't need to be a genius to see where that road leads to.

Of all the religions that I know of, only Christianity seems to offer a different point of view in this regard. With the sole exception of Christianity, in all religions, Jainism included, there is no escape from retribution in hell - it must be experienced as part of justice. In Christianity, there's this notion of Divine Mercy where a sinner is forgiven no matter how serious his/her offenses. Hmmmm... :chin:

In Jain and Buddhist religion, there is no judging God who punishes evil-doers, so the bad karma that leads them to hell is solely their own doing.

I think your conception that the idea of hell is 'violent' is mistaken.

If the worst of mankind - mass murderers, genocidal dictators - go to the same fate as the best, then where is the logic in that? You're perfectly entitled to believe that life is a purely physical phenomenon and that when the body dies there is no further consequence of action. But the religious traditions don't see it that way.

I've noticed this book on the subject. — Wayfarer

Regarding the notion of hell, I've come to realize that, with the sole exception of Christianity, in all religions hell can't be avoided as it's a critical element of divine/cosmic justice. In Christianity there's something called Divine Mercy and it isn't inevitable that people like Mao Zedong, Hitler, Stalin, etc. will end up in hell. Divine Mercy basically is undeserved love:

In Western Christian theology, grace is "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it". — Wikipedia

In Jainism a sinner has no opportunity to escape his fate in hell.

Hmmm... :chin:

You are still failing to try to put yourself in their mindset. From their point of view they were not inventing anything, but accepting what they believed had been revealed to them by sages. — Janus

Indeed. The hellish tortures in the picture of Jain hell seem practicable (on Earth)

So you're saying hell contributes to the practice of ahimsa by appeasing people's desire for justice for the wrongs that are done to them with the promise of divine retribution? — TheMadFool

It could be a form of sublimation of instinct. Jains presumably do not slap back but the idea of otherworldy justice (nature itself slapping back at some time) helps to satisfy one's natural impulse for revenge.

This is not to say a belief in hell can't be leveraged and interpreted in other ways.

In Jain and Buddhist religion, there is no judging God who punishes evil-doers, so the bad karma that leads them to hell is solely their own doing. — Wayfarer

Is there a meaningful difference here? A fate in hell is to be feared and unless one is predestined for it, one ideally takes action to avoid it.

To wit, I eat the flesh of innocent animals that have been harmed without their consent. But their protein eventually becomes an integral component of my own body. — Gnomon

As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag.

As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag. — Hippyhead

No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals, not because I'm immoral, but because I am not very Empathic. As an ethical philosophical position, like most humans, I don't consider food animals to be Moral Agents or Moral Subjects. Of course, in our industrialized society, I have the luxury of leaving the messy killing & cleaning to specialists.

If you feel the "other's" pain more than I do though, you may assuage your own visceral discomfort & feelings of guilt by offering a prayer of thanks to the animal who "sacrificed" its life for your benefit, as the Native Americans were wont to do. However, I'm not aware that they were so reverent when they ripped semi-sentient plants from their life-sustaining soil. In general, I suspect that those who distinctly fear their own death are more likely to feel queasy at the thought of any animal's death. Somehow, they feel that Death is unnatural and unjustified. :cool:

Empathic : showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

See my reply to Gitonga on the Double Standards thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440573

See the Death is Neutral thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440039

No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals — Gnomon

Your body feels their fear is what I meant. Their fear generates hormones and other chemicals which you then consume. I'm not referring to empathy, but chemistry. Not making a moral point, just a biological one.