non violence

@intivadu (107)
November 19, 2006 10:13am CST
since time immemorial, the whole world has survived because of one another. a solitary existence has never been possible, starting from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom to any other kind of kingdom that might be around. the stronger have always (almost) prevailed against the weaker. this strength might be physical, mental or both. strength is recognised and hailed, weakness is also recognised but despised. one's weakness also gives way to another's strength. if the weakness is limited to the individual with no power, it is passive, but when this individual has commendable power it becomes very active and might end up destroying the entire circle where this individual's reach is (and maybe beyond too... as the butterfly effect). is non violence such an act? of course it needs courage to stand against violence!! but wouldn't it need more courage to meet violence with violence and end it. won't going soft against a hard target make things easier for the opponent. is non violence a justifiable act?
No responses