I heard a clip where the speaker said you are not peaceful if you are incapable of inflicting great harm. You are peaceful if you are capable of great harm but choose not to do so; otherwise, you are simply harmless.
I often wonder which of these applies to me. I know that I am capable of causing significant harm. I have enough skill and ability to hurt people. Yet, I am not sure I have the willingness to act on that capability. Even when I competed in MMA, I never had a strong desire to hurt my opponent. Does that make me harmless or peaceful?
I think most people can cause harm given the right tools or circumstances. So how does one actually distinguish between being peaceful and being harmless?
For instance, a 12 year old might appear harmless in a physical one on one situation. However, there are cases where young individuals have caused serious harm when armed with a weapon. So that same seemingly harmless 12 year old could actually pose a real threat under different circumstances. This raises a genuine question about how we distinguish between someone being harmless and someone being peaceful.
I could go on citing examples, but I think the point has been made. I would love to hear some thoughts on this.
Leave a Reply