Verse:Hmøøh/Mărotłism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Second Mover) |
m (→Vegetarianism) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
The originally Mărotłian concept of ''hăldifăreatü'' is a principle of nonviolence, analogous to ''ahiṃsa'' in Dharmic religions. (The [[Windermere]] word ''hăldifăreatü'' means 'non-violence' or 'non-aggression'.) Mărotłian ''hăldifăreatü'' allows violence in retaliation or self-defense, or as a punishment for violence - the reasoning was that aggression is so serious that it should be discouraged by any means necessary. There has been much debate among Talman thinkers on exactly how much retributive violence is justified. | The originally Mărotłian concept of ''hăldifăreatü'' is a principle of nonviolence, analogous to ''ahiṃsa'' in Dharmic religions. (The [[Windermere]] word ''hăldifăreatü'' means 'non-violence' or 'non-aggression'.) Mărotłian ''hăldifăreatü'' allows violence in retaliation or self-defense, or as a punishment for violence - the reasoning was that aggression is so serious that it should be discouraged by any means necessary. There has been much debate among Talman thinkers on exactly how much retributive violence is justified. | ||
====Vegetarianism==== | ====Vegetarianism==== | ||
Both Mărotłism and strict forms of Ngronaism teach that this implies a moral commandment for vegetarianism (i.e. not killing | Both Mărotłism and strict forms of Ngronaism teach that this implies a moral commandment for vegetarianism (i.e. not killing animals for meat -- maybe just "slaughterable" animals, i.e. mammals and birds), or in modern times, veganism. | ||
Several passages in the Avoranloestūn that ban both human and animal sacrifice is cited by Pidas as justification for vegetarianism. | Several passages in the Avoranloestūn that ban both human and animal sacrifice is cited by Pidas as justification for vegetarianism. | ||