Oh, what comes to mind is the following: From a Buddhist perspective, there is the statement that whoever practices self-love also wants to bestow it on others and does not want to let his fellow human beings have the evil experience of exercising violence over them. Means that the tormentor who approaches you and wants to force you to bend to his will should be protected from this experience if possible. Even if a person superficially believes that he is doing something right with his actions, deep down he knows that he is doing something wrong, but represses it. Thus, someone who practices this kind of ethics would not whine to his tormentor, nor cry out, nor physically defend himself, in order to spare the perpetrator from feeling like a tormentor from then on and from having guilt heaped upon him. Someone who willingly accepts death, who forgives his murderer or tormentor for the deed already in the face of what is happening, opens up the chance that this experience will save the perpetrator from further deeds.

On the other hand, one can probably not assume that there are many such people and that the perpetrators who think they are avoiding misfortune are all the more likely to bring such misfortune upon their fellow human beings. Even in the Buddhist tradition there are stories where a single monk kills a ruler with his crossbow to prevent his soldiers from committing crimes against people and incurring guilt. Since we are dealing with a mass phenomenon, it is the masses who, through their resistance, try to help those who are blind and deaf and do not know that whoever makes one part of humanity unhappy also makes the other part unhappy. No one can be happy in the face of the unhappiness of others.