Meher Baba then gave a comparison of an attacking aggressive nation:
The case of fighting against an aggressive nation is, in fact, very similar to the case of the operation of an infected body part. In the case of fighting with the aggressive nation, the good of the weaker nation appears to be the primary result, and the good of the aggressive nation (against which force is exercised) appears to be a secondary result. In the case of the operation, the good of the patient (against whom force is exercised) appears to be the primary result, and the good of others appears to be a secondary result. But this is only a minor difference and when the two situations are carefully analyzed and compared, it is found that they both equally promote the good of the target of force, as well as many others involved in the situation.
Defending the weak is an important form of selfless service and it is a part of karma yoga; and use of force, when necessary for this purpose, stands completely justified as an indispensable instrument for securing the desired objective. But any such fighting which may have to be undertaken to defend the weak must be without any selfish motives or hatred, if it is to have unalloyed spiritual importance. It resembles the case of a man defending a woman who is being attacked by another man for vile purposes, thus saving the woman's honor and life, and correcting the attacking man by punishing him and making him repent.
Meher Baba then commented on the case of killing a mad dog and the case of non-violence of the strong:
The case of destroying the mad dog (situation four) is definitely a case of violence, but it is justified because there is no hatred in it and because it is intended to promote the greater good of the children who would be attacked by the mad dog. The case of the strong man, who gives a sermon instead of seeking revenge (situation five) implies non-violence, but it is not a case of inaction. It neither implies passivity nor weakness but strength and true creative action of an impersonal nature. It is non-violence of the strong.
The detailed analysis of the above diverse situations, as well as their mutual comparison, bring out the fact that questions concerning violence or non-violence, their justification or otherwise and the ascertainment of their true value or lack of value, cannot be decided by any formal enunciation of a universal rule.