Page 2 of 3

Re: The Ethics of Non Action

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:08 pm
by kc2dpt
Bankei wrote:The reason I ask this question is that I had been reading some writings by Peter Singer who is a modern philosopher. He argues that it is also unjustifiable to not help someone who you can see suffering. But he takes things further.
e.g. there are people starving right now in many places of the world.
e.g. There are people dying because they can't afford medicine etc.

Do we have a moral obligation to help these people (even though they may be located far away)?

Could there be any karmic affects of not helping them - there is no real conscious decision as there would be with watching someone drown in front of you. Most people would not give a moments thought to these issues, so how could there be Karma?
I think the key to your dilemma, Bankei, is to remember there are many ways to help people. Feeding the starving and curing the sick are certainly way to help people. The Buddha-to-be left his home and strove diligently in the forest to solve the deeper problem of repeated birth and death, repeated hunger and sickness. He found a solution and then spent the rest of his life sharing what he found with others. This too is a way to help people.

I think if one says to themselves "I know there are sick and hungry people in the world but I'm not going to try to help them" then this is rooted in unwholesome mental states.
I think if one says to themselves "I know there are sick and hungry people in the world and I will try to cure and feed them" then this is rooted in wholesome mental states.
I think if one says to themselves "I know there are sick and hungry people in the world. I believe this is a symptom of a deeper problem of being trapped in a never-ending cycle of birth, hunger, sickness, and death. I will strive to solve this deeper problem and help teach other people to solve it as well" then this is also rooted in wholesome mental states.

To put it another way...
Bankei wrote:Do we have a moral obligation to help these people (even though they may be located far away)?
"Moral obligation" is a strange phrase in a Buddhist discussion. Who would we be obligated to? I think to put it in a Buddhist context we might say:
Actions which are focused on ignoring suffering are rooted in unwholesomeness.
Actions which are focused on ending suffering are rooted in wholesomeness.
The means by which a Buddhist might focus on ending suffering might seem strange to a non-Buddhist but that doesn't change the intention.

I hope this is helpful.

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:58 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings Peter,
Peter wrote:Since the suttas teach:
a] the moral quality of the volitional kammic action is the mind-state underpinning it, which can be wholesome or unwholesome
and
b] certain actions are always unwholesome (such as intentional killing)
we can conclude
c] certain actions (such as intentional killing) will always be underpinned by unwholesome mind-states.
but can we also conclude
d] certain inactions (like letting someone drown) always underpinned by unwholesome mind-states?
It's your assumption that I am questioning.

I am saying that is an oversimplification of what is actually happening and that no given configuration of the bodily elements is in any way inherently unwholesome, in and of itself.

Sure, in most of cases intentional killing will be underpinned by unwholesome mind-states but not necessarily. Killing fleas out of compassion for a pet? Shooting a man who is just about to take off in a plane who plans to nuke some Japanese cities? Shooting an evil alien to save the world? :alien: Killing insects in a commercial kitchen to maintain hygiene standards? Killing yourself when you're an arahant, incredibly sick, and imposing a great burden on the Sangha?......

In each of the above examples, the mindstate determines the ethical/kammic result. It is an approximation to suggest that all acts of intentional killing are committed based upon unwholesome mindstates... the above list provides some which may or may not be unwholesome, and the last one cannot possibly be unwholesome.

Since I question the validitiy of based on Abhidhammic principles, that brings into question the validity of your resulting conclusion.

I hope that provides some clarification.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:45 am
by kc2dpt
Retro,

I cannot recall a single instance in the suttas of the Buddha referring to one being killing another being as wholesome. Furthermore one being killing another is always mentioned as unwholesome. As far as I know, the Classical Theravada teaching on the matter is that one being killing another is always underpinned by unwholesome mind-states.

If you want to debate whether killing can be wholesome, I think it's off-topic to this thread. You may wish to start a new thread on it. I know this is a topic which has been discussed at length over at E-S.

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:57 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Peter,

Conversely, I think it's very much on topic... here are the questions posed by Bankei thus far.
I am wondering if there is any concept of Karmic consequences of not doing something.
It depends on the mindstate at the time.

Everything I have presented thus far has been to illustrate that it is the mindstate that determines the kammic consequences for the individual, not the movement (or lack thereof) of physical elements within the form aggregate.
Do we have a moral obligation to help these people (even though they may be located far away)? Could there be any karmic affects of not helping them - there is no real conscious decision as there would be with watching someone drown in front of you. Most people would not give a moments thought to these issues, so how could there be Karma?
The response is the same as above. Kamma is volition is action, which includes mental action. True inaction that has no volitional charge, would have no kammic charge.

As for "moral obligation", that's another question altogether... my responses are limited to the kammic consequences.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:49 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

In looking at The Ethics of Non Action it may be useful also to look at...

CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE UNWHOLESOMENESS OF ACTIONS IN THE TEXTS OF
THERAVADA BUDDHISM
- PETER HARVEY

http://www.buddhistethics.org/2/harvey.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:09 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Peter,
Peter wrote:I cannot recall a single instance in the suttas of the Buddha referring to one being killing another being as wholesome. Furthermore one being killing another is always mentioned as unwholesome. As far as I know, the Classical Theravada teaching on the matter is that one being killing another is always underpinned by unwholesome mind-states..
In the case of venerable Channa's suicide (MN 144) where he "used the knife", the Buddha said this was blameless (anavajjaanii). Arahants do not have unwholesome mind-states... that's what makes them arahants.
Sariputta, when one lays down this body and takes up a new body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa, the bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly (MN 144)
Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:07 am
by Jechbi
Here's a link. It makes sense, but to me it's still shocking. If nothing else, it seems like a poor example to those who might erroneously regard themselves as arahants and believe in ignorance that it's okay to commit suicide. But it supports the contention that even the act of killing can be unexpectedly nuanced in terms of kamma (or lack thereof).

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:33 pm
by kc2dpt
retrofuturist wrote:Everything I have presented thus far has been to illustrate that it is the mindstate that determines the kammic consequences for the individual, not the movement (or lack thereof) of physical elements within the form aggregate.
I see. Now i understand your point.
retrofuturist wrote:
Peter wrote:I cannot recall a single instance in the suttas of the Buddha referring to one being killing another being as wholesome. Furthermore one being killing another is always mentioned as unwholesome. As far as I know, the Classical Theravada teaching on the matter is that one being killing another is always underpinned by unwholesome mind-states..
In the case of venerable Channa's suicide...
Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:37 pm
by bodom
Peter wrote: Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".
There are instances of assisted suicide though. Anyone remember Jack Kevorkian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:namaste:

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:44 pm
by kc2dpt
bodom_bad_boy wrote:
Peter wrote: Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".
There are instances of assisted suicide though. Anyone remember Jack Kevorkian?
What does Dr. Kevorkian have to do with understanding Buddhist teachings? Is there an instance in the suttas of assisted suicide which the Buddha calls wholesome? I am not aware of any. Rather the Buddha taught that to kill another or encourage another to kill is unwholesome. That is why it is considered an offense in Theravada to perform assisted suicide or to encourage another to commit suicide.

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:48 pm
by bodom
Peter wrote:
bodom_bad_boy wrote:
Peter wrote: Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".
There are instances of assisted suicide though. Anyone remember Jack Kevorkian?
What does Dr. Kevorkian have to do with understanding Buddhist teachings?
Compassion maybe?

"My aim in helping the patient was not to cause death," the paper quoted Kevorkian as saying. "My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized."

Sounds Buddhist to me. He had good intentions to end the suffering of others.

:namaste:

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:16 pm
by BubbaBuddhist
Sometimes discussing theory doesn't give me the "flavor" of the situation. In the drowning scenario, let's do this:

Scenario one: A total stranger is drowning.
Scenario two: Your child is drowning.

You don't swim very well and the water is turbulent, so there is a good chance you may drown too if you jump in to rescue the victim.

Examine your mind states in these scenarios. I'll be honest. If it were my child there would be no thought at all; I'd jump in without hesitation. If it were a stranger I'd still probably jump in but there would be a moment of "Oh crap, what am I doing?" right before.

In the second scenario I guess it could be argued I replaced an unwholesome mindstate (fear, hesitation) with a wholesome mindstate.

Now what if you recognize the drowning person as a recently-escaped rapist/murderer/arsonist/terrorist? Would you decide, "kamma. Screw him." :lol: Or dive in and drag him out.

J

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:37 pm
by Jechbi
Peter wrote:Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".
In one sense it isn't, but in another sense it is. It's true that we are the same being from birth to death, but it's also true that we are a new being with every changing moment.

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:31 pm
by kc2dpt
Jechbi wrote:
Peter wrote:Suicide is not an instance of "one being killing another".
In one sense it isn't, but in another sense it is. It's true that we are the same being from birth to death, but it's also true that we are a new being with every changing moment.
It seems to me you are confusing two modes. Any discussion of morality belongs to one mode. Any discussion of anatta belongs to the other mode.

Re: The Ethics of Non Action (Classical Theravada version)

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:38 pm
by Ceisiwr
It seems to me you are confusing two modes. Any discussion of morality belongs to one mode. Any discussion of anatta belongs to the other mode.
Sadhu!

Jechbi

It's true that we are the same being from birth to death
This is not the teachings of the buddha friend.