Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

KILLING WITH GOOD INTENTION

hi all

in order to understand the laws of Kamma , a little deeper,
i have devised here a hypothetical question :

suppose there is a man with cruel intention, who is about to push the button and launch a Hydrogen bomb, over a big city, creating mass destruction and mass suffering.


examining the situation , i see clearly that the only way to stop him is to `pull the trigger`, and take his life.

examining my mind, i make sure that along with lots metta-karuna for the big city dwellers,
i also have metta-karuna for the that man, and only slight ill-will towards him .


realizing that i am about to break sila and suffer the kammic fruit for it,
i pull the trigger ,without hesitation

MY QUESTIONS

1) what are the kammic consequences of breaking this sila, with `good` intentions, and that much ("some") level of sati-panna (as described), in such an extreme (hypothetical) situation ?

2) can you say that this action is "in line with Dhamma" ?
3) can you say that it is "against Dhamma"?


(my confusion is regarding the merit-de-merit ratio in Kammic fruits, regarding parameters such as : intention, , and wisdom/ignorance, (and also "phisical kamma").

4) Is the Intention factor much more dominant , in determening the Kammic fruit, than the Wisdom Factor
or is it not ?

i know that Kamma is an extremely complicated subject, but i am hoping that maybe some of you, have some insight on the subject, and perhaps came across some relevant Pali sources

much metta

hove

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, for whom is the greater demerit, one who knowingly does evil, or one who does evil unknowingly?"
The elder replied: "Indeed, your majesty, for him who does evil not knowing is the greater demerit."
"In that case, venerable Nagasena, would we doubly punish one who is our prince or king's chief minister who not knowing does evil?"
"What do you think, your majesty, who would get burned more, one who knowing picks up a hot iron ball, ablaze and glowing, or one who not knowing picks it up?"
"Indeed, venerable sir, he who not knowing picks it up would get burned more."
"Indeed, your majesty, in the same way the greater demerit is for him who does evil not knowing."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."

So, to be exact, the merit-demerit ratio here is 79/5, the wisdom factor in your case, I would estimate to be around 3.1415, roundabout, your intention sounds quite noble, so I'd give you 5.3 on that. Given that this is just speculation, you incur a penalty of -13. So the end result is (79/5)*3.1415+5.3-13 = 41,9357. So roughly 42, the answer to all questions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four? The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]... The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]... The results of kamma... Speculation about [the first moment, purpose, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation."

hove wrote: examining the situation , i see clearly that the only way to stop him is to `pull the trigger`, and take his life.

See also: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 28&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are mixing up intention with motivation here.
motivation is the why you do something and intention in the desire to do it (to simplify it)

the intention is to kill the reason why you kill may alter the consequenses to some degree but the intention to kill and then the act of killing would bring the same results kammically.
there is always other options, you could restrain him somehow, which wouldn't lead to consequenses kammically because the intention is not to hurt but to preserve life. you could also reason with him.... there are always other options.

so to answer your questions
1- hell
2- no
3- yes
4- intention is the dominant factor (imo) and wisdom can guide to some degree. or to use archery as an example. the intention dictates the target area, motivation the accuracy of the aim to that target.

Nice topic.

What about those executioners and hangmans who pull the level to ensure final justice is made?
What about the Judge who sentenced a druglord to be hang?
What about the enforcers who kill the bandits to keep the community safe?
What about the government healthcare servants who are responsible for clearing out those cute mosquito larva?

Imagine if all these people mentioned above are Buddhist who insist on not breaking any precepts, what is gonna happen to the world? Will it creates a better world?

This is a very old argument. Back in the fifties the subject of 'would you kill the young Hitler if you had the chance, knowing what evil he would do?' was a very popular topic in ethical discussions. This was even a topic for scholastic debates. It is always presented as doing a greater good - i.e. killing to prevent more killing. This argument is often also made for going to war.

What it comes down to is a personal choice. Do you believe that it is always wrong to kill, or not. There will always be those who could be stopped from doing evil, by killing them. How many will you kill? Will there ever be a point at which you have killed enough bad people, or will there always be more 'needing to be stopped' by killing.

For me, there are some absolutes. I would consider giving my life to prevent the evil such as stepping in front of someone to protect them. I would not kill them. Because for me killing is not an option. Not for evil people and not for food and not for convenience. For me, it is a very slippery slope to more killing. Once we rationalize the act of taking the life of another sentient being, how many others will we kill. All for very good reasons.

I believe that all life is impermanent. It is not up to me to 'save' one life by taking another. This is not my right. If we start seeing ourselves as the ultimate deciders in the question of who should and who should not live, we are affecting not only what happens in this situation but what might happen in the future.

As to executioners etc. - I believe that this is not right occupation. I believe that the death penalty is wrong. Killing begets killing. It always has and it always will.

corrine

Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

Number one on the list...easy peasy...

appicchato wrote:Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

Number one on the list...easy peasy...

hove wrote:
examining the situation , i see clearly that the only way to stop him is to `pull the trigger`, and take his life

From the given information, I'll assume you're a gun owner. And if you're a gun owner, then you'd better train very hard to become a sharpshooter (like those on history channel where they throw a penny up into the air and shoot thru it). That way, in such situation, you don't have to kill the guy. You could just comfortably and accurately aim for his arm and disable him after all negotiations have failed..

Beings will always be born and die regardless; what is more rare is for wisdom to be cultivated, and it doesn't seem wise to me, to save someone else from becoming a murderer, by becoming one oneself.

The intention of Buddhist morality to calm the body and mind; to reduce tension as a precondition for psychological work.

Mental peace is crucial to the path, so which ever action would be less likely to disturb your mental peace would be the skillful choice in my opinion.

Its all about the meditation practice

Let's get real. Would a Buddhist kill a rabid dog that's about to bite his daughter? That is the dimension of this issue, not guys with their finger on the bomb button, young Hitlers, and mosquito larvae. Good grief! What would be the better thing - protecting a few people with your body during a shooting rampage, and getting killed for the effort, or shooting the shooter? There are people in this world who protect others, because that is their temperament and because they are trained to do so. Through my blog "Buddhism for Tough Guys" I have an expanded network of former policemen and military men who are Buddhist and are willing to take a bullet for anybody under any circumstances. They embody the real meaning of anatta by always putting the safety of others before their own. And guess what? They carry concealed firearms. As a Zen monk once put it to me when I asked him what he would do if he was attacked: "I would fight back. We're Buddhists, not stupid." I think that intellectual hair-splitting in western Buddhism puts off a lot of good, decent people such as those I have described. They are quite literally willing to sacrifice their lives and their karmas to preserve the lives of others. Some of us see our Buddhist practice as a way of becoming mentally tough to face a challenging world. I can think of no act of compassion greater than ignoring one's own safety in order to save another's life.

Kamran wrote:The intention of Buddhist morality to calm the body and mind; to reduce tension as a precondition for psychological work.

Mental peace is crucial to the path, so which ever action would be less likely to disturb your mental peace would be the skillful choice in my opinion.

Its all about the meditation practice

This can't be right. Just because an action is less disturbing, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

hove wrote:
suppose there is a man with cruel intention, who is about to push the button and launch a Hydrogen bomb, over a big city, creating mass destruction and mass suffering.

examining the situation , i see clearly that the only way to stop him is to `pull the trigger`, and take his life.

If that's really the only way, I would accept the karmic consequences of killing the cruel man.