killing with good intention

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: killing with good intention

Post by greenjuice »

The first precept is explained in the Tipitaka as the Vinaya rule Parajika 3.

No matter what the motivation is, if you intentionally cause someone's death, it's a breach of the first precept. In intentional killing, the motivation is irrelevant. Even if someone is dying and is in pain, and motivated by compassion and desiring that he doesn't experience pain, someone would to advise him to fast to death, if he were to do that, the former would have broken the first precept. If one uninentionally kills someone, the first precept is not broken.

Here is the rendering of the rule: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 4.html#Pr3

Another rule that relates to this is the rule Pacittiya 74 that forbids hitting someone out of anger. This means any violence, done to another out of anger, that doesn't include intention to kill, being that such violence is under the Pj 3 rule. In doing violence like this, without intention to kill, motivation is a factor. If one does such violence out of anger, that is unwolesome. If one does such violence in self-defense, it is not an offense, even if anger arises in one's mind.

Rendering of the rule: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .html#Pc74

Presumably, there is also no offense in defending others, having in mind Buddha's words that one should protect one's family and friends (that he gives e.g. in the Sigalovada Sutta). So, to adress your concrete example, there would be nothing unwholesome in "pulling the trigger" and shooting him in the arm, so he can't push the button.

Having all this in mind, if you would to see someone going to push the button and kill beings, and then taking a weapon and pulling the trigger to shoot him in the arm in order to stop him, with no intention to kill him, with the primary motivation to protect beings from him, there would be nothing wrong with that, even if you unintentionally kill him, or if your motivation becomes mixed with anger.
zamotcr
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:11 am

Re: killing with good intention

Post by zamotcr »

Cittasanto wrote: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.
As far as I know, kamma is volitional.

In Volition: An Intro of the Law of Kamma, Sayadaw U Silananda said:
What is kamma? The Buddha said: “Oh monks, it is volition that I call kamma.” The popular meaning of kamma is action or doing, but as a technical term, kamma means volition or will. When you do something, there is volition behind it, and that volition, that mental effort, is called kamma.
So, technically, the act itself is not kamma. If you are walking down the street and without noticing it, you kill a bug, you are not doing any bad, you are not creating kamma, because you didn't wanted to kill the bug.
Even a story is given in the Tipitaka, of a monk unintentionally sitting over a small child and the child died. It is said that the first precept has not been broken, that the monk is not guilty of killing.

So, the problem is the intention, to kill, not the act itself.

Equally, police or soldiers who protect people or nation, if they have to kill someone in order to protect the good people, this isn't bad kamma. I even think that those people who protect others are doing good kamma, because they are in danger in order to protect others.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: killing with good intention

Post by seeker242 »

Solution: shoot him in the shoulder so he can't push the button. :woohoo:
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: killing with good intention

Post by dagon »

hove wrote: 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
Hi hove

In this situation …. What is the situation here – the actual situation here is that we are speculating on the outcome of an action in the context of kamma. Is thinking about what you would do devoid of kamma?

If we more from speculation to what is certain; we all will die at some point, the Dhamma teaches us that we should always be striving to address the issues of the 4NT and the 8 Fold Path through practice. So we have to take the best opportunities of the life that we have. Not only does this help to prepare us for the certain outcome (of death) but it should also ensure that if we are faced in extreme decisions that we are more likely to respond in accordance with the Dhamma.

Of course we need to be aware of kamma and our responsibility for our own actions and intentions to ensure that we develop right view in the context of the path. However beyond that we need to be very much in the present and in that context i think that consideration of the 'wholesomeness' of what we are about to do, are doing or have just done is a practical and constructive contribution to our practice.

If we follow the 5 precepts we avoid most negative kamma, if we combine the precepts with the sublime states then we generally incur positive kamma. The Buddha did draw the parallels between kammas, salt put in a glass or a river - positive karma is a good back up plan; but the goal of the path is enlightenment.

Did the Buddha teach that it was useful to speculate on the kamma outcomes, or the kamma from past that influenced our present sitution?

metta
paul
User avatar
buddhismfordudes
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:40 pm
Location: Louisville, Kentucky USA
Contact:

Re: killing with good intention

Post by buddhismfordudes »

Great replies!! Thank you. However, unless the "bad guy" is standing right in front of you, you may intend to wound him in the arm, but it ain't that easy. Hand a handgun to a novice and he literally cannot hit a door at twenty feet. It's not like TV.
Gerry Stribling
Author of "Buddhism for Dudes"
Blog "Buddhism for Tough Guys" at buddhismfordudes.blog.com
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: killing with good intention

Post by greenjuice »

Why would anyone hand a novice a firearm? Also, concerning "you may intend to wound him in the arm", Buddha says that kamma is in the intention. If can aim at a man with the intention to kill him, you can aim at him with the intention to wound him.
User avatar
kmath
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: killing with good intention

Post by kmath »

seeker242 wrote:Solution: shoot him in the shoulder so he can't push the button. :woohoo:
This doesn't answer the question. The OP specifically said that the only way to stop the man is to kill him -- you just have to assume that's true.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: killing with good intention

Post by seeker242 »

kmath wrote:
seeker242 wrote:Solution: shoot him in the shoulder so he can't push the button. :woohoo:
This doesn't answer the question. The OP specifically said that the only way to stop the man is to kill him -- you just have to assume that's true.
Correct, but it sounds very much like a "false dilemma". The chances of that being the one and only option, in reality, I would say are extremely unlikely, slim to none actually. Hypothetical situations that would never actually happen, are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to reality. What use is examining your ethical conduct in situation that would never actually happen? It seems more prudent to examine one's conduct in situations that are realistic, because those are the only ones that actually count.

:anjali:
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: killing with good intention

Post by Dan74 »

A bunch of teachers and commentators seem to assume that there is never kamma from non-action. Like failing to save a drowning man, or even try, failing to feed a hungry beggar, etc.

The failure to act, the choice of one's serenity over a disturbance, the choice of avoiding bad kamma and letting many die rather than taking on bad kamma and saving many as well as the potential killer from some kammic consequences of his action - these are deeply selfish attitudes, and would clearly carry kammic consequences, any way I look at it, whether or not, they are actions or omissions.
_/|\_
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: killing with good intention

Post by greenjuice »

This rule against intentionally causing the death of a human being is best understood in terms of five factors, all of which must be present for there to be the full offense.

1) Object: a human being, which according to the Vibhaṅga includes human fetuses as well, counting from the time consciousness first arises in the womb immediately after conception up to the time of death.
2) Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting to cause that person's death. "Knowingly" also includes the factor of —
3) Perception: perceiving the person as a living being.
4) Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that person to die.
5) Result: The life-faculty of the person is cut as the result of one's act.

...

Inaction. Given the Vibhaṅga's definition of taking life, we can infer that inaction does not fulfill the factor of effort here, for it does not cut off the life faculty. Thus if a bhikkhu sits idly when seeing a flood sweep a person downstream, he commits no offense — regardless of his feelings about the person's death — even if the person then drowns. Recommending that another person sit idly as well would also not fulfill the factor of effort here, because the category of command covers only the act of inciting the listener to do any of the four actions that would fulfill the factor of effort under this rule.

Medical care and life-support. The same holds true if a bhikkhu decides not to give a patient a treatment — or to discontinue treatment — that might conceivably extend the patient's life: It does not fulfill the factor of effort, for such acts do not cut off the life faculty. At most they simply allow it to end on its own.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 4.html#Pr3
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: killing with good intention

Post by DNS »

Dan74 wrote:A bunch of teachers and commentators seem to assume that there is never kamma from non-action. Like failing to save a drowning man, or even try, failing to feed a hungry beggar, etc.
The failure to act, the choice of one's serenity over a disturbance, the choice of avoiding bad kamma and letting many die rather than taking on bad kamma and saving many as well as the potential killer from some kammic consequences of his action - these are deeply selfish attitudes, and would clearly carry kammic consequences, any way I look at it, whether or not, they are actions or omissions.
:goodpost: I agree. All too often I see on forums such as this, that some posters respond that they will use the saw simile and accept being killed or that they will sit idly by while others are being killed. One poster in a similar thread actually said he would watch people being killed while sitting and watching his sensations.

This is fine if you are a bhikkhu or an arahant, but we are (most of us) lay people with families and responsibilities. There is sometimes the tendency of lay Buddhists to suggest or require the bhikkhuification of lay people; by placing too high of demands on lay people, be it expecting lay people to be celibate, expecting lay people to always be passive, etc.

It is one thing to use the saw simile for yourself, but to impose that on others; that doesn't sound too compassionate to me. It is certainly good to be nonviolent in all possible aspects but sometimes being nonviolent can mean doing nothing and sometimes doing nothing is not compassionate as we all know from our personal experiences; be it not speaking out, not defending someone, be it verbally or physically.
User avatar
kmath
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: killing with good intention

Post by kmath »

David N. Snyder wrote: :goodpost: I agree. All too often I see on forums such as this, that some posters respond that they will use the saw simile and accept being killed or that they will sit idly by while others are being killed. One poster in a similar thread actually said he would watch people being killed while sitting and watching his sensations.

This is fine if you are a bhikkhu or an arahant, but we are (most of us) lay people with families and responsibilities. There is sometimes the tendency of lay Buddhists to suggest or require the bhikkhuification of lay people; by placing too high of demands on lay people, be it expecting lay people to be celibate, expecting lay people to always be passive, etc.

It is one thing to use the saw simile for yourself, but to impose that on others; that doesn't sound too compassionate to me. It is certainly good to be nonviolent in all possible aspects but sometimes being nonviolent can mean doing nothing and sometimes doing nothing is not compassionate as we all know from our personal experiences; be it not speaking out, not defending someone, be it verbally or physically.
:clap:
Post Reply