|
depend on him to die, in order to follow a rule blindly. LeeIf it helps you in some odd way to repeatedly misstate my position, then go ahead. DharmaTroll Ok, ok, if you insist, Lee, let's be more literal and boring, then: Examining Lee's claims, one could take Lee's stance to imply, given the outcomes of such hypothetical situations, that the rule 'don't harm others' would ironically lead to more harm if Lee didn't kill a killer than if he let the killer kill others. Therefore, if Lee's goal is to minimise harm in the long run, his stance to rigidly follow the rule 'don't kill' seems to backfire, and indeed leads to more harm and murder than were he to break his rule in key situations in order to save it from being broken several times. Hence, if Lee really wants to minimise the *total* numbers of killings, his most rational course of action is to kill once, as this outcome yields the least number of total killings of all possible outcomes in the situation. Therefore, ironically, Lee should be morally compelled to kill the killer in order to carry out the rule 'don't kill' maximally in the long run. Hence, in such cases, killing in self-defense maximally promotes the value of not killing or harming others. SonDT, the subtleties of Lee's position is easy to miss - it evaded me as well. But let me attempt to respond to the dillema you pose above. 1. The root assumption of your argument is that the more lives saved, the better - quantity over quality. The more people killed, the more harm . Yet this is not necessarily the case. Some of this hypothetical killer's victims may themselves be pernicious killers, or suffering from devestating illnesses, etc. 2. Lee has not said that non-killing has as its goal the minimization of the total number of killings ( if Lee really wants to minimise the *total* numbers of killings, his most rational course of action is to kill once, as this outcome yields the least number of total killings of all possible outcomes in the situation. ) My understanding of Lee's position is that he feels that the Buddha held killing to be an unwholesome act regardless of the circumstances or outcomes of the situation. However, Lee has said that in at least one instance he might kill if the conscience so dictated - euthanasia. Even so, he would do so with the awareness that it is in itself an unwholesome act. That is, he might feel justified from a personal perspective in carrying out the killing but he would not feel assured that the act were justified from a karmic perspective; rather he would expect negative karmic consequences. Therefore, from the perspective of the killer's karma, the act of klilling would be an unskillful one. 3. You write, if Lee's goal is to minimise harm in the long run, his stance to rigidly follow the rule 'don't kill' seems to backfire, and indeed leads to more harm and murder than were he to break his rule. However, it's impossible to predict with accuracy what harm or good would follow in the long run. As we have seen, Lee feels he would suffer karmic consequences as a result of killing. And while the karma of the victim would in no way be affected by the killing, others (family, friends, business partner, creditors etc.) who could be adversely affected by the killing. One reason to refrain from killing, therefore, is that one simply cannot know the long-range effects. DharmaTrollAlso, please respond, if you would, to my questions about policemen and mindfulness in their jobs, and what you think about how a policeman could do his duty yet live a moral, mindful life. I think the issue avoids the political gun-ownership issues if we look at the role of policemen and how they can perform their duties in life-threatening situations and relate that to the practice of mindfulness and compassion. SonThat is a good question. My own response would be that a skillful and mindful cop would seek to reduce the need for violence through wisdom and compassion whenever possible. But given that he must be willing to shoot to kill, he would have to be willing to violate this precept. Does this mean he cannot be a Buddhist? No. Does this mean he cannot be a good Buddhist? Lee might say so but I would not. That is because I believe the Pali sutras to be too limited a _frame_ of reference to encompass all ethical and philosophical dillemas. My take-away from the Pali sutras is not what to think but rather how to think. (Tang's is *not* to think) Notice I do not maintain that the Buddha justified the act of killing, since the Pali Sutras indicate otherwise. However, one may hold compassionate killing to be justified within a Buddhist context on other grounds than whether the Pali sutras portray the Buddha as having condoned it. Here are a few possibilities one may pose: 1- It is possible the the Buddha may have recognized exceptions to the rule that were not transmitted in the sutras. 2- It is possible that the Buddha maintained a cautious, strict official stance on the issue in public while privately allowing for exceptions. After all, to go too far in attempting to appear to justify the act of killing is to invite serious consequences. Surely the Buddha was aware that, as a public figure, his every word would be scrutinized and may be taken out of context. To deal with this issue at great length might be akin to handing out dynamite to children. 3 - Perhaps the Buddha's stance was that, although killing might be advisable in certain circumstances, most sentient beings are simply not in a position to have the wisdom and discernment to know. And so on. That said, one must always take the precept against killing with the utmost seriousness. While I believe I can percieve and appreciate Lee's and Punnnadhamos's views on the issue and yours as well, DT, my own perspective differs from that of all of you. Being a devout agnostic, I do not hold the Pali sutras and the other teachings of the tradition to be the sum total of all Buddhist wisdom. I believe that this and other issues are not given comprehensive treatment in the sutras and that one must ultimately look within for answers. The precepts are vital guidelines. While adhering to them in spirit, it may not always be possible to adhere to the letter. Lee and Punnadhammo are right in that one should avoid going too far in appearing to justifying an act with such serious consequences. Have I covered everything here? No. Am I comfortable with anyone's stance on the issue, including my own current one? No. Any other perspectives on the issue would be greatly appreciated. Excellent post, Jigme. You characterize my position clearly and fairly, while stating your differences well. Would you be willing to be an editor?
|
Favoured: 0
