Particularly Important Source For Buddhist Ethics example essay topic

Thesis: Bibliography on Buddhist Ethics web western philosophy? Western ethics? First part-Background on Buddhist doctrine concerning suicide 1. No Buddhist Should Commit Suicide The Milinda panha 98. from the Vinaya Pitaka section on the Order. Warren, Henry Clarke. Buddhism in Translations.

Moti lal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd. (1995). King Na gasena explains why a buddhist (priest) may not kill himself. He claims that the world needs Buddhists to spread understanding and enlightenment (Boddhisatva way). 2. Breaking the third (Moral Precept) on Taking Life especially in human form is the most serious offense that a Buddhist monk may commit (although just as serious in the Pa~ or Five Precepts for laymen).

Results in expulsion from the monastic community. In his Samantapaasaadikaa commentary, Buddhaghosa sets out to clarify the legal provisions of the precept. He discusses a variety of cases, real and hypothetical, where death ensues, and endeavors to clarify the legal requirements for a breach of the precept to have taken place. The central legal concepts involved in Buddhaghosa's discussion are those of method, intention, and agency.

The sources themselves make a distinction between pa. n. n atti- -- or what is prohibited by the Vinaya (for example, eating after midday) -- and what is, or regarded as immoral by the world at large outside the cloister (for example, killing, stealing, and lying). Keown, Damien. "Attitudes to Euthanasia in the Vinaya and Commentary". Journal of Buddhist Ethics. web and Assisted Suicide, incitement of suicide are all by Buddha in the Vinaya. Apart from respect for autonomy, a second consideration sometimes advanced in support of euthanasia is compassion.

Compassion is of great importance in Buddhism, particularly when linked to the notion of the bodhisattva. Some later sources reveal an increasing awareness of how a commitment to the alleviation of suffering on the part of a bodhisattva can create a conflict with the principle of the inviolability of life. Compassion, for example, might lead one to take life in order to alleviate suffering, and indeed this is the second main ground on which euthanasia is advocated today. Despite their benevolent motive, namely that a terminal patient should be spared unnecessary pain, the judgement was that those involved were guilty of a breach of the precept.

According to Buddhaghosa, the essence of their wrongdoing was that the guilty monks made death their aim (mara. ). This suggests that to make death one's aim, to will death, and a fortiori to embark on any course with death as one's purpose, goal or outcome, regardless of how benevolent the motive, is immoral from a Buddhist perspective. (7) From this we may conclude that while compassion should accompany moral acts it does not justify them, and that compassion is a virtue only when the end it seeks is good. You should not kill yourself by throwing yourself off a cliff, nor by any other method even down to withdrawal from food. If one who is sick ceases to take food with the intention of dying when medicine and nursing care are at hand, he commits a dukkha. ta.

But in the case of a patient who has suffered a long time with a serious illness the nursing monks may become weary and turn away in despair thinking 'when will we ever cure him of this illness?' Here it is legitimate to decline food and medical care if the patient sees that the monks are worn out and his life cannot be prolonged even with intensive care. (11) This example suggests that Buddhism does not believe there is a moral obligation to preserve life at all costs or to eke out a life that is spent. Recognizing the inevitability of death, of course, is a central element in Buddhist teachings. Death cannot be prevented forever, and Buddhists are encouraged to be mindful and prepared for the evil hour when it comes. To seek to prolong life beyond its natural span by recourse to ever more elaborate technology when no cure or recovery is in sight is to live in a state of denial of the realities of human life. The Buddha himself declined to extend his life, although he reports that this option was open to him.

Accordingly, in terms of the Vinaya, it would seem justifiable to refuse piecemeal medical treatments that do nothing more than postpone the inevitable for a short time. It should be noted that although this is sometimes described as 'passive euthanasia' this is a misnomer, since there is only euthanasia when death is willed directly as a means or an end. Buddhaghosa goes on to give two further examples of death involving religious practice that do not breach the third. It is also legitimate in the case of one who suffering from a painful illness from which he knows he will not recover withdraws from food in the knowledge that he is on the brink of a spiritual breakthrough. Again, this time in the context of meditation, it legitimate for one who is not ill but who inspired by religious feeling concludes that the search for food is burdensome, withdraws from it and exerts himself in his meditation subject. (12) 1) The Vinaya is a particularly important source for Buddhist ethics because ethic o-legal issues receive a more detailed analysis in the Vinaya than in either the Sutta-Pi. taka or the Abhidhamma.

The casuistry employed suggests parallels with Western moral philosophy, which often uses scenarios and hypothetical cases in an attempt to extract moral principles from different practical contexts. The sources reveal that, contrary to what is often asserted by Western commentators, early Buddhism does take a clear and defensible stand on controversial moral questions. This position, perhaps not unsurprisingly, turns out to be a conservative one. (2) Although discussed in the context of monastic law, it seems fair to see the law here as defending what is fundamentally a moral value. In other words taking human life -- even one's own life -- seems to be wrong not because one is wearing an orange robe but because in the view of the texts the destruction of life is intrinsically immoral whether done by monk or layman. (3) With respect to euthanasia, it would seem to be wrong to commit suicide; wrong to act as 'knife-bringer' to someone seeking death; wrong to emphasize the positive aspects of death and the negative aspects of life; wrong to incite someone to kill another, and wrong to assist others in causing death.

While we might wish for more detail in the individual five or so cases relating to euthanasia, they all seem to suggest that it is immoral to affirm that death is better than life. (4) The prohibition on euthanasia does not imply a commitment to vitalism, namely the doctrine that life should be prolonged at all costs. Withdrawal from food and refusal of medical intervention when the end is night is not seen as immoral, since this is to do no more than accept death as an inevitable part of life. (5) Finally, the views that are expressed in the texts are one thing. The importance that should be attached to the texts as sources for resolving moral dilemmas is another.

It is possible to put forward the argument, for instance, that since these texts are embedded in a particular cultural and historical framework they have little relevance to modern Western societies. On the other hand, it may be felt that the views expressed in canonical texts should not lightly be set aside, and should at least be the point of departure for reflection on contemporary moral problems.