Human Life and Death in Buddhism and Ethics - Comparing Buddhism with Christian Theology and Ethical Theories

 Author: Ruth Wood

Describing the ethical approaches taken in Western Philosophy and Ethics that are relevant to issues of human life and death

Christian Approaches:

·        Natural Moral Law – offers a deontological view of issues of human life issues. Human life is seen as sacred, particularly innocent life – and Aquinas argues that all humans would understand that this is essential for ethical behaviour when using their God-given reason. This is further supported by Divine Law, which dictates that life begins at conception (Psalm 139 – “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” and Jeremiah – “in my mother’s womb you knew me, before I was born you set me apart), and that murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13 – “you shall not murder.” This is part of the Decalogue). Aquinas upholds self-preservation and the preservation of innocent life, so it is important to note that he is in favour of capital punishment – this is because these lives are not innocent, they are deserving of death as a matter of justice and the maintenance of an ordered society. Aquinas also does not highly regard the life of animals – he makes it clear in the Summa Theologica that animals should be regarded as “things” which are given by God to be used by humans to reach Eudaimonia. It is therefore likely that he would take little issue with using animals to benefit humans, even if this means the suffering of death and animals in the process.

·        Situation Ethics – offers a more flexible approach to moral decision making, as it uses the example of Jesus to show that morality should consider the consequences of one’s actions, and this determines if something is right or wrong. Fletcher upholds the example of Jesus in the Bible, suggesting that he was a moral relativist – his actions showed that at times it is acceptable to break a deontological rule if in doing so loving circumstances were brought about (agape love) – for example, when he forgave the woman caught in adultery and prevented her from being stoned to death. The Working Principle “personalism” and the Fundamental Principles that Fletcher illustrates the Rule of Love with all indicate his attitude to human life – life is inherently valuable and people should work to preserve human life and limit human suffering. However, because this theory is teleological, there are no moral absolutes, meaning that no action can ever be deemed inherently right or wrong, “the morality of the action depends on the situation” (Fletcher). Nevertheless, Personalism does indicate that it is more likely that Fletcher would preserve human life over animal life, and that he views human life as more important in moral decision making.

Secular Ethics:

·        Virtue Ethics: Aristotle offers a secular theory that does not depend on divine guidance of any kind, rather one should cultivate characteristics that will lead to personal moral growth and the flourishing of society. However, his theory offers moral guidance regarding the issue of murder, and it is clear that Aristotle takes a deontological attitude to this action in his work, meaning that he views this action as always being wrong. However, as Aristotle does not directly comment on the personhood of the embryo, it is difficult to find direct teachings that can be applied to the issues of human life and death that discuss the rights and status of unborn children. Virtue Ethics is therefore mostly subjective, leaving the moral agent to make up their mind regarding the kind of characteristics that one is exhibiting when dealing with issues of human life and death. However, it is important to remember that Aristotle’s focus on “flourishing” society’s does mean that there is a communal aspect to morality, and that acting to benefit a society as a whole is a moral action in his eyes. Furthermore, Aristotle upheld the importance of law and order and lived at a time when capital punishment was acceptable, meaning that it is likely that he would support capital punishment in circumstances where the most justice is done by administering the death penalty. Aristotle created the ‘hierarchy of the souls’ suggesting that animals are below humans and thus animal life can be used in support of human flourishing.

·        Utilitarianism: Bentham’s Hedonic Principle encourages that minimisation of human suffering, but does this by considering what is best for the majority. For this reason, Bentham’s theory is often seen to support actions that use an embryo as a means to an end, as actions such as embryo research lead to move overall happiness for the greatest number, particularly if they are able to achieve feats such as the ending of genetic diseases. It has also been argued by many that Bentham was not speciesist, meaning that his theory can be used to reduce the suffering of animals as well as the suffering of humans. However, this is subjective, and many Utilitarians may feel that should the moral dilemma involve preserving a human life by taking an animal life (e.g. by using them in organ transplants) then this is acceptable. However, Bentham may not support the widespread suffering of animals for limited human enjoyment, for example through intensive farming and blood sports – but again, this is debated.

 Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Natural Moral Law

·        Natural Moral Law is andro-centric, and argues that innocent human life should be protected at all costs. The primary and secondary precepts tell us that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are wrong, as they destroy the image of God that humans were created in. 

Although they have a different view of human life, Buddhists would also agree that the human form is precious because it is the only form in which one can gain enlightenment. Therefore they would agree with Aquinas on these moral issues. 

Like Natural Moral Law, Buddhists view embryos as persons and believe that life begins at conception. Their treatment of the embryo is therefore likely to be fairly similar, as they view the embryo as being a precious form that should be respected. In the case of Double Effect where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, Buddhists and Aquinas would also come to the same conclusion that in this case abortion is moral, as the action is designed to prevent harm to the mother. 

Counter-Argument: However this is where the similarity ends – NML’s view of the embryo stems from Aquinas’ belief in the divine creator who has bestowed reason upon humanity, allowing them to understand morality. It is through creation that human life is made sacred, as the Bible teaches that every being is created by God for a purpose. Aquinas is also far more deontological than Buddhism, having a strict view of the treatment of the embryo, whereas it is evident at times that Buddhism may relax its view of the embryo should the action result in widespread reduction of dukkha – therefore, there are times where Buddhists may support actions such as embryo research and abortion (such as in post-war Japan). For this reason, Buddhism could be seen as most similar to Proportionalism from Hoose and McCormick, as they too are preoccupied with finding a proportional response that upholds good moral rules whilst also reducing harm in its consequences.

Criticism of  Buddhist Beliefs from Natural Moral Law:

Natural Moral Law:

·        Buddhists are wrong because they do not view the world as being created by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator God.

·        Karma would be rejected as illogical and theologically incorrect – the system of reward and punishment in the universe comes from God.

·        Aquinas believes that humans have souls, meaning that he would reject the doctrine of anatta and all its implications for Buddhism.

·        Aquinas’ view of the afterlife depends on the system of heaven and hell in the Bible, not on the system of Samsara.

·        NML is strictly deontological, meaning that Aquinas would criticise the flexible teleological aspects of Buddhist ethics, such as the idea that there are times where actions such as abortion are acceptable.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Situation Ethics

·        Like in Fletcher's Situation Ethics, Buddhists also uphold love in their actions – meditation on love is a key aspect of Buddhist moral practice, and there are Buddhist texts such as the Brahma Viharas that encourage Buddhists to develop feelings of lovingkindness for all beings that are trapped in Samsara. Furthermore, the Mahayana Buddhism emphasis on compassion could be compared to the focus on agape love in Situation Ethics. This foundation seems to imply that Buddhists and Fletcher would come to the same conclusions about moral actions reducing harm in regard to human life and death. There could therefore be some agreement between Situation Ethics and Buddhism on all the human life and death issues, depending on the specifics of the situation. 

Counter-Argument: However, Buddhists do have moral absolutes aside from upholding love, meaning that they have a stricter view of ethics than Fletcher. This means that they are given specific rules regarding human life, such as do not murder or physically assault other humans. Buddhist monks also have a strict view of sexual conduct and are encouraged not to have sex or have children, as these actions form attachment, and Fletcher may not always see this as the most loving thing, as sex and children can bring one happiness, meaning embryo research such as IVF/Designer Babies would be acceptable. Fletcher’s love is also based on the example of Jesus, which would be irrelevant to Buddhists who follow Gautama as a moral figure.

Criticism of Buddhism from Situation Ethics:

 Agape love depends on an omnibenevolent creator God who has given us a model for morality in the form of Jesus.

·        SE has no moral absolutes, so would criticise the deontological rules of Buddhism – such as the 5 moral precepts of lay people.

·        Love is the most important moral characteristic, whereas Buddhists uphold the 8 parts of magga as being equally important – love is an extreme, overwhelming emotion that should outweigh all other obligations whereas the Buddhist focus on moderation could be seen by Situation Ethicists as a weak perspective.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics

·        As we have seen, there are many similarities between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism, particularly regarding the creation of a good character to ensure that a person is moral. Virtue Ethics could be argued to fit most easily with Buddhism as it is secular in nature, meaning that it can be compared with Buddhist values in a way that other theories cannot (because they rely on a creator God). Furthermore, the fact that Virtue Ethics does not comment directly on issues such as the personhood of the embryo allows Buddhists to apply their own view of the embryo within the framework of perfecting their character. Virtue Ethics does encourage good moral action and sees murder as being wrong, which is similar to Buddhists who view murder as being a karmically wrong action – it therefore seems likely that the way that Virtue Ethicists treat humans would be similar to how Buddhists would treat humans. 

Counter-Argument: However, Virtue Ethics does depend on Aristotle’s view that there is no afterlife, and so the desire to become a good human is part of this belief that humans have one chance to aim for morality through cultivating the characteristics of the Golden Mean. Buddhists however base their ethics in the idea that their actions will be repaid through karma in Samsara, meaning that Buddhists are more likely to hold themselves accountable externally – they should not treat humans better because they have an obligation to perfect their character in their limited lives, but because if they don’t treat humans properly they will experience karmic punishment later on. It could be argued that Virtue Ethics focuses more on ‘intrinsic motivations’ (people being expected to want to be better people as they have one life and one chance to get it right) whereas Buddhists have ‘extrinsic motivations’ (Buddhists treat humans well because they are frightened of the karmic consequences they will otherwise receive).

Criticism of Buddhism from Virtue Ethics:

    Aristotle rejects the belief in the afterlife so argues that humans only have one lifetime to morally perfect themselves, meaning that they would reject the belief in Samsara that underpins Buddhist ethics.

·        Aristotle would reject the 227 rules of the Vinaya, arguing instead that it is more important to focus on building a moral character – Aristotle only provides 3 deontological rules in his framework (no lying, theft and adultery) meaning that his ethical theory is much more broad and less prescriptive than Buddhist ethics.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Utilitarianism

·        Utilitarians and Buddhists are often likely to perform similar actions when it comes to the treatment of humans, as both Bentham and Buddhists uphold the limitation of suffering as a good thing. Therefore, Buddhists and Bentham would act in a way that prevents humans from suffering, and takes into account the consequences of one’s actions. 

Counter-Argument: However, Bentham’s focus on pleasure would be unlike Buddhist understandings of pleasure – ultimately, pleasure is a bond that causes attachment and craving, Buddhists think it is better to live a moderate life that allows people to realise the nature of things, whereas Bentham sees human morality as allowing all beings to feel happiness, but may not recognise this happiness in a spiritual way (as Buddhists do). Furthermore, Bentham’s theory does not have moral absolutes, whereas Buddhism does have moral rules regarding the treatment of humans – no murder or harm being examples. Buddhists do not use humans as a means to an end, whereas Bentham would see this as acceptable as long as it benefitted the majority.

Criticism of Buddhism from Utilitarianism: 

        It is more important to maximise pleasure for the greatest number instead of following rules such as the Vinaya.

This is an Ethically Naturalist theory meaning that it equates “good” with “pleasure” – Buddhists do not always see good as pleasure because it causes craving and attachment, so Bentham would reject this.

Buddhists have scriptures and rules to guide them whereas Bentham argues that the Hedonic Calculus is the most important method for morality.

  Bentham rejected religion as a system for morality and saw ethics as needing to be secular, meaning he would reject the supernatural and authoritative aspects of the Buddha and Buddhist texts as the source of morality.

 How Buddhism may respond to the criticisms of Western Ethics.

Buddhist responses to the above criticisms:

·        Buddhist ethics are grounded in the dharma realised by Siddhartha Gautama, this gives them authority over and above the views of others, as the Buddha is an authority for all sects of Buddhist as the first being to gain enlightenment and preach the way to nirvana in this time-cycle. Ultimately, Buddhists are convinced that their understanding of Buddhist ethics is right, and more important that other religions and ethical systems, as they come from Gautama who has authority.

·        Buddhism has been proved to Buddhist believers through religious experiences, this makes the doctrine of Buddhism more authoritative for Buddhists than the ideas of other ethicists. Examples of religious experiences that Buddhists may have experienced include miracles, visions of the Buddha or a numinous/mystical experience through meditation.

·        Buddhist ethics are part of the wider teachings of Buddhism, which must be realised through self-authentication, meaning that believers have to try and test the dharma for themselves. They would argue that without trying Buddhist ethical practices, the above scholars would not have an opportunity to understand their truth.

·        The Buddha argued that other religious believers had only realised part of the dharma, this means that Buddhists would argue that it is better to follow the ethical guidance of Gautama than other moral teachers, as he is the only being that has realised the full moral dharma.

·        Buddhist ethics depend on a worldview based on Samsara and Karma, those that do not understand this worldview do not have a good understanding of ultimate reality and the way that the world functions, so they have an incorrect view (this particularly applies to scholars that express views on the afterlife – such as NML/SE/VE). 

Students - Now Try This:

Create a summary of views of human life and death from Christian and secular ethical belief systems.

Create a comparison paragraph between similarities and differences in Buddhist beliefs.

Explain how Buddhists may respond to criticisms from Western ethics. 

Create your conclusion - is there are dialogue here? Overall, do you think that Buddhists are likely to change their beliefs when they encounter Western ethical theories?