Buddhist Attitudes to Capital Punishment - Creating a Dialogue - Buddhist Ethics and Issues of Human Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Capital Punishment

Buddhist arguments against the death penalty: 

When one thinks of Buddhism, they do not think of a religion in support of violent measures. Buddhism is founded on principles of peacefulness and the reduction of harm and suffering. One could therefore conclude that capital punishment would not be acceptable to Buddhists, as it forms a violent infrastructure of society. 

Buddhists place great emphasis on non-violence and compassion for all life. The First Moral Precept requires individuals to abstain from injuring or killing any living creature, clearly making the death penalty impossible to enact. One could also argue that Buddhism presents a way of life and a pathway for a personal journey of spiritual and moral growth, and that it would be wrong to cut this off by murdering an offender. In so doing, an offender is prevented the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and grow to understand why their capital crime was wrong. Buddhism would always advocate for people to have the opportunity to grow in panna (wisdom), the death penalty prevents this by cutting life off in its current form. 

It is also important to note that the human form is seen as the highest level of rebirth, as most Buddhists regard this as the only form in which one can gain enlightenment. This means that the destruction of human life deprives a person of the opportunity to progress on the path to nirvana, which would be unacceptable to Buddhists. Even if a criminal is a murderer, the form they currently take is fundamentally precious, and whilst in this form a person should be given the opportunity to reform rather than having their life cut short for their crimes.

The Buddha did not explicitly speak about capital punishment, but his teachings show no sympathy for physical punishment, no matter how bad the crime. An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being. And If a person foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him the protection of my boundless love. The more evil that comes from him, the more good will go from me. (Mercy and Punishment: Buddhism and the Death Penalty; Alarid and Wang, 1996)

The Angulimala Sutta from the Sutta Pitaka also shows us how the Buddha responded to a fearsome murdered who terrorised local villages in India, even wearing a necklace of human finger bones, who aimed to kill 1,000 people:

Angulimala had not slept for days and was close to exhaustion. At the same time, he was very anxious to kill the thousandth person and complete his task. He made up his mind to kill the first person he met. Perched high on a mountain, hidden by trees, he saw a woman on the path below. He descended but then he saw it was his mother.

At that moment, the Buddha appeared on the path. Angulimala decided to kill him instead.

He charged after the Buddha with knife raised, but the Buddha kept moving ahead out of his reach. Angulimala could not catch up, no matter how much he tried.

Finally he shouted, “Stop! Stop!”

The Buddha replied, “I have stopped. It is you who have not stopped.”

Angulimala didn’t understand. He asked, “Why do you say that you have stopped while I have not?”

The Buddha replied, “I say that I have stopped because I have given up killing all beings. I have given up ill-treating or harming all living beings. I have cultivated love and patience through meditation. But you—you have not given up killing or ill-treating others, and you have not cultivated love and patience. Therefore, you are the one who has not stopped.”

These words penetrated the fog of Angulimala’s mind and calmed his rage. He thought, “This man is wise and brave. He must be the Buddha himself. He must have come here just to help me!”

Angulimala threw away his weapons and asked the Buddha to teach him meditation and wisdom. The Buddha agreed.

When the king and his men came for Angulimala, they found him in the Buddha’s forest meditation retreat. Since the outlaw had given up his evil ways, the king agreed to leave him alone. Angulimala sincerely and seriously practiced meditation and the training of moral conduct.

Still, he had no peace of mind. He kept remembering what he had done in the past. He recalled the pathetic cries of his victims.

Whenever he went out in public, people recognized him and attacked him, leaving him bleeding and bruised. He felt guilty and thought that he was too horrible a person to ever be happy and peaceful, no matter how hard he tried.

The Buddha reminded him, “My son, you have stopped doing evil but are still suffering the consequences of your past actions. Have patience. Everyone can change for the better, no matter what they have done. No one is too bad to change, and you have changed. It doesn’t matter whether people realize it or not. Keep practicing your meditation patiently.”

One morning while he was in the streets near the meditation retreat, Angulimala heard someone crying in pain. It was a woman suffering the agonies of childbirth.

He stopped and thought to himself, “All human beings suffer.” He began to have deep compassion for the woman and all the people he had harmed, as well as for himself and all living beings.

The feelings of compassion and kindness calmed his mind and helped him develop better concentration and patience. In turn, the concentration and patience helped him develop still more love and compassion for all living beings. Now he devoted himself to helping others as much as he could.

Angulimala lived peacefully after that. When people heard about the change in him, they asked the Buddha, “Can it be true? Can a man who has killed so many people ever really learn to concentrate and calm his mind? Can he really have a peaceful and balanced mind? Is it possible for him to live a good life after all he has done?”

The Buddha answered, “Yes. He harmed so many people because his mind was overwhelmed with hurt and anger. He had been badly harmed himself. Later, he listened to good advice, he meditated, and his mind became strong and healthy.”

No matter what someone may have done in the past, developing concentration can help. It is a powerful tool for gaining real peace of mind, and cultivating kindness and compassion for others.

The Buddha spoke to, reasoned with, and converted Angulimala, transforming him from a violent felon into a man who eventually overcame hurt and anger and grew in wisdom - his mind eventually becoming strong and healthy. 

This suggests that the Buddha himself prescribed love and forgiveness over the death penalty, suggesting Buddhist support for the punishment aim of reformation and rehabilitation over retribution. If Angulimala had been killed, he would not have overcome the influence of the three fires of hatred, greed and delusion and his violence and rage would have carried over into future lifetimes. 

Buddhism believes fundamentally in the cycle of birth and re-birth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital punishment is administered it will have compromising effects on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations. This means that both the victim of the death penalty and the executioner will experience karmic consequences in Samsara. 

As far as punishment in this world is concerned, Buddhism has strong views:

·        inhumane treatment of an offender does not solve their misdeeds or those of humanity in general - the best approach to an offender is reformatory rather than punitive

·        punishment should only be to the extent to which the offender needs to make amends, and his rehabilitation into society should be of paramount importance

·        punishing an offender with excessive cruelty will injure not just the offender's mind, but also the mind of the person doing the punishing

·        it is impossible to administer severe punishment with composure and compassion

·        if the crime is particularly serious, the person may be banished from the community or country

 Students - Now try this.

Explain the narrative of the Angulimala Sutta, and how this story can illustrate Buddhist support for reformation and rehabilitation over retribution in the form of the death penalty. 

Buddhist Arguments in favour of Capital Punishment

Whilst not the state religion, with the monarch of Thailand being a practicing Buddhist, the example of Thailand is one that suggests that Buddhism and capital punishment can be reconciled. Thailand has strict laws on deterrence and retribution, with the death penalty being in place for murder, violent offences and drug offences. 

The Death Penalty may exist in countries that are typically seen as "Buddhist" because:

·        belief by politicians that capital punishment is necessary for retribution, cultural customs, or for deterrence value

·        a long tradition of capital punishment in a particular country

·        keeping order in society is seen as more important than Buddha's teaching

·        reaction to long periods of political unrest or economic instability

This suggests that it is possible for a country's infrastructure and systems of justice to include capital punishment despite that country having clear ties to Buddhist beliefs.

 Students - Now try this.

Create a concluding paragraph explaining your view on whether or not Buddhism and the death penalty are compatible. 

Buddhist Attitudes to Euthanasia - Buddhist Ethics and Dialogues - Issues of Human Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Introducing the issues of Buddhism, euthanasia and suicide: Buddhists are not unanimous in their view of euthanasia, and the teachings of the Buddha don't explicitly deal with it. Most Buddhists (like almost everyone else) are against involuntary euthanasia (e.g. someone who is injured in a way being killed on a battlefield by their own soldiers to put them out of their misery). Their position on voluntary euthanasia is less clear.

 Arguments against Euthanasia in Buddhism:

States of mind: The most common position is that voluntary euthanasia is wrong, because it demonstrates that one's mind is in a bad state and that one has allowed physical suffering to cause mental suffering. Meditation and the proper use of pain killing drugs should enable a person to attain a state where they are not in mental pain, and so no longer contemplate euthanasia or suicide. Buddhists might also argue that helping to end someone's life is likely to put the helper into a bad mental state, and this too should be avoided.

Avoiding harm: Buddhism places great stress on non-harm, and on avoiding the ending of life. The reference is to life - any life - so the intentional ending of life seems against Buddhist teaching and voluntary euthanasia should be forbidden. Certain codes of Buddhist monastic law explicitly forbid it. Lay-people do not have a code of Buddhist law, so the strongest that can be said of a lay person who takes part in euthanasia is that they have made an error of judgement.

Karma:  Buddhists regard death as a transition. The deceased person will be reborn to a new life, whose quality will be the result of their karma. This produces two problems. We don't know what the next life is going to be like. If the next life is going to be even worse than the life that the sick person is presently enduring it would clearly be wrong on a utilitarian basis to permit euthanasia, as that shortens the present bad state of affairs in favour of an even worse one. The second problem is that shortening life interferes with the working out of karma, and alters the karmic balance resulting from the shortened life.

Arguments that could support Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

The Example of the Buddha: The Buddha himself showed tolerance of suicide by monks in two cases. The Japanese Buddhist tradition includes many stories of suicide by monks, and suicide was used as a political weapon by Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war. But these were monks, and that makes a difference. In Buddhism, the way life ends has a profound impact on the way the new life will begin. So a person's state of mind at the time of death is important - their thoughts should be selfless and enlightened, free of anger, hate or fear. This suggests that suicide (and so euthanasia) is only approved for people who have achieved enlightenment and that the rest of us should avoid it.

Reducing Dukkha: One could argue that Buddhism is founded on the principle that suffering is wrong, and therefore should be prevented. This belief that Buddhists should overcome suffering could be so extended to justify the ending of a life that is spent in agony, or with such a low quality that the person afflicted does not want to live anymore. Because Buddhism is about one's personal experience, journey and growth over many lifetimes, it could be concluded that ending the suffering of someone in the form of euthanasia or assisted suicide could be permitted, if the person asking to be killed has come to this decision wisely, over a period of reflection on the consequences. If the person asking to be killed is entering into this (for example, arranging to go to Dignitas in Switzerland) with eyes open and a full understanding of the action and the potential karmic consequences, Buddhists would argue that one has the right to choose what happens and how their current life is ended. The act of euthanasia could be seen as an act of mercy, a Kusala (selfless) action, putting the needs of the person asking for death above one's own desire for them to continue to live - this is particularly true if the person asking for death is a loved one who does not want to continue living with a terrible and incurable health condition. 

Students - Now Try This:

Using this post, and the post on comparing Christian and Secular Ethics with Buddhism on issues of Human Life and Death, create your own for and against summary of the Buddhist attitudes to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 

Make sure you plan how you would conclude an exam answer on the Buddhist attitude to Euthanasia - is it always wrong, or does it depend on the situation?

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?