Mercy killing and kamma
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
I also don't recall the Buddha saying he could free birds from dukkha, only humans.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4647
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
No. It's an offence of defeat, because it fulfils the conditions necessary to be the unwholesome kamma of urging another to kill a human being. If, with compassion, the bhikkhu had said, “Please don't kill him,” but the executioner went ahead and killed him anyway, the bhikkhu would not be guilty of any offence at all.clw_uk wrote:Wouldnt that be more to do with the appearance of the sangha to the wider society?
Not at all, it would be rooted in love (adosa) and compassion.clw_uk wrote:The motivation to heal it would could also be rooted in aversion to the birds suffering
The root of your dilemma may be that you don't believe in kamma and rebirth. Looked at with the wrong view of "one life only", suffering ceases at death, but that is not the Buddha's way to end suffering.clw_uk wrote:The outcome is always the same. One scenario has less dukkha and the other scenario has more, but the one with less dukkha is morally wrong and the one with more dukkha is right?
A seriously injured bird will die of its injuries in due course. The best that you can do is remove the immediate danger of the cat tormenting it further before killing it, and keep the bird in a safe place. Those are all compassionate acts. Breaking its neck is not a compassionate act — it is breaking the first precept.
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
From the point of view of one life . There isn't much difference between humans and animals . The suffering of terminal illness can be ended in both animals and humans by killing the victim . Instant nirvana .clw_uk wrote:Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it. Humans can be free from dukkha, animals can't.
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
This is one I have a big problem with, as the majority of answers every time this sort of question comes up (here, on a zen forum I sometimes go on, over at DharmaWheel as well . . .) tend to lean towards "you still broke the first precept", and even "the animal needed to suffer to work out its kamma".
To me, it seems selfish to let my religious preference get in the way of doing the humane thing - and to me, the kind thing to do is to end the animal's pain. Unlike us, animals cannot rationalise about their suffering, cannot see meaning in it. So it serves no purpose at all. Letting the suffering continue is just indulging our own squeamishness - both moral and physical.
As for "the animal needs to suffer to work out its kamma" . . . honestly, do we really know how kamma works well enough to be able to make cosmic judgements like that? DOES kamma really work like that, some sort of cosmic moral accountant?
As someone who has kept pets in the past, and hopes to again when circumstances permit, I will euthanaise them when neccessary. I do everything I can for them - I once spent a substantial amount of money on an operation for one of my pet rats, in order to give him 2-3 months more life. But when another developed several inoperable tumours, I made him comfortable for as long as possible, then finally had him put to sleep. Believe me, it was not for my sake - taking him to the vet was heartbreaking (I'm actually crying about it again now - I'm stupidly soft about animals), it would have been much easier not to make that trip, but I still maintain it was the most compassionate thing I could do.
And if there's some karmic come-back for me? Well, I'd rather suffer a bit than know I selfishly let my pet suffer.
To me, it seems selfish to let my religious preference get in the way of doing the humane thing - and to me, the kind thing to do is to end the animal's pain. Unlike us, animals cannot rationalise about their suffering, cannot see meaning in it. So it serves no purpose at all. Letting the suffering continue is just indulging our own squeamishness - both moral and physical.
As for "the animal needs to suffer to work out its kamma" . . . honestly, do we really know how kamma works well enough to be able to make cosmic judgements like that? DOES kamma really work like that, some sort of cosmic moral accountant?
As someone who has kept pets in the past, and hopes to again when circumstances permit, I will euthanaise them when neccessary. I do everything I can for them - I once spent a substantial amount of money on an operation for one of my pet rats, in order to give him 2-3 months more life. But when another developed several inoperable tumours, I made him comfortable for as long as possible, then finally had him put to sleep. Believe me, it was not for my sake - taking him to the vet was heartbreaking (I'm actually crying about it again now - I'm stupidly soft about animals), it would have been much easier not to make that trip, but I still maintain it was the most compassionate thing I could do.
And if there's some karmic come-back for me? Well, I'd rather suffer a bit than know I selfishly let my pet suffer.
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
maitreya31 wrote:From the point of view of one life . There isn't much difference between humans and animals . The suffering of terminal illness can be ended in both animals and humans by killing the victim . Instant nirvana .clw_uk wrote:Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it. Humans can be free from dukkha, animals can't.
Straw man alert!
Firstly my questioning doesn't have a background premis of "one life"
Secondly even if there was more than one life, animals still cant be free from dukkha in this life. I never read a sutta ehere the Buddha preaces to birds like St Francis of Assisi
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
Dhamma Greetings,
Best Wishes,
So, what are the differences, then?clw_uk wrote:Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it.
Best Wishes,
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
What's "instant nirvana" ?maitreya31 wrote: From the point of view of one life . There isn't much difference between humans and animals . The suffering of terminal illness can be ended in both animals and humans by killing the victim . Instant nirvana .
Last edited by Aloka on Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
cwl_uk
My understanding is that intention/cetana as the Buddha taught it is not the same as we would understand motivation. You can have perfectly good motivation for an act, in a worldly sense, but if that act is preceded by a volition rooted in an unwholesome mind state, it would be unwholesome. Killing is an act that is inevitably rooted in unwholesome cetana, the act cannot happen without it - same with lying, stealing and other immoral acts.This whole issue seems to me to be a good example defining the difference between cetana and motivation.
My understanding is that intention/cetana as the Buddha taught it is not the same as we would understand motivation. You can have perfectly good motivation for an act, in a worldly sense, but if that act is preceded by a volition rooted in an unwholesome mind state, it would be unwholesome. Killing is an act that is inevitably rooted in unwholesome cetana, the act cannot happen without it - same with lying, stealing and other immoral acts.This whole issue seems to me to be a good example defining the difference between cetana and motivation.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Iti 26
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
mirco wrote:Dhamma Greetings,So, what are the differences, then?clw_uk wrote:Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it.
Best Wishes,
Well im speculating of course because I'm not a pig
But a human can experience dukkha, learn from it and be free from it. Animals cant.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
I agree in that case, but thats not relevant to mine where the bird would have died anyway but more painfully and slowly.clw_uk wrote:
Wouldnt that be more to do with the appearance of the sangha to the wider society?
No. It's an offence of defeat, because it fulfils the conditions necessary to be the unwholesome kamma of urging another to kill a human being. If, with compassion, the bhikkhu had said, “Please don't kill him,” but the executioner went ahead and killed him anyway, the bhikkhu would not be guilty of any offence at all.
Like my motivation to kill it...clw_uk wrote:
The motivation to heal it would could also be rooted in aversion to the birds suffering
Not at all, it would be rooted in love (adosa) and compassion.
Straw manclw_uk wrote:
The outcome is always the same. One scenario has less dukkha and the other scenario has more, but the one with less dukkha is morally wrong and the one with more dukkha is right?
The root of your dilemma may be that you don't believe in kamma and rebirth. Looked at with the wrong view of "one life only", suffering ceases at death, but that is not the Buddha's way to end suffering.
I have never said that there is one life, therefore the rest of your argument is invalid because its based upon a false assumption.
Its an extension of compassion if the death was inevitable. Why should the bird suffer a long death?A seriously injured bird will die of its injuries in due course. The best that you can do is remove the immediate danger of the cat tormenting it further before killing it, and keep the bird in a safe place. Those are all compassionate acts. Breaking its neck is not a compassionate act — it is breaking the first precept.
As I said, the outcome would have been the same. One would have brought more suffering, the other less.
Why should the bird endure unnecessary suffering before moving on (to oblivion or the Deva realm)?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
We would all probably benefit from a thread discussing ethical imperatives and whether or not they need to be housed in metaphysics (rebirth, in this case, though a similar Xian example would be the claim that being ethical requires God). The Great Ethical Substrate Thread?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
I am genuinely intrigued by Coyote's suggestion of a difference between our normal understanding of 'motivation' and Buddhist cetana, I'd be interested to see a thread exploring that more deeply.
Nonetheless, I think on this specific moral issue the right thing to do, however we arrive at that conclusion, is to do what's best for the animal - and I'm pretty convinced that's killing it, sadly.
Nonetheless, I think on this specific moral issue the right thing to do, however we arrive at that conclusion, is to do what's best for the animal - and I'm pretty convinced that's killing it, sadly.
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
In the Dhammapada there's a story of the Buddha visiting a hunter and his family. Regarding the wife of the hunter, a monk asked the Buddha if she, like her husband, was guilty of taking life, since she facilitated the act. The Buddha said (more or less) that Sotapanna, (which the wife was as she had gained an intuitive understanding of the dharma as a young girl) do not kill and the do not wish for others to be killed, the wife was only obeying her husband in fetching things for him. Just as a hand with no wound is not affected by poison, because she has no intention to do evil, she is not doing evil.
Verse 124: "If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil intention"
You said you felt troubled about what had happened. If the action was right, if the intention was right, you shouldn't have felt troubled.
Regardless of the outcome, if you had tried for help, or left the bird to pass naturally, you would not have broken the first precept and so your hand would have no wound. In those scenarios you'd be like the hunter's wife.
I feel like you're trying to convince us, or yourself,of something. What happened was unfortunate. I'm sorry that you found yourself in that situation.
Verse 124: "If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil intention"
You said you felt troubled about what had happened. If the action was right, if the intention was right, you shouldn't have felt troubled.
Regardless of the outcome, if you had tried for help, or left the bird to pass naturally, you would not have broken the first precept and so your hand would have no wound. In those scenarios you'd be like the hunter's wife.
I feel like you're trying to convince us, or yourself,of something. What happened was unfortunate. I'm sorry that you found yourself in that situation.
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
Dhamma Greetings,
Best Wishes,
Would you agree in that animals do experience dukhha? (pain, fear, etc.)clw_uk wrote:But a human can experience dukkha, learn from it and be free from it. Animals can't.
Best Wishes,
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: Mercy killing and kamma
I wonder what the bird's impression would be if a person stroked it, and comforted it till it died?
Will it be freaked out, or end up liking that to some extent?
Also, what kind of effects would that have on the person?
What kind of impression would this give to other people who were around? This impression also could vary depending on whether the person seemed silly doing it, or made it seem pointless, or if he managed to make it seem sincere or impressive.
It could be a good practice in itself... (or not) just throwing in some thoughts into the mix.
Will it be freaked out, or end up liking that to some extent?
Also, what kind of effects would that have on the person?
What kind of impression would this give to other people who were around? This impression also could vary depending on whether the person seemed silly doing it, or made it seem pointless, or if he managed to make it seem sincere or impressive.
It could be a good practice in itself... (or not) just throwing in some thoughts into the mix.