Mercy killing and kamma

[Ceisiwr]

A bhikkhu, out of compassion, once said to an Execution, “Kill him with one blow.” The execution did as the bhikkhu said. They reported this matter to the Blessed One, who told the bhikkhu: “You have fallen into an offence of defeat.”

Wouldnt that be more to do with the appearance of the sangha to the wider society?

The volition at the moment of killing is rooted in aversion (dosa), so it is unwholesome kamma. The right thing to do is to take the bird from the cat, put it in a quiet and safe place, and leave it to die of it's injuries (if you don't have the skill to heal it).

The motivation to heal it would could also be rooted in aversion to the birds suffering (and so be unwholesome) but is classed as wholesome. Yet the want to kill it to put it out of suffering (the same motivation to alleviate it's suffering by healing) is unwholesome?

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?

[Aloka]

A couple of years ago a young wood pigeon flew into a window, fell onto the ground badly stunned and before I could get outside to help it, a neighbour's cat had leapt out from somewhere, badly mauled and wounded the bird and it was in shock and bleeding. The neighbour put it in a box and took it to the vet, but the vet said it was too badly hurt to live and killed it with a lethal injection .

Craig, your intention was to try to help relieve the suffering of a dying creature in great pain and you did what you thought was best at that time. Taking it to a vet or the RSPCA would have had a similar result anyway.

in my opinion its time to let it go now and move on. It is hard to do that though, I once killed a frog with the lawn mower because I hadn't seen it in the grass. I was upset about that poor little frog for a long time afterwards and still feel sad when I think about it now.

[mirco]

Dhamma Greetings,

Yet the want to kill it to put it out of suffering is unwholesome?

(According to Buddhist teachings,)

You can't put a being out of suffering by killing it.

Otherwise reaching Nibbana would be quite simple, wouldn't it !? ;)


Best Wishes,
Mirco

[Ceisiwr]

Dhamma Greetings,

Yet the want to kill it to put it out of suffering is unwholesome?

(According to Buddhist teachings,)

You can't put a being out of suffering by killing it.

Otherwise reaching Nibbana would be quite simple, wouldn't it !?


Best Wishes,
Mirco

Well I don't know what happens after death. When I killed the bird it could have faded into oblivion or been reborn as a Buddhist monk somewhere.

All I can go on is the here and now. Animals can't be free from dukkha true, but they can be free from a slow, painful death.

[Ceisiwr]

Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it. Humans can be free from dukkha, animals can't.

[Ceisiwr]

I also don't recall the Buddha saying he could free birds from dukkha, only humans.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Nikaya35]

Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it. Humans can be free from dukkha, animals can't.

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 .

[Feathers]

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.

[Ceisiwr]

Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it. Humans can be free from dukkha, animals can't.

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 .

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

[mirco]

Dhamma Greetings,

Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it.

So, what are the differences, then?


Best Wishes,

[Aloka]

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 .

What's "instant nirvana" ?

[Coyote]

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.

[Ceisiwr]

Dhamma Greetings,

Your also confusing the animal experience of dukkha with the human experience of it.

So, what are the differences, then?


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.

[Ceisiwr]

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.

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:
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.

Like my motivation to kill it...

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?

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.

Straw man

I have never said that there is one life, therefore the rest of your argument is invalid because its based upon a false assumption.

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.

Its an extension of compassion if the death was inevitable. Why should the bird suffer a long death?

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)?