1

ABSTRACT

BUDDHISM AND APPLIED ETHICS: WITH

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES OF LIFE AND

DEATH

The increased progress of science and technology today leads to

complex dilemmas, especially in the area of ethics. People of modern

age tend to accept empirical things, which are in line with science and

technological discoveries. However, a number of issues discovered by

science and technological knowledge have raised a lot of questions on

ethics. In order to resolve this problem, these issues need to be

examined on ground of value considerations. These value considerations

are not only ethical. The religious assumptions also play an important

role in taking certain discussions.

Indeed, when we speak of ethical issues, traditional religious

assumptions and practices cannot be left aside since they are the

fundamental foundation of ethics. Considering this fact, ethicists are

concerned with the analysis of some advances in science and

technology, especially on biomedical technology, from the point of

traditional religious assumptions. In the Greco-Roman tradition, the

 2

Hippocratic Oath which holds that the principle of Reverence for Life

and Preservation of Life at any cost is the top priority for medicos and

health care professionals had been predominating in the discussion of

controversial moral issues specifically issues of life and death such as

suicide, euthanasia, abortion etc. These issues also need to be discussed

from the perspective of religious approaches.

My concern in this research is to deal with the controversial

issues of life and death particularly the issues on suicide, euthanasia and

abortion and to examine how Buddhism responds to these issues from

ethical perspective. Many scholars of the west have been extensively

writing about these issues. All earlier works are mostly seen from the

Christian approach. Nobody was considering these issues from Buddhist

perspective. Even monk-scholars have not examined these issues. This

is partly because most of monk-scholars of Buddhism in Myanmar,

Thailand, Sri Lanka and other Asian countries have confined themselves

only to the traditional study of Buddhist texts such as reciting and

memorizing the scriptures. They are not aware of applying the Buddha’s

teachings to day to day problems of modern life. This is the main reason

why some western scholars asserted that Buddhism has no discussion of

such issues at all. But in the early nineteenth century, when Buddhism
 3

was brought to the west, some enthusiastic scholars explored the

Buddha’s teaching in a deeper sense and they found that many

discussions of such issues are embodied in Buddhist doctrine. Then they

started doing research on these issues. We are thankful to them for

awakening us by so doing. However, this type of work cannot be done

with a superficial knowledge of Buddhism. In many discussions of their

research, some main concepts have been misinterpreted and incorrectly

concluded. This could lead people to misunderstanding of the Buddha’s

teaching. Therefore I feel that there is a need to reexamine these issues

with the true and authentic interpretation of those concepts. In my work,

I have pointed out misinterpretations and misconclusions of those

scholars in their respective works and reinterpreted them according as

what the Buddha really meant by those statements with the help of

commentarial interpretations. My work mainly focuses on the issues of

suicide, euthanasia and abortion.

The formation of this research is as follows:

Introduction

Chapter 1 The Concept of Person

Chapter 2 The Sanctity of Life

 4

Chapter 3 Suicide

Chapter 4 Euthanasia

Chapter 5 Abortion

Chapter 6 Conclusion

Appendix: Organ Donation and Transplantation

Introduction

In the introduction, I have tried to introduce the formation of

Buddhist ethics. Buddhist ethics, unlike that of other religions, is not

dictated by any supreme God. It is dictated by an individual’s own

actions that come from his body, speech and mind according to

Buddhism. One’s conscience is the most esteemed feature of Buddhist

ethics and thus Buddhist ethics emphasizes one’s self-discipline. Belief

in the idea of karma and rebirth is one of the main reasons for Buddhists

to be self-disciplined and therefore this is considered to be the basic

theme of Buddhist ethics.

Chapter One: The Concept of Person

In chapter 1, I have discussed the concept of person. The issue of

the concept of person has long been at center of ethical debate of

 5

modern bio-medicine especially on suicide, euthanasia and abortion.

The morality of these issues is largely depending on the concept of

person. In this regard, I have discussed the concept of person accepted

by contemporary philosophers and the concern of Buddhism over the

issue. I have pointed out criteria of a person proposed by modern

philosophers. The most commonly accepted criteria of a person among

modern philosophers are self-consciousness and rationality. According

to this proposition, the fetus, newborn infants, very young children, old

people and mentally deranged people are not considered to be persons

because they do not have those criteria. In this connection, I have tried

to point out some other criteria such as the ability to have social

relationship with others, the ability to pursue projects, the ability to have

desires and interests, and I have demonstrated that these criteria are

interrelated. Based on this principle of interrelation, I have attempted to

show that the individuals mentioned above are persons and killing them

is morally not acceptable.

Next, I have discussed the Buddhist concept of person. Buddhism

teaches that there is no person in this universe. Only mind and body

constitute this world and the things, living or non-living, that rest on it.
 6

Humans are made of mind and body, and mind and body are

constituents of a human being.

Furthermore, I have also dealt with the moral status of the fetus.

This section is directly related to chapter five, which discusses the

morality of abortion. I have examined whether the fetus can be

considered as a person and whether it has moral rights equal to those of

an actual human being. I have emphasized its potentiality of possessing

the so-called criteria of a person and concluded that this potentiality

renders the fetus a person. I have observed three broad views on the

issue: conservative view, liberal view and moderate view. The

conservative view holds that the fetus is a person from the moment of

conception. The liberal view holds that one is not a person even after

birth, and thus the fetus is not a person at any point of pregnancy. The

moderate view holds that the fetus gradually becomes a person as it

develops and hence it is not a person at conception, but at the time of

birth, it is a person. I have pointed out the oddities that each of these

three views has been facing.

I have also examined how Buddhism perceives as to whether or

not the fetus is a person. Buddhist position on the moral status of the

fetus is said to be conservative. Buddhism believes that life begins at

 7

conception and whatever is conceived of human being is a human being,

whether or not it is inside or outside the womb. Thus Buddhism regards

the fetus as a human.

Chapter Two: The Sanctity of Life

In chapter 2, I have discussed the issue of the nature of the

sanctity of human life which has been at the center of focus in

discussing the ethical issues of biomedicine. First I have discussed about

Hippocratic Oath which is directly linked to the issue of the sanctity of

human life. In the discussion about the sanctity of human life, I have

mentioned that life is good because it is the most fundamental

prerequisite for all other goods. Therefore life has value and it must be

preserved at all costs. Killing is wrong except in self-defense and in

legitimate killing to save the life of others. I have also discussed some

criticisms of this view and given my own analysis. Some critics say that

if taking life is always wrong, there should not be any exceptional cases

such as in self-defense and whatever. For this, I have demonstrated

some moral principles that do not cover certain kinds of cases, citing the

right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy for example. I

have also examined the utilitarian criticisms of the doctrine of the

 8

sanctity of human life. I have mentioned that utilitarian theory is not

practical because it overemphasizes the preferences of society over the

fate of the individual and it undermines the security of all human beings.

Further, I have discussed cost-benefit argument of the sanctity of human

life. I have pointed out that cost-benefit argument is also not very

helpful for arguing against the sanctity of human life as it causes social

injustices in the society. Finally I have discussed the Buddhist attitude

towards the sanctity of human life. Buddhism regards human life as the

greatest not because of its divine origin, as other religions assume, but

because of its capacity to improve the spiritual progress which is not

shared by any other creatures.

Chapter Three: Suicide

Chapter 3 is on suicide. Suicide is the intentional destruction of

oneself. There are many kinds of suicide committed by various people

due to various motives and reasons. Some acts are not considered to be

suicides, though they seem to be: acts caused by insincerity of the

suicidal individual such as the case when the person really doesn’t wish

to die, but to put pressures and gain influence over other people. Suicide

can be carried out by different means such as by hanging, jumping from

 9

a high place, drowning, deliberately putting oneself in way of vehicles,

ingesting poison or an overdose of drugs, inhaling gas, shooting oneself

by a gun, slitting one’s throat, taking sleeping pills over limit, refraining

from eating, drinking, refraining from accepting certain kinds of

treatment when one is ill etc. A person can commit suicide both with

the aid of other people and without getting any aid depending on

circumstances.

There are numerous reasons behind a person’s suicide. Common

reasons for most of people to commit suicide are depression, violent

crimes and alcohol abuse. An individual who is prone to commit suicide

must have certain motives for his tendency of suicide. Motives for

suicide and its frequency have varied from culture to culture. But a

common fact that leads people of different cultures to commit suicide is

unhappiness, disappointment and depression. What makes them

unhappy, how they perceive themselves, and why they want to die are

largely dictated by the time and place in which they live. The motives

for suicide of the young are different from those of the old. Suicides of

young people are consequences of changes in the quality of family life,

changes in the intensity of competitive pressures for success, the nature

of the family. Other circumstances that are directly correlated with

 10

suicides of young people are violence and alcohol abuse. Suicide of

older people usually involves stress characteristic of the latter part of

life, loss of loved ones, decline in physical, emotional, and mental

capacity, and economic hardship.

Regarding the morality of suicide, I have discussed three possible

questions which arise from the ethical debate, namely, whether suicide

is intrinsically wrong, whether it is always right, or whether it is wrong

in certain circumstances and right in others.

The first question is mainly based on the religious assumption

that life is precious as it is a God-given gift and so it should not be

terminated. The second question is based on the opinion that autonomy

or self-determination of a person should not be restricted either by the

actions of others or by rules prohibiting him from doing so: a man’s life

belongs to himself and hence he has a right to decide what happens to

him and should be permitted to make decisions about whether he lives

or dies. In the third question, there are two versions viz., suicide for

oneself which aims at putting pressures on others for personal desires

and suicide for others which aims at preserving the lives of others. Most

philosophers hold that suicide for oneself is not acceptable. As regard

suicide for others, i.e. sacrificial suicide, justifiability varies according

 11

to what is the cause for sacrificing one’s life and according to how the

consequences of suicide would effect to others. If animals or other

material things such as wealth are the causes for sacrificing one’s life, it

is not justifiable. A soldier’s attempt to save his buddies in a battle by

sacrificing his life is considered to be justifiable. However, a chronically

ill person’s attempt to end his life considering this can free his relatives

of the burden caring for him is not acceptable because it would result in

the adverse effects to the relatives such as being unhappy for losing

their beloved one, possible involvement in a criminal case where suicide

is prevented by law.

Buddhist position on the morality of suicide is unique.

Buddhism’s objection to suicide is not on the ground of the authority of

God. Buddhist rejection to suicide is mainly based on four reasons.

Firstly, there is a basic Buddhist teaching which speaks of harming

oneself as an unwholesome act. Secondly, one of Buddhist monastic

rules prohibits monks’ suicide and it is regarded as one of the most

serious offences which results in the total expulsion from the monastic

life. Thirdly, according to Buddhism, suicide harms not only oneself,

but also it harms those who are related to the person committing suicide.

According to the teaching of Dependent Origination, human beings are

 12

dependent upon each other. As such by committing suicide one deprives

others of happiness and is undutiful of one’s obligatory services to

people and community. Fourthly, Buddhism believes that the person

who commits suicide is unlikely to be reborn in a wholesome state of

realm as he dies in a frustrated mind.

There is some misconception among western scholars that

Buddhism holds two positions on suicide: it forbids suicide of

unenlightened persons and condones that of enlightened persons

(arahants). This conception is based on the story of Channa monk

illustrated in the 

and 
. In the story

there is a closing statement of the Buddha which says, “Channa used the

knife blamelessly”. Western scholars mistakenly interpret this statement

that the Buddha did not blame Channa’s suicide. What the Buddha

really means by this statement is not as such and it is a mere

misinterpretation of the text, and is not consistent with the Buddha’s

teaching. In this connection, I have tried to reinterpret the statement

with help of commentarial sources.

Chapter Four: Euthanasia

 13

This chapter discusses about the morality of euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the intentional termination of life by another person at the

request of the person who wishes to die with dignity avoiding intense

pain. There are two kinds of euthanasia viz., active euthanasia and

passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves causing the death of a

person through a direct action, in response to a request from that patient

while passive euthanasia deals with hastening the death of a person by

altering some form of support and letting nature take its course. Another

two types of euthanasia are voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary

euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is intentional termination of a life

when an individual who is unable to commit suicide voluntarily requests

to end his or her life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is to end the life of the

totally paralyzed one, and severely handicapped one without the

knowledge of the person who dies. If an act of euthanasia is carried out

against the patient’s wish, it is called as involuntary euthanasia.

The issue of euthanasia has been discussed for thousands of years

and many philosophers and religious thinkers, ranging from Plato and

Aristotle in ancient Greece to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in the

Middle Ages, and Kant in more modern times have contributed different

opinions about the ethics of euthanasia. The discussion on the issue

 14

widely rests on the fundamental questions of the value of human life.

Many opponents of euthanasia claim that any kind of euthanasia, active

or passive, voluntary or non-voluntary, should not be permitted because

if one kind is permitted, it will be used to support another kind citing the

slippery slope argument. On the other hand, the proponents of

euthanasia claim that any act of euthanasia is permissible on the ground

of compassion to the patient to free him of sufferings, and on the ground

of the fact that the patient’s right to die, right to refuse treatment, his

autonomy and his request should be respected. Some analysts tend to

approve passive euthanasia while rejecting the active one saying that the

former does not involve any act of killing, but it is merely letting the

patient die, whereas the latter involves direct killing.

As for Buddhism, any form of euthanasia is not acceptable

because the expansion of the third 

rule in the monastic codes,

the rule that prohibits monks and nuns from killing human beings

including self-killing, forbids monks and nuns from performing

euthanasia and suggesting anyone to cease medical treatment. Buddhism

holds that performing euthanasia is a violation of the pledge by every

Buddhist to abstain from the destruction of life. For lay persons, killing

a man’s life is a breach of moral norm recognized in socio-ethical codes

 15

of every civilized society as well as an infringement of one of the

highest offensive legal orders. For monks, destruction of human life,

whether one’s own or that of another, is an offense that results in total

expulsion from the monastic life. Buddhist suggestion to the dying

patients who favor being administered euthanasia is to be patient about

suffering, to try to realize what things really are, how the suffering

comes about, how to get rid of it and act accordingly with patience.

Buddhism believes that euthanasia cannot end suffering, if one opts to

be administered euthanasia for the purpose of ending suffering, one will

face more and more suffering in the next life because it is considered as

an immoral act in Buddhism, and this kind of act will cause him to be

reborn in a bad condition of life.

Chapter Five: Abortion

This chapter deals with the morality of abortion. I have examined

arguments on the moral issues of abortion prevailing in the modern

ethical debate. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy at any point before

birth, which results in the death of the embryo or fetus. Abortion was

widely practised in ancient times of Egypt, Greece and Rome as a

method of birth control. It was later restricted by the traditional religious

 16

leaders. In the early 19th century, some western countries like UK and

USA restricted abortion by law with certain exceptions. In the 20th

century, the attitude towards abortion became more liberal and the

termination of unwanted pregnancies for medical, social, or private

reasons were considered to be legitimate. Thus abortion became

intensively a controversial issue in the legal arena.

There are three broad views on the morality of abortion viz.,

conservative view, liberal view and moderate view. Conservative view

holds that abortion is never justifiable for the reason that life begins at

conception. Liberal view claims that abortion is always justifiable for

whatever reason in whatever circumstances on the ground that it is just a

matter of women’s privacy and their autonomy to control their bodies.

Moderate view says that abortion is ethically permissible up to a

specified stage of fetal development or it is permissible if it is to save

the mother’s life or some other similarly serious reasons. Of these three

views, Buddhism holds the conservative view regarding the morality of

abortion.

Chapter 6 Conclusion
 17

In this chapter, I have attempted an overall survey of the entire

thesis with a critical and analytical conclusion. As pointed out in the

previous chapters, I have concluded in this chapter that all religions

regard life as the most sacred in this universe. I have stressed and

discussed mainly Buddhist perspective. Unlike other religions

Buddhism does not believe that life is given by God. However the

general concept of Buddhism is similar to other religions that life should

not be ended by either oneself or the others by whatever means: suicide,

euthanasia or abortion. Therefore Buddhism leaves no room to destroy

life, whether life of a person or a fetus.

Appendix: Organ Donation and Transplantation

I have added an appendix to my work. In the appendix, I have

discussed the moral and ethical implications of organ donation and

transplantation.

The progress of hi-technology in modern biomedicine paves the

way for the successful healing of numerous diseases that are threatening

to cause a total extinction of the entire human race. Among many

achievements in biomedical technology, the achievement in organ

transplantation is a major breakthrough that saves so many lives of

 18

human beings. However this breakthrough brings about a great dilemma

to transplant surgeons in connection with inadequate organ sources for

transplantation. As the patients who are in need of organ transplantation

are on the growing rise, the organ sources for these patients are not

sufficient to meet the demand. Therefore some individuals are trying to

obtain human organs in an unlawful and unethical way for

transplantation, such as obtaining organs from prisoners, from the dead

bodies without prior agreement of the donors and from illegal organ-

markets. Sometimes animal organs are used for transplantation. In the

light of this development, authorities concerned have set up general

guidelines and principles regarding the lawful procurement of organs

and tissues. The core issue of those principles and guidelines is

obtaining a voluntary informed consent which is free of force and

coercion from the potential organ donors.

Buddhism agrees with most of these principles. The only

difference is that Buddhism does not consider the case where an organ

obtained from a live donor who is well informed, but who is opposed by

family members or relatives, as an unlawfully and unethically procured

organ. And Buddhism does not consider giving one’s organ upon one’s

death for transplantation as a kind of donation. This cadaver donation is

 19

seen as a kind of altruistic work to help other people and to promote

medical research. According to Buddhism, only if a person gives his

organs, inclining to fulfill his perfection (

), while he was alive,

his act is called donation. If such a case does happen, if he is really

inclined to fulfill his perfection (), nobody is supposed to

prevent him from doing so according to Buddhism. Regarding

xenotransplantation, Buddhism never justifies using animal organs for

the sake of human beings, even if it can save the life of the patient

because it harms the animal’s life. Buddhism teaches that one should

not seek happiness and certain achievements at the cost of other’s life.

(DR. (MRS) SURJEET KAUR CHAHAL) (ASHIN GHOSITA)

Research Guide Research Student

October 16, 2002

20