Ethical Dilemmas in Early Buddhism?

We'll look at ethical dilemmas and their role in western systems of ethics, then turn to Buddhism and ask whether such dilemmas play any role at all. Then we'll turn to some classic dilemmas and ask how they might be treated in an early Buddhist context.
Check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
Suttas mentioned:
Kālāmas: suttacentral.n...
A Penetrative Discourse: suttacentral.n...
Other relevant webpages:
plato.stanford...
www.theguardia...
definitions.us...
Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
slidnbob
Thissapunyo
JC
Tony Marina
Pritom Phookun
#dougsdharma #dougsseculardharma #buddhism #secularbuddhism
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism...

[@erasmus9511]

I've always questioned how Buddhism views ethical dilemmas such as these. But like what you said at the end of the video, sometimes people use the ability to oppose the 5 precepts as a justification to commit heinous actions. More so, I think what is "good" and "bad" is subjective and contextual based on a number of factors like culture, upbringing, purpose, individual values, etc. Some of these people think in order to achieve a greater good, there has to be a sacrifice to be made; the end justifies the means. I can lie to a Nazi officer in order to save a Jew's life, I can also kill some people in order to save my people like what happens in wars. This is why I don't see the point yet of karma just being the intention. Most people have what they themselves consider a good intention. For example, I become a greedy salesman in order to feed my children better food and give them a better life. The intention is good according to them, but the action can be harmful. Or jihadist groups who want to create an Islamic world and according to them, this is good, it may save the world from Western greed and total abomination. We think this is deluded thinking but for them, it is not. If we show them that karma and rebirth exist, they think we are the ones who are deluded. I personally think what the Buddha was doing here was wise by not stating an absolute rule of conduct you have to follow because it's very much contextual. But the trade-off of not having that is this slippery slope of thinking where it's easy to bend everything in accordance with your own subjective interpretation. Since the best outcome of Dhamma is wisdom, this wisdom is very abstract. In what way do you call a person wise? As of right now, how I think Buddhism reacts to the complexity of politics is through pacifism and the no-self idea. But to what extent do pacifism and this no-self idea considered wise options? When we see people around us are in threat of danger, is it wise to stay still and be passive or fight and risk lives?

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks yes, do remember that an intention can also be deluded, so even if it may appear to be pure it really isn’t. 🙏

[@kushalnath889]

Thank you for this beautiful, and indulging, explanation, sir! Love it! ❤❤

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure!

[@DipayanPyne94]

If Buddha were to be presented with Ethical Dilemmas, I think he would change his mind. Why so ? Coz his Heart was always in the Right Place. He changed many rules during his lifetime, didn't he ? For eg, if I am not mistaken, after Ajātashattu told him that he is losing his soldiers because they are becoming Buddha's disciples, Buddha stopped ordaining soldiers. This is clearly an example of Consequentialism. So, although Buddha didn't think about Ethics in a Western sense, he certainly believed in not only Virtue Ethics and Deontological Ethics, but also Consequentialist Ethics. Why is that ? Well, becoz the Foundation of his Ethics is 'Non Harming' or AHIMSA ...

[@DougsDharma]

It could be, I think the Buddha's ethics were rather pragmatic, and non-foundationalist. Whatever would expand the reach of his dharma and help people to live better lives and eventually attain enlightenment.

[@DipayanPyne94]

@@DougsDharma Yes. Kind of. You see, Buddha's Pragmatism makes sense. As an Indian, I feel like Dharma, be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, has always been Pretty Fluid. That doesn't mean that we have not had any Good Foundation at all. It's just that the Foundation has provided us with a General Framework to deal with Specific Cases. Buddha simply wanted people to stop harming themselves or others. That's why, he taught Ahimsa. In the Ambalatthika Rahulovada Sutta, Buddha advices Rahula to 'Check Repeatedly'. This implies a Case Specific Approach ...

[@travis.g__]

Good

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks!

[@andrewseely1677]

Wonderful and clear explanation of a complex subject. Thanks very much. I have learned so much from your videos. I have a question ... Does the presence of both paradox and change within the Buddha’s teachings also support the conclusions that there is no universal or infallible Buddhist ethical system. Or in other words, does wisdom necessarily involve the awareness of paradox and change? For example, something may be good in small quantities yet bad in large, good today yet not tomorrow depending on other factors. These Buddhist concepts highlight that wisdom is not simple. Does that make sense? Thanks again!

[@DougsDharma]

Well the Buddha pretty clearly believed in a universal ethical system. That's part of what Right View consists in: the understanding that there are certain skillful and unskillful ways to act, and that we should pursue the former and eschew the latter. That said, sure: what is skillful and unskillful may depend on the situation to some degree, though the Five Precepts are posited as universal claims of skillful practice. (My own sense is that even so they are situational. That is, there are some situations in which it is OK to lie, and maybe even to kill, as in euthanasia. But this is controversial).

[@andrewseely1677]

Agreed. I meant that the Buddha did not prescribe rigid ethical rules akin to deontological ethics. And I wonder if the presence of paradox and change preempted such thinking. But I agree that does not mean the absence of an ethical framework; as you point out, right view is the foundation for much of Buddhist teaching.

[@NewEarth25]

Buddhist ethics is based on deep understanding of interdependence of all life and reduction of myriad suffering, war & conflict, sickness of body-mind-speech in the world not educated in ethics.Universities are not imparting universal view and intention for life or knowledge of life. Virtue is Knowledge.- Socrates

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Susmita. Yes, virtue is knowledge. It is also wisdom and practice. 🙂

[@abrlim5597]

I remember Bhikku Thanissaro's response to the dilemma where we are asked if we hide the enemy of the state by the Nazi is that we should keep the precept, and should not lie, instead we can say to the Nazi:"I am not hiding anything shameful". It seems to me, by so saying, though the precept is kept in its letter, it is misdirecting the Nazi, and therefore somehow misrepresenting the truth. I wonder what your take is on this issue.

[@DougsDharma]

I think it's kind of a lawyerly response, one that is probably unlikely to fool an astute officer, who might well feel he was being conned. So I'm not really convinced by it, though it is creative!

[@djcrackademiks1191]

As a new Buddhist, I struggle with some of these, but I am getting better and my patience and remaining calm in situations where I wouldn’t have in my past

[@DougsDharma]

That's great to hear DJ. This kind of practice is slow and deliberate, so it takes time and effort. I'm glad you're seeing some benefits. Keep it up! 🙂

[@19916718514]

Very helpful video, thanks! I wonder what is your take on Zizek's claim that you can be enlightened and still do "evil" things. At least that is his understanding based on how he interpreted DT Suzuki justification on killing during WW2

[@DougsDharma]

Well following the early textual analysis of enlightenment I don't agree. An enlightened person by definition is one who is free from greed, hatred, and delusion. It's said that such a person is incapable of killing, for example. Now, there are always going to be grey areas where someone's notion of evil may not overlap with the arahant's, but I don't think this would include murder or warfare, at least if we read the Buddha's opinions on pacifism. I'm not sure though that the notion of enlightenment we find in Zen necessarily corresponds to the early ideas about it.

[@mapleandsteel]

​@Doug's Dharma that's very interesting, I have had this inkling before that the Zen variety of Buddhism may have misunderstood the idea of detachment as a sort of numbness, at it's worst a sort of apathy.

[@krieghart5515]

How crazy, I was watching the "Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions" video and wondering what the Buddha would do about "the trolley problem," then this video popped up next. Sounds like the Buddha would simply do what a wise person would do, or at least that was his advice. It seems in either case, he wouldn't consider one option worse than the other, but what matters would be your intention. Maybe if you're trying to take the most ethical path, you actually set yourself up for suffering since that comes from a selfish place in trying to be less culpable. Maybe you choose to kill the one over the five in this case. In doing nothing, you could still be found culpable by others, but maybe your intention was to not deliberately murder a person and let the other 5 die by accident, even if others think the inaction is the same as choosing. In your mind here, 5 people died in an accident you had some control over but chose not to murder the one. If your intention is to reduce suffering and make the most compassionate choice, culpability be damned, it might look identical to the "selfish" choice but the difference here is instead of thinking what you'd be the least responsible for, you think about 5 grieving families instead of just one and decide to the bear the burden of murdering the one person out of compassion for the other 5 families. I still don't know what the Buddha would do, but it's definitely more food for thought. Maybe there's a way to throw yourself in front of the trolley and derail it with your own body, saving all 6. Edit: typos

[@DougsDharma]

Yes it's really impossible to say definitively I think. But it does come down to intention for the Buddha.

[@danman202]

I think one reason why Dilemma's such as these are not part of early Buddhist thought has much to do with the Buddhas approach to teaching. When asked to speculate on something, he would often remain silent. These Dilemmas run contrary to his own teachings and serve no purpose, in regards to enlightenment or ones path to reach it. It is not until Mahayana takes form, that you see such speculation take root in the thought process of Buddhism. Speculation as a tool does not aid in fomenting right views of the Dhamma, being that it is only an intellectual exercise. The Buddha was very clear that enlightenment was not dependent on the possession of great intellect. Good merits can not be earned by speculation, nor can speculation lead one to earn good merits, but cause confusion , and ought be discarded. However if I had to guess id say the Buddha would not touch the lever. All people involved, the 5 on the track or the one are there of their own volition. Being mindless of the trains approach, may also be rooted in their own volition.

[@brandon637]

Interesting stuff.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Brandon!

[@MostlyDayHiking]

Is Buddhism in practice something that is solitary in nature or can one attend services as is done in religions like Christianity?

[@DougsDharma]

There are many forms of Buddhist practice, but traditionally it is something that one does in a group or sangha. That said, there is also a tradition of forest meditation which is solitary in nature, at least for part of the year. So basically do what works for you. Though I’d suggest that practice in a group can be more rewarding. There aren’t necessarily “services” per se; that depends on the kind of Buddhism. Group practice may simply be meditation and a dharma talk.

[@MostlyDayHiking]

@@DougsDharma Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is all new to me. I started meditating a few months ago and feel like I'm being led to Buddha. Do you know how I can find a sangha where I live?

[@DougsDharma]

I'm not sure. Tricycle Magazine has a list of some local sanghas in the US, though I don't know how complete it is. Keep an eye out for Zendos, meditation teachers, MBSR teachers, Insight teachers. These are all generally pretty appropriate.

[@MostlyDayHiking]

dhani7165 maybe being led is not accurate. It’s wanting to know more.

[@NewEarth25]

As per the trolley (thought experiment dilemma) situation, If your intention is established not to kill or injure anyone, your mind is calm and clear and your intuition (non-local mind) is strong it is likely you will stop the train ahead of killing anyone. On hindsight I have gotten into accidents by not listening to my intuition, In two cases I did not hit a person and a biker who suddenly came on crosswalk from a blindspot, my foot was already on the breaks in both cases before I saw the person and a biker. I feel my intention was very strong not to injure anyone by my car. I know repeated intention goes into subconscious into physical body-speech mind impulses.

[@DougsDharma]

Well yes that would be most convenient, but we have to assume it was not possible otherwise the example doesn’t work! 🙂

[@jsohi0082]

Can you do a video on Buddhist metaethics? I think you already hinted here that Buddhist ethics is primarily virtue-based even with consequentialist and deontological elements to it as well. Good job!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Swastik! Buddhist metaethics would be an enormous job, something for a PhD dissertation! There are so many forms of Buddhist ethics that it would be difficult to make a general statement. Early Buddhism however didn't really have a developed metaethical system. I think the Buddha would have considered metaethics a waste of time, as not conducive to the holy life.

[@jsohi0082]

@@DougsDharma Ah, I see. There are just a few papers that talk about it. Would you be able to explain (in a video, or a comment) why meta-ethics is not conducive to the holy life, and why Buddhism neglects meta-ethics? I guess what you're saying is, if I ask the Buddha questions like: "Is morality a part of reality? Is morality not part of reality?" he probably would refuse to answer the questions.

[@DougsDharma]

If you asked, "Is morality real?" He would certainly say it was. He argued strenuously against those who disagreed. If you asked "How exactly is it real?" he would likely talk about karma. But if you wanted to know more, then I think he would suggest you were not pursuing a path that was very helpful. It may be something I could do a video on, but I have to think about it!

[@jsohi0082]

@@DougsDharma Meta-ethics is definitely a broad subject but it does seem like you know about quite a bit about the Buddha's meta-ethical views (it seems that he was a realist based on what you said about karma). Definitely think about it and see if you're able to make a video (I personally think you would have an excellent explanation).

[@austinthornton3407]

I am glad you raised this topic. I think one of the biggest problems in Buddhism is a tendency for some to portray it as morally absolutist and consequently superior. The suggestion is that harmful actions are always the result of poor moral discipline and it does not recognise ethical dilemmas in making decisions. I think the distinction between the householder and the monk is important here. The householder continues to play a part in society and is therefore required to negotiate its conflicts. This politics has its own skills. A person who goes forth into homelessness disengages from social concerns in order to seek enlightenment. In modern India it’s not uncommon for sadhus to return to society. I am not sure that really happens in the Pali canon stories. I am sure of course that monks left the sangha but are there any stories where this was not as a failure? Monks may become spiritual advisors but it is not insignificant there is a distinction in the stories between rulers and monks in which the renunciates always seem to have something that the king seeks but which his rule deprives him of finding. All of this suggests that the social world and the path of a monk are parallel worlds that mix badly. There is an issue for us all as to whether we “get our hands dirty” in political life on the basis that good intentions will produce good results. I have never fully worked out the philosophical answer to that. It’s a dilemma. I do observe that almost all politicians who actually wield power fail to achieve the good they set out to do. I suspect the reason is the decisions they are required to make are conditioned by the conflicts that arise from the ignorance that surrounds them and so in negotiating the least worst path, the decisions are still harmful. Trying to sail the seas of ignorance to arrive at a good destination may be impossible. I admire good people who try. There is always the old saying that for evil to triumph it is sufficient for good people to stay quiet.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts Austin. In the Pāli stories awakened people do not return to lay life because awakening is really leaving behind ordinary cares. That said, the Buddha did at times speak about social and political matters, so those are not outside the purview of awakening.

[@austinthornton3407]

Not all cares are ordinary however.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, but really awakening involves leaving behind all cares, except perhaps compassion for others, and even that can burn rather low. In the Buddha’s case he says he almost did not teach at all for the problems it would give him.

[@austinthornton3407]

Yes I agree with that, but that necessarily involves leaving behind ethics - which strikes me as a moral dilemma.

[@DougsDharma]

Ah no not at all Austin. Awakening is the culmination of ethics from the Buddhist standpoint, and absolutely includes perfected sīla.