Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Where does responsibility end?
Theswingisyellow
Trying to be open to existenceSamsara Veteran
"So the Buddha forbade five kinds of trade to a lay Buddhist, and refraining from them constitutes Right Livelihood, the seventh step of the Path. They are: trading in arms, human beings, flesh (including the breeding of animals for slaughter), intoxicants and harmful drugs, and poisons. These trades add to the already existing suffering in the world."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html
I have been over thinking again. A few things have come to mind (for better or worse) and I would like the forums understanding and clarification of the ideas that follow. As some things I may post have the potential to become divisive and easily sidetracked I would ask that as each proffer his or her viewpoints, that those views be respected and not denigrated or turned into a thread where we are trying to “convert” one to our line of thinking. I posted the above access to insight quote, for in these guidelines lines the crux of my problem. They seem straightforward enough but at what point does ones responsibility end? While I may not work in one of the trades at what point am I still culpable for the suffering that may result for any direct or indirect support of said professions? I would also ask myself if I personally could not carry out the work of these trades (because I find them morally repugnant, cruel, unethical or abusive) is it still ethically okay to support such trades either directly or indirectly. Also to borrow and slightly alter a phrase from our Christian friends, what would the Buddha do in each of these cases? For me its kind of a gold standard, after all he is my lord and guide. Is it annata? Is it just a relative physical world with responsibilities or are all things annata yet we live in a relative world that has consequences, where suffering abounds and what we say do or support lends to or diminishes that suffering? I would agree with the latter. I have heard many echo that it is all just annata but this to me seems a way to distance one self from suffering in the guise of being spiritually astute. ‘its just emptiness man”- I understand that part but to me there is more. Or “show me where that is going to keep me from enlightenment” as if one’s own awakening was all that mattered and occurred in some vacuum. Maybe it is all that matters, but I don’t believe that. With my time on the path I have an understanding of annata, for the most part I don’t cling to that which is not me but when I see something suffering, its suffering and this is where loving-kindness and responsibility should comes into play.
So the questions, in respect to the following trades are:
If I directly or indirectly support these trades at what point am I responsible or culpable for their outcomes?
If I personally could not carry out the work of these trades (because I find them morally repugnant, cruel, unethical or abusive) is it still ethically okay to support such trades either directly or indirectly.
Would the Buddha (in your opinion because he is dead and we can’t ask him) support directly or indirectly any of these trades?
Is it ethically our responsibility to end or mitigate suffering where and when we see it?
Trading in arms:
Indirect support: Whoohoo!!! We blew them the fuck up!! I love my patriotism. Now I didn’t blow any one up. But I love the show on CNN, will wave my flag and give my consent to death and destruction. Is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in human beings:
Example of indirect support; Can I have my kiddie porn? After all they are only photographs I did not take. I harmed no child, I just downloaded them. Is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in flesh:
Indirect support: That was a damn good hamburger. I didn’t kill torture or confine this animal. This animal wasn’t specifically killed for me. Again is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in intoxicants and harmful drugs, and poisons:
Indirect support; I like my cocaine now and then. What’s the problem? I don’t make drugs, I don’t kill people over drugs. I just use them on occasion. Again is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
I know many of these things are not allowed in the precepts. I have heard support of these very things, in various forms, on this forum and or being essentially not responsible as long as one personally didn't commit the act, but still recieves the benefits. I find the latter view vacuous, if "A" is being done and I partake of the fruits of "A" is there no responsibility?
Would the Buddha part take of "A" knowing where "A" came from and the suffering "A" caused? i have well formed opinions on these matters, I would just like to hear what other Buddhist think. Thank you for listening.
With much love, care and compassion,
Todd
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html
I have been over thinking again. A few things have come to mind (for better or worse) and I would like the forums understanding and clarification of the ideas that follow. As some things I may post have the potential to become divisive and easily sidetracked I would ask that as each proffer his or her viewpoints, that those views be respected and not denigrated or turned into a thread where we are trying to “convert” one to our line of thinking. I posted the above access to insight quote, for in these guidelines lines the crux of my problem. They seem straightforward enough but at what point does ones responsibility end? While I may not work in one of the trades at what point am I still culpable for the suffering that may result for any direct or indirect support of said professions? I would also ask myself if I personally could not carry out the work of these trades (because I find them morally repugnant, cruel, unethical or abusive) is it still ethically okay to support such trades either directly or indirectly. Also to borrow and slightly alter a phrase from our Christian friends, what would the Buddha do in each of these cases? For me its kind of a gold standard, after all he is my lord and guide. Is it annata? Is it just a relative physical world with responsibilities or are all things annata yet we live in a relative world that has consequences, where suffering abounds and what we say do or support lends to or diminishes that suffering? I would agree with the latter. I have heard many echo that it is all just annata but this to me seems a way to distance one self from suffering in the guise of being spiritually astute. ‘its just emptiness man”- I understand that part but to me there is more. Or “show me where that is going to keep me from enlightenment” as if one’s own awakening was all that mattered and occurred in some vacuum. Maybe it is all that matters, but I don’t believe that. With my time on the path I have an understanding of annata, for the most part I don’t cling to that which is not me but when I see something suffering, its suffering and this is where loving-kindness and responsibility should comes into play.
So the questions, in respect to the following trades are:
If I directly or indirectly support these trades at what point am I responsible or culpable for their outcomes?
If I personally could not carry out the work of these trades (because I find them morally repugnant, cruel, unethical or abusive) is it still ethically okay to support such trades either directly or indirectly.
Would the Buddha (in your opinion because he is dead and we can’t ask him) support directly or indirectly any of these trades?
Is it ethically our responsibility to end or mitigate suffering where and when we see it?
Trading in arms:
Indirect support: Whoohoo!!! We blew them the fuck up!! I love my patriotism. Now I didn’t blow any one up. But I love the show on CNN, will wave my flag and give my consent to death and destruction. Is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in human beings:
Example of indirect support; Can I have my kiddie porn? After all they are only photographs I did not take. I harmed no child, I just downloaded them. Is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in flesh:
Indirect support: That was a damn good hamburger. I didn’t kill torture or confine this animal. This animal wasn’t specifically killed for me. Again is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
Trading in intoxicants and harmful drugs, and poisons:
Indirect support; I like my cocaine now and then. What’s the problem? I don’t make drugs, I don’t kill people over drugs. I just use them on occasion. Again is my support responsible for the harm perpetuated? Am I morally culpable?
I know many of these things are not allowed in the precepts. I have heard support of these very things, in various forms, on this forum and or being essentially not responsible as long as one personally didn't commit the act, but still recieves the benefits. I find the latter view vacuous, if "A" is being done and I partake of the fruits of "A" is there no responsibility?
Would the Buddha part take of "A" knowing where "A" came from and the suffering "A" caused? i have well formed opinions on these matters, I would just like to hear what other Buddhist think. Thank you for listening.
With much love, care and compassion,
Todd
0
Comments
A. The Buddha prohibited certain types of work
B. One would imagine that was done for a reason. I imagine the reason behind his prohibition was that these jobs were at best unskillfull and worst very harmful.
C. This lead me to think that if he felt that these jobs were unskillfull/harmful does my indirect support (by support I mean benefiting from and or useing the end result of these jobs)make me somehow culpable in the suffering they engender? If it seen as supporting the suffering of others,then should I not take that into account and be responsible for how I contribute to that. The notion that's out there (at least to me anyway) is that I can enjoy the fruits that said professions bring as long as I don't engage in that profession. The latter position strikes me as morally vacant.
This was really my question.
With metta,
Todd
To reduce the question to our own intention is, I suggest, both morally and spiritually deficient. The whole point of our developing Awareness is to widen our vision, grasp and understanding of not only ourselves but others and the whole 'ecology' in which we act. the wider our awareness, the more we realise the problem.
As has been said by @RenGlaskap, we need to find the line between responsibility and blame; we need to understand the there are degrees of responsibility, and contextual, socio-economic and other limits on our freedom of action. Intention will only be as benevolent as the individual is capable of.
This is the ultimate - and, I guess, unanswerable - ethical question. Some take the view that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds", or "all shall be well and all shall be well" but, as in Voltaire's or Mother Julian's days, this means that we have to see all actions and outcomes as ultimately 'good', a difficult mental trick in the face of, for example, Japan or Libya at this moment. The nuclear technicians who trained and qualified in order to bring vital electricity to their fellows in a clean and safe way: are they responsible for the earthquake, the tsunami or the ensuing damage? Id Rutherford responsible because he split the atom? Are the yakuza, whose drug money infests the Japanese financial system just as drug and crime money does every economy, responsible?
In a wider sense, of course they all share some responsibility and that, I think, is the real point: responsibility, the ability freely to respond, is shared. That is one of the great blessings of karma.
C. C. Martindale wrote, somewhere, I can't remember where, that we should be happy that we know neither the good nor the ill that we do - and a good thing too, because if we knew we had done good, we would become proud, and if we knew the bad, we would despair.
Certainly, I think that, as we deepen our practice and as grow older in it, we become more aware of how far the ripples spread out from our actions. The result may be to revisit earlier choices and to make new ones. This, in turn, will result in new actions and, with them, new choices once again. It's a bit like climbing the Black Mountains: you get to the top of one hill and there's another bloody Welsh mountain between you and a cup of tea!
Thank you for the well thought and eloquent (something I am not able to convey in my writing) response. You said:
"as we deepen our practice and as grow older in it, we become more aware of how far the ripples spread out from our actions. The result may be to revisit earlier choices and to make new ones. This, in turn, will result in new actions and, with them, new choices once again" This is where I find myself at. Looking at what I do and the impact my actions may have, even if I can't physically see that impact. I also didn't mean to blame those who work in these professions, I was thinking about what I do in my life and whether my actions perpetuate suffering. We all know what road good intentions can pave. Just introspection and questioning on my end.
All the best and thank you again,
Todd