Are rights wrong?



On this topic
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 05:39:22 -0300
From: "Dr. Wayne R. Husted"
Subject: Are rights wrong?
X-Sender: hsa01dk@scorpio
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 16:46:39 +0100
X-PH: V4.1@r02n05
To: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
From: d.keown@gold.ac.uk (Damien Keown)
Subject: Are rights wrong?


A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

Knowing this might help establish some common ground, which I think is what we should aim to do at this stage.

Damien Keown
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 07:53:23 -0400
From: "Michael J. Wilson"
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
>X-Sender: hsa01dk@scorpio
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 16:46:39 +0100
>X-PH: V4.1@r02n05
>To: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
>From: d.keown@gold.ac.uk (Damien Keown) Subject: Are rights wrong?


>A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

>Knowing this might help establish some common ground, which I think is what we should aim to do at this stage.

>Damien Keown


The only idea that pops up with regard to this question occured about a year ago in my books when His Holiness the Dalai Lama was advocating the universality of human rights and was meeting objections from people like the Chinese communists who pulled out of a hat some jargon from anthropology of all places called "cultural relativism". In this view distint cultures have the inalienable right to determine their own culturally specific rights for the individual.

Now the question may be where did His Holiness get the notion of these rights for all within the confines of Buddhist thinking? Therefore, it would be good to know about these "rights" in a buddhist context as Damien Keown is suggesting.
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 14:58:54 +0200
From: M Clasquin
Subject: Are rights wrong? -Reply
>>>X-Sender: hsa01dk@scorpio
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 16:46:39 +0100
From: d.keown@gold.ac.uk (Damien Keown)
Subject: Are rights wrong?

A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

Knowing this might help establish some common ground, which I think is what we should aim to do at this stage.

Damien Keown
<<<<<
I believe that talk about "rights" would be acceptable in a Buddhist context only within the further context of "skilful means". But I fail to see how there can be a Buddhist doctrine of rights when there is, "essentially", no bearer of rights, and most inportantly, no bestower of rights. In such a context, "rights" are contingent on the social stucture and other contingent aspects of the environment in which the individual finds him/herself. Thus, rights are real in the sense that they are part of the overall experience, but in what sense can they be said to be "inalienable" or "basic"?

In my opinion, and as I said in an article some time back, "human rights" is a concept with a *legal* background. This made it fairly easy for religions that have always maintained legal systems to incorporate it into their thinking - and let's face it, this primarily means the theistic religions. Even there, as Prozesky has pointed out, the relationship between God and human rights is problematic. (I can get the references, if anyone would like them). In Buddhism, the nondualistic perception of reality makes the relation between "rights" and the "right-bearer" even more problematic.

Michel Clasquin
Research Instittute for Theology and Religion University of South Africa
clasqm@alpha.unisa.ac.za
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:09:18 -0400
From: Kimberley C Falk
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Dr. Wayne R. Husted wrote:

>X-Sender: hsa01dk@scorpio
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 16:46:39 +0100
>X-PH: V4.1@r02n05
>To: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
>From: d.keown@gold.ac.uk (Damien Keown) Subject: Are rights wrong?


>A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

>Knowing this might help establish some common ground, which I think is what we should aim to do at this stage.

>Damien Keown

I am sorry to harp on this issue, but until there is so agreement on what rights are and whether or not they would include those of sentient beings that are non-human then I cannot answer that question. This is why I asked earlier for a definition of human rights because it is so different corss-culturally. In my understanding of the Dharma we must also be concerned with those sentient beings who are not human. I look forward to hearing from you all on this issue. Thank you.
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:04:39 -0400
From: David Gould
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Dr. Wayne R. Husted wrote:

>A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

Although I am not against human rights, I have been puzzled by attempts to find support for this concept in Buddhadharma. It seems to me that the first message of the Buddha is that this life is completely unfair. We are at the mercy of our past actions (maybe that *is* fair) and to invent some conceptual justification for fair treatment such as human rights, is an adventious imposition, or in other words wishful thinking. The disadvantage with such wishful thinking is that we become outraged when reality does not conform (maybe we should be outraged). Would it not be better to be aware that there are no intrinsic rights, yet be aware of the consequences of actions?

dgould@aix1.uottawa.ca
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:11:03 -0500
From: Harry Mullin
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
>From: d.keown@gold.ac.uk (Damien Keown) A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

What about a definition of "rights" so the quotes can be dropped. Much of the confusion may be that we are talking about different things.

Harry Mullin
PS - just noticed the same request from Kimberley C Falk , so I echo.
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 20:18:54 -0400
From: "Steven D. Jamar"
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
I think only if one becomes attached to rights does it become a bad thing. I think to discuss them and to see if they help is not. Buddhism is of this world, at least according to some Buddhist thinkers and reformers (e.g., Ambedkar (admittedly a special case)).

If one is more of a Zen Buddhist, then I suppose any such categorization is not such a good thing since it detracts from one just being - but, except at the extreme edge of such an approach to life, I don't see a fundamental problem.

Cheers,
Steve Jamar
Howard Law
Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 23:04:27 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
Damien Keown writes:

>A question. Most of the statements so far seem to accept that the concept of "rights" is at least not incompatible with Buddhist doctrine. Is this the general consensus, or does anyone feel there is a fundamental incompatibility between rights and Buddhist teachings, such that to talk about "rights" in a Buddhist context would be a bad thing?

>Knowing this might help establish some common ground, which I think is what we should aim to do at this stage.


Having tuned in a day or so late, I missed the statements made so far; whether the consensus Damien inquires of exists or not remains to be seen.

In all sincerity the notion of "rights" does not seem, on first glance, to make any sense in Buddhism at all. What rights? Rights stemming from the conventions of human societies, some natural rights ascribed to nature, or what?

So-called Buddhist ethics hinge on the notion of karma in relation to outcomes or fruits. Karma as action results in healthy, unhealthy or neutral outcomes. The notion of shila aims at healthy outcomes within oneself and in our relations with others. It is hoped that with transformation of behavior and its underlying motivations, one comes to a healthier karmic condition - one emphasizing inner and outer peace.

In bodhisattva buddhism, coming to an "awakened understanding" (bodhicitta, not the daft 19th century vestigal translation "thought of enlightenment" which makes no sense whatsoever) is said to consist of two dynamic, inseparable dimensions: prajna/empiness as seeing through and rising above convetional (samsaric) tunnel vision (avidya, mumyo - not ignorance so much as restricted understanding, an attention deficit disorder culturally and socially ordained) AND resolve to wake up everybody else (karuna, passion for life). In that respect, we come closest to the notion of "rights." But without political definition.

I'm surely interested to learn how others understand this business of "rights."

Gassho,

Ken O'Neill, Kyoshi
White Lotus Society
Tucson, Arizona
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 07:48:26 +0000
From: John Richards
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
Would it not be the "religious" (not just "Christian" or "Buddhist") attitude that OTHERS have rights, and they should be defended and maintained rigorously, but that I have none, and would never wish to assert any for myself?

Someone (Berdyayev, if I remember correctly) once said rather neatly that bread for myself is selfishness, bread for others is religion.

--
John Richards
Stackpole Elidor (UK)
jhr@elidor.demon.co.uk
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 12:40:33 +0100
From: "david.webster"
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Steven D. Jamar wrote:

>I think only if one becomes attached to rights does it become a bad thing. I think to discuss them and to see if they help is not. Buddhism is of this world, at least according to some Buddhist thinkers and reformers (e.g., Ambedkar (admittedly a special case)).

If one does not become attached to them (or at least `attach` them to others can they really be of any use at all? Surely it is only through attaching them that they become `useful` in the practical sense in that they lead to the reduction (by a variety of potential mechanisms) of suffering.


>If one is more of a Zen Buddhist, then I suppose any such categorization is not such a good thing since it detracts from one just being - but, except at the extreme edge of such an approach to life, I don't see a fundamental problem.

>Cheers,
>Steve Jamar
>Howard Law
>Washington, D.C.

D.Webster.
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 13:08:40 +0100
From: Damien Keown
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
At 11:04 03/10/95 -0400, David Gould wrote:

>Although I am not against human rights, I have been puzzled by attempts to find support for this concept in Buddhadharma. It seems to me that the first message of the Buddha is that this life is completely unfair. We are at the mercy of our past actions (maybe that *is* fair) and to invent some conceptual justification for fair treatment such as human rights, is an adventious imposition, or in other words wishful thinking. The disadvantage with such wishful thinking is that we become outraged when reality does not conform (maybe we should be outraged). Would it not be better to be aware that there are no intrinsic rights, yet be aware of the consequences of actions?
The purpose of rights isn't to command reality to obey our whims (to regard rights in this way--which I accept many people do--is an abuse of the idea). Rights are claims made on other rational agents to do what justice requires (treat others fairly). I think this is not really so different from asking people to respect the precepts (e.g. not to kill me is to respect my right to life) something which Buddhism certainly calls on everyone to do. Since Buddhism makes this universal appeal through its precepts, it seems to be calling for universal respect for basic rights. Its teachings are thus in harmony with modern human rights manifestos.

Damien Keown
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 22:33:20 -0400
From: "Steven D. Jamar"
Subject: Re: are rights wrong
David Webster quite thoroughly misunderstood my point about attachment. In the U.S. legal system and in any legal system rights attach to people and relate to things. But I was refering to the concept of detachment - that is, if one clings to any construct as though it were truth, then one cannot attain nirvana. Thus if one becomes attached to the idea of rights, then one is forming an attachment.

But so we end up in the muddle of working to improve the world an yet remaining detached from the fruits.

Cheers
Steve Jamar
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 21:33:41 -0800
From: "Craig K. Ihara"
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
Damien, You say that "rights are claims made on other rational agents to do what justice requires. I think this is not realy so different from asking people to respect the precepts." But in you own paper you say that rights introduce a new perspective, i.e. the perspective of the one to whom obligations are owed, but even this may be to go beyond the precepts which simply forbid certain actions without attributing rights to anyone, or maintaining that something is owed to someone, but simply that these are ways that are understood to reduce suffering.

Craig Ihara
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:20:21 +0200
From: M Clasquin
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong? -Reply
>>>Damien Keown 4/10/95, 02:08pm >>>
At 11:04 03/10/95 -0400, David Gould wrote:

>Although I am not against human rights, I have been puzzled by attempts
>to find support for this concept in Buddhadharma. It seems to me that the
>first message of the Buddha is that this life is completely unfair. We
>are at the mercy of our past actions (maybe that *is* fair) and to invent
>some conceptual justification for fair treatment such as human rights,
>is an adventious imposition, or in other words wishful thinking. The
disadvantage with such wishful thinking is that we become outraged when
>reality does not conform (maybe we should be outraged). Would it not be
>better to be aware that there are no intrinsic rights, yet be aware of
>the consequences of actions?

The purpose of rights isn't to command reality to obey our whims (to regard rights in this way--which I accept many people do--is an abuse of the idea). Rights are claims made on other rational agents to do what justice requires (treat others fairly). I think this is not really so different from asking people to respect the precepts (e.g. not to kill me is to respect my right to life) something which Buddhism certainly calls on everyone to do. Since Buddhism makes this universal appeal through its precepts, it seems to be calling for universal respect for basic rights. Its teachings are thus in harmony with modern human rights manifestos.

Damien Keown
<<<<<<<<<

Sorry, to jump from the precepts to rights is a leap of faith, not logic. If I refrain from taking your life, it is because I have developed sufficient wisdom to know that such an action will have unpleasant consequences now or in the next birth, and/or sufficient compassion to see that what divides us is much less (and less real) than what unites us. Killing you would be killing a part of myself, iow. There's simply no need to postulate this sixth skandha called "rights", except as a skilful means when talking with non-Buddhists.

Michel Clasquin
RITR, Unisa
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 21:11:55 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong? -Reply
Michel Clasquin wrote (in a long thread):

>Sorry, to jump from the precepts to rights is a leap of faith, not logic. If I refrain from taking your life, it is because I have developed sufficient wisdom to know that such an action will have unpleasant consequences now or in the next birth, and/or sufficient compassion to see that what divides us is much less (and less real) than what unites us. Killing you would be killing a part of myself, iow. There's simply no need to postulate this sixth skandha called "rights", except as a skilful means when talking with non-Buddhists.

Adding a skandha seems downright silly, and a misapplication of the skandha system of deconstructing samsaric "reality."

I've come to the conclusion that talking about "rights" in relation to talking about "Buddhism" treads on dangerous ground. Dangerous because we're only now begining to emerge from the Victorian era paradigm of generally accepted notions of early interpreters which we all call "Buddhism." That construction, as Thomas Tweed's excellent book shows, dovetails the outlooks of at least three special interest groups (philosophy, occultism, and romantics); now adding views hatched in modernity concerning rights demands treading cautiously - be that by affirmation or denial of a position.

Rights is certainly not tradition to the numerous Asian Traditional Religions we refer to as "Buddhism." But within the mahayana/vajryana tradition of bodhisattva teachings I believe there is ample ground to carefully apply the notion of "rights of all sentient beings, including those special rights of humans" to the ideal of awakening living (bodhisattva). In turn, bodhisattva karuna (awakened passion) re-expresses the intent of those pathmaking rules of training English speaking people insist on calling "precepts." Optimizing training through a recognition of the "rights" of everybody else just makes the training camp/dojo run smoother for everyone's benefit.

So, I don't believe we're adding a skandha. Instead we're learning to talk about buddhadharma in conceptual frameworks of sets of useful lies at variance with the Victorian paradigm. In the process we will be stretched, broadened and strengthened. And for Buddhists everywhere liberation from outdate interpretation should be gratefully received. last but not least, we might even have a framework of buddhism as a universal emerge from its fragmented Asian Traditional Religions.

Ken O'Neill, Kyoshi
White Lotus Society
Tucson, Arizona
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 11:14:09 +0000
From: Christopher Fynn
Subject: Re: are rights wrong
In message <9510060202.au00678@punt-1.mail.demon.net> JBE-L@psuvm.psu.edu Steve Jamar writes:

...
>But I was refering to the concept of detachment - that is, if one clings to any construct as though it were truth, then one cannot attain nirvana. Thus if one becomes attached to the idea of rights, then one is forming an attachment.

This can be said of becoming attached to anything including the Buddhadharma. Until we truely reach an exalted state (in which one would hardly violate or require human rights) I think that "ideas" like rights can be very useful.

>But so we end up in the muddle of working to improve the world an yet remaining detached from the fruits.

Buddhism would hardly have survived as long as it has if it did not also deal with this illusiory world and improving the day to day lot of those caught up in it. The way is taught both for monks and lay people to act in this world.

Human Rights might be said to at least prevent many gross sufferings, and to restrain people from inflicting these on others so preventing the accumulation of bad actions.

As a society where human rights prevail is surely one that permits the practice and spread of the Dharma, and as most definitions of HR include many of the basic pre conditions required for practice, can HR not be considerd as a useful support for the Dharma and spiritual progress -possibly as a neccesary pre-condition in themselves.

Buddhist texts speak of the importance of being born in a central country or noble land - in this age the definition of such a place might include "a country where human rights are respected and promoted".

- Chris

--
Christopher J Fynn
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 07:49:48 -0400
From: Damien Keown <100012.3212@compuserve.com>
Subject: Are rights wrong?
Craig Ihara wrote:

-----
Damien, You say that "rights are claims made on other rational agents to do what justice requires. I think this is not realy so different from asking people to respect the precepts." But in you own paper you say that rights introduce a new perspective, i.e. the perspective of the one to whom obligations are owed, but even this may be to go beyond the precepts which simply forbid certain actions without attributing rights to anyone, or maintaining that something is owed to someone, but simply that these are ways that are understood to reduce suffering.
----

Craig -- I think rights introduce a new perspective *historically*, but that rights were always implicit in the preceptual requirements. I don't think the precepts are merely ways to reduce suffering, and would say they are fundamentally requirements of justice. Following the precepts DOES reduce suffering, but this is a side-effect, just as observing the law keeps you out of prison. However, we should observe the precepts and the law because they're just, not because they keep you out of prison.

Damien Keown
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 14:31:11 -0400
From: "Peter D. Junger"
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
Damien Keown writes:

: I think rights introduce a new perspective *historically*, but that : rights were always implicit in the preceptual requirements. I don't think the : precepts are merely ways to reduce suffering, and would say they are : fundamentally requirements of justice. Following the precepts DOES reduce : suffering, but this is a side-effect, just as observing the law keeps you out : of : prison. However, we should observe the precepts and the law because they're : just, not because they keep you out of prison.

And I, on the other hand, think that ``justice'' is a hangup of monotheistic religions that are afflicted with a judgmental god. It seems odd to me to claim that for Buddhists the ``reduction of suffering'' is a side effect rather than the goal. And it seems even more odd to say that one should follow the precepts because of the ``requirements of justice'', when, in so far as I know, the Buddhist teachings refer to wisdom and compassion, but never to justice.

Prajnaparamita (aka Sophia) may be a Bodhisattva. Justitia, on the other hand, belongs to a very different tradition. --
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 22:50:14 +0100
From: Damien Keown
Subject: Re: Are rights wrong?
At 14:31 06/10/95 -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote:

>And I, on the other hand, think that ``justice'' is a hangup of monotheistic religions that are afflicted with a judgmental god.

Justice needn't be theologically grounded. It was regarded by the Greeks as a fundamental virtue (think of Plato's discussion in the _Republic_), and is something many atheists believe in. When people fight for civil rights and an end to discrimination, what they are calling for is justice. I doubt many people who are deprived of justice would dismiss it as nothing more than a theological "hangup."

>It
>seems odd to me to claim that for Buddhists the ``reduction of suffering'' is a side effect rather than the goal.

Yes, perhaps that puts it rather too starkly. What I wanted to highlight was that Buddhism calls on us to do what is right, rather than what will make life less unpleasant for ME. However, I do believe the proper reading of Buddhist teachings on the matter is that suffering reduces to the extent one does what is right.

>And it seems even
>more odd to say that one should follow the precepts because of the ``requirements of justice'', when, in so far as I know, the Buddhist teachings refer to wisdom and compassion, but never to justice.

Buddhist teachings don't refer to human rights either, but I think we have to look behind the scenes a little to see what the teachings involve.

>Prajnaparamita (aka Sophia) may be a Bodhisattva. Justitia, on the other hand, belongs to a very different tradition.

I think justice transcends traditions, which is why there can be such a thing as universal human rights.

Damien Keown