Re: potential for enlightenment
>However, I think it follows that animals are entitled to lesser respect than human beings. Why? Because their dignity is not equal to -- is lesser than -- that of human beings. This is because they have actualized their nirvanic potential to a lesser degree (this is clear from the fact that they have been born in a less auspicious realm). If this line of reasoning is correct, it would follow that they have fewer rights.
>... ...
>Damien Keown
By this line of reasoning those human beings who CANNOT achieve nirvana in this lifetime have fewer rights too.
According to the Pali Canon these include those who have: Killed an Arahant, injured a Buddha, killed a parent, or caused a schism in the Sangha.
This is not just an arcane piece of buried trivia but a teaching that is included in Buddhist education in many countries (I don't necessarily believe it myself).
The Vietnamese government could eaisly accuse UBC officials of causing a schism, thus lessening their dignity. In fact, that's pretty much what they are doing -- and a good case can be made that the UBC is schismatic.
Yet another reason for not using the potential for enlightenment as the basis of human dignity.
-- Santipala
"Santipala Stephen Evans has again argued against using the idea of 'enlightenment potential' as the basis for 'human rights', preferring more direct, less abstract arguments. But one thing that the principle of Dependent Origination entails is that nothing exists with only ONE cause. Things exist/arise from the coming together of various conditions. So if we wish to ground the concept of human rights, why not do so by linking it to //various// supporting concepts/considerations?
Peter Harvey
Stephen also argues that, if we only respect humans due to their 'enlightenment potential', what of those seen as incapable of Nirvaana in this life, eg. those who have caused a schism in the Sangha, or killed a parent?
But such people are still capable of Nirvaana in a future life, and can still do a fair amount of work towards it in this. In any case, one should not inflict on another what one would not like done to oneself.
The issue reminds me of something in the //Visuddhimagga// on the development of lovingkindness. In this, it is said that, in developing it to someone you see as, in some way, hostile, you should focus on whatever //good// points they have. In the case of someone who is, so to speak, a real shit, with no good qualities, one should, instead, develop compassion towards them: for it must be awful to be in such a state, and it will lead to much suffering in the future. So: compassion even for Hitler!
Peter Harvey
At 16:31 08/10/95 -0600, Stephen Evans wrote:
>>However, I think it follows that animals are entitled to lesser respect than human beings. Why? Because their dignity is not equal to -- is lesser than -- that of human beings. This is because they have actualized their nirvanic potential to a lesser degree (this is clear from the fact that they have been born in a less auspicious realm). If this line of reasoning is correct, it would follow that they have fewer rights.
>>... ...
>>Damien Keown
>By this line of reasoning those human beings who CANNOT achieve nirvana in this lifetime have fewer rights too.
My formulation doesn't depend on enlightenment being ACHIEVED in this lifetime, or in any lifetime. By being reborn as a human being, one has demonstrated a realization of nirvanic potential. What we do in the course of this life will affect our future course. There is naturally a lot of variation among human beings. Some are very pious, others are wicked. However, so long as they are human beings they must be recognised to have human rights. When their evil ways cause them to be reborn as pigs, then they will have only the rights of pigs.
>The Vietnamese government could eaisly accuse UBC officials of causing a schism, thus lessening their dignity. In fact, that's pretty much what they are doing -- and a good case can be made that the UBC is schismatic.
Human dignity doesn't fluctuate according to accusations, even if they are true.
>Yet another reason for not using the potential for enlightenment as the basis of human dignity.
I don't see a problem in this respect. (What were the other reasons?)
Damien Keown