Buddhism and human rights: the Kantian dhamma
Part I Buddhism and human rights: the Kantian dhamma
January 11, 2012
Every time Thailand is under scrutiny for human rights violations, we always hear arguments from some quarters that human rights are a western concept and don't apply to Thai society with our Buddhist codes.
It’s no surprise, then, that the protest was loudest when the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights singled out Thailand’s harsh criminal sanctions under the laws on lese majeste as “neither necessary nor proportionate, and violate the country’s international human rights obligations”.
The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) boldly declares, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” However, even this fundamental premise appears to be far from being universally accepted here.
Some Thais would argue that humans are born unequal, like the digits on one’s hand, implying fixed roles and discriminating treatments. Although often attributed to the Buddha, this justification for a caste-like system was actually promoted by Phraya Anumanratchathon in the 1960s to support the Pibunsongkram nationalistic regime.
In contrast, Buddhists elsewhere have long supported human rights. In his 1991 book on the subject, Sri Lankan scholar LPN Perera established that the UDHR is completely in agreement with Buddhism, by identifying parallels in the Buddhist canon to every UDHR article. However, in Are There Human Rights in Buddhism? Buddhist ethicist Damien Keown asked an important question on how to philosophically “ground” the concept of human rights in Buddhism. Here, the author would like to propose a preliminary answer by taking a step back to the origin of human rights.
All Buddhists are familiar with the legend of how Prince Siddhartha was motivated to find the answer to human sufferings after journeying out of his comfort zone one day to see the spectrum of life: an old man, a sick man, a corpse and a renunciate. It can be said that, after witnessing the atrocities men inflicted on men in two devastating world wars, people as a whole went into a similar soul-searching and reached back to the common wisdom of humanity to produce the UDHR, with the aim of preventing and alleviating human suffering at the global level.
It’s perhaps the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant who did most of the groundwork: “Many of the central themes first expressed within Kant’s moral philosophy remain highly prominent in contemporary philosophical justifications of human rights. Foremost amongst these are the ideals of equality and the moral autonomy of rational human beings. Kant provides a means for justifying human rights as the basis for self-determination grounded within the authority of human reason.”
In Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel wrote, “Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals appeared shortly after the American Revolution (1776) and just before the French Revolution (1789). In line with the spirit and moral thrust of those revolutions, it offers a powerful basis for what the 18th-century revolutionaries called the rights of man, and what we in the early 21st century call universal human rights.”
Kant places human freedom at the heart of his philosophy. At first glance, Buddhists may counter that humans are not truly free because we’re ruled by desire. And Kant would completely agree and even add that we’re not free if we only act out of our own desires, preferences or interests because we did not choose them in the first place. Of the arbitrariness and tyranny of desire, the Buddha says, “Enwrapped in craving, beings run about; now here, now there, like a captive hare.”
In Kantian philosophy, acts made out of our inclinations have no moral worth. A moral act must be done with a “motive of duty” which, in practical terms – as will be later elaborated – turns out to be very similar to the Dhamma (duty, righteousness, morality). The Buddha similarly says, “Though little he recites the sacred texts; but put the Dhamma into practice; forsaking lust, hatred and delusion; with right knowledge, with mind well freed; cling to nothing here or hereafter; he has a share in religious life.”
Kant insists that we have the power to rise above our desire, because if there’s no such autonomy then there’s no moral responsibility. A flying rock cannot be held culpable for breaking someone’s skull, but its thrower can. In Mahabodhi Jataka, the Buddha made crushing arguments against theistic and karmic determinism on the same ground that they deprive humans of moral desert.
The Buddha pointed out, “It is volition, monk, that I declare to be karma. Having willed, one performs an action by body, speech or mind.” Similarly it’s in human intention that Kant places the moral worth of an action. “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will. A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself it is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favour of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations.”
In other words, for an action to be morally good in Kantian philosophy, it is not enough that it conforms to the moral law – it must also be done for the sake of the moral law, not for its results. Even in this respect, the Buddha agrees, “He who grasps at neither ‘I’ nor ‘mine’, neither in mentality nor in materiality; who grieves not for what is not; such a one indeed is called a Bhikkhu.” “He who is vigilant; He whose mind is not overcome by lust and hatred; He who has discarded both merits and demerits; for such a one there is no fear.”
As the Buddha’s core teachings on non-self (anatta) require us to let go of all egoistic instincts, Buddhism – similar to Kantian philosophy – aims at altruism as the ultimate peace. It is, therefore, more in line with socially-engaged Buddhism and other justice movements that aspire to do what’s right.
On the other hand, the popular rituals – mass chanting or meditation retreats that focus on expected individualistic results such as lottery wins, better rebirths, mental peace or even enlightenment – should be viewed with half-suspicion and vigilance, as these “self-love” projects often end up turning ego into super-ego rather than reducing its size.
For Kant, every human being’s autonomy to achieve morally worthy acts gives us equal dignity. As one of his epithets is purisadammasarathi (trainer of humans), the Buddha also shows an unwavering faith that all humans are capable of transcending desire to become enlightened. Contrary to popular belief, no human is a lost cause, often compared to a mud-buried lotus, in the Buddha’s eyes.
This is the kind of equality that matters in human rights as well as in Buddhism, as strongly reaffirmed in Vasettha Sutta. In this discourse, which should deservedly be called the Buddha’s Declaration of Human Dignity and Equality, the Buddha uncompromisingly rejected Brahmanist caste inequality and declared that no inherent characteristics set one human apart from another – not in the body, complexion, voice, sex organ or the way we mate. For the Buddha, the only thing that distinguishes humans is conduct.
Part II, Buddhism and human rights: The journey to the west
January 12, 2012
The Chinese classic Journey to the West, based on the Tang Dynasty monk Xuanzang's pilgrimage to India, is actually an allegory of a Buddhist spiritual journey. Also known as Adventures of the Monkey God, it is a fitting tool to compare Buddhism and Kantian philosophy.
As fantastically explained by Venerable Khemananda in his commentary to Journey, the Buddhist way to enlightenment is allegorised by the arduous voyage to India which Xuanzang and his company must take while battling spiritual obstacles in the form of hostile demons and selfish humans. On the other hand, Kantian reasoning, which can achieve enlightened altruism, can be thought of as the spontaneous Monkey King, symbolising emerging wisdom (panna). Although he can fly to India and have an audience with the Buddha (enlightenment), Monkey can never remain there. His indispensable role is to guide the whole troupe.
Represents forming morality (sila), the gluttonous Pigsy often lapses into greed and lust and must be constantly kept in check. Both Kant and the Buddha, therefore, formulated principles for human ethics. As all humans are of equal dignity, Kant says that we must not put our needs above those of others. The Buddha also says, “On traversing all directions with the mind; one finds no one anywhere dearer than oneself; likewise everyone holds himself most dear.”
Because an ethical principle is aimed as a law for all beings with equal dignity, it must be equally valid for all. To ensure this, Kant says it must pass the test of being universalised. That is, when adopted by everyone it can never be in conflict with itself.
In Veludvara Sutta, the Buddha demonstrates how such thought experiment can be done. When villagers asked him how they should fulfill their specific wishes, desires and hopes, he told them to reflect on how each of them desires happiness and is averse to suffering, how something such as being deprived of life will not be agreeable to him, and what is disagreeable to him is to others too. Having reflected thus, he would “abstain from the destruction of life, exhort others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speak in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life.” The Buddha then invited them to apply the same reasoning to theft, adultery and so on.
As we can see, the Buddha codified a number of Buddhist precepts (sila) for personal conduct. Interestingly, using Kant’s reasoning, we can generate all Buddhist precepts, as well as additional ones for enslavement, torture or arbitrary detention, for example.
Not only that, all the Buddhist precepts are also in agreement with another Kantian formulation: “Act in such a way that you use the humanity in your own person and in the person of any third party at all times as an end in itself and never simply as a means to an end”.
The Buddhist position in this regard is probably most clearly expressed in Mahabodhi Jataka. In this story, a king was instructed in the “science of princes” by a Machiavelli-like advisor that, “You must avail yourself of men, as of shady trees, considering them fit objects to resort to. Accordingly, endeavour to extend your glory by showing them gratitude until your policy ceases to want their use. They are to be appointed to their task in the manner of victims destined for the sacrifice.” This doctrine was rebuked by the future-Buddha as soiled by cruelty and contrary to Dhamma.
Buddhist precepts focusing on individual abstention from blameworthy acts jeopardising interpersonal relationships and social fabric, however, are necessary but not sufficient conditions to ensure a dignified life for all members of society because human dignity can be harmed not only by individuals but also by the states as well as political, social, economic and cultural institutions. The world, reeling from two world wars, was compelled to define what the sufficient social conditions should be. Aided by Kant’s universally-oriented philosophy among others, the results are now enshrined in the UDHR and international laws as human rights principles.
Although they arose from a distinct cultural pathway, many of these rights can be directly arrived at from Buddhist precepts. With the non-self principle in mind, Buddhist personal codes of conduct phrased as “one shall abstain from X” can be altruistically de-individualised to “all beings have the right to non-X” and become a set of social-level precepts such as the rights to life, ownership and family, not to be violated. This intimate correspondence between Kantian philosophy and Buddhism shows that human rights are nothing but precepts universalised to articulate necessary conditions for a life worthy of all humans beings with equal freedom and dignity.
Thus, in addition to a moral compass pointing to the same altruistic goal as the Buddha’s constellations of teachings, Kantian philosophy also gave birth to universal precepts for the modern world. This moral roadmap, known as human rights, complements what the Buddha has given for individual conduct. With these two sets of precepts, our inner and outer Pigsy can finally be reigned in for the journey.
Keown wrote, “The UDHR itself and modern charters like it do not offer a comprehensive vision of human good. The purpose is to secure only what might be termed the ‘minimum conditions’ for human flourishing in a pluralistic milieu. The task of articulating a comprehensive vision of what is ultimately valuable in human life and how it is to be attained falls to the competing theories of human good found in religions, philosophies and ideologies.”
The Buddha offers one such vision of “the good life” equally attainable by all. In Kannakatthala Sutta, he emphasises, “I say that among [humans of different births] there is no difference between the deliverance of one and the deliverance of the others. Suppose a man took dry saka wood, sala wood, mango wood and fig wood, lit a fire, and produced heat. Would there be any difference among these fires?” The Buddha would no doubt welcome as ideal a society in which all humans, regardless of birth, gender, age or other statuses, are guaranteed basic conditions for their welfare and happiness.
In “Laws from Buddhist Perspective”, Venerable PA Payutto categorises laws into those imposed to control people and those aimed to facilitate their welfare, happiness and development. He states, “A law should not have public order or harmony as its end, but a means to facilitate improvement of people’s lives in order that they can reach higher goals through learning. The law should be conducive for the development of human beings, enabling them to live ‘the good life’ and aspire to higher virtues.”
Thus, in order to pave the way for our collective Pigsy to reach higher goals, we can’t rely solely on individual precepts but must strive to actualise the social precepts as already exist in the UDHR. This is much easier said than done. Although Kant independently formulated a moral gold standard similar to the Buddha’s teachings, there’s a crucial difference that in Kantian philosophy altruism is achieved through reasoning and temporary suspension of selfish desire.
American Buddhist scholar Justin Whitaker suggests, “Kant was at the same time perhaps too confident in humanity’s ability to use reason to evaluate motivations, as well as pessimistic that one could ever truly do this in this lifetime.” The Dhammapada fittingly says, “The wisdom of one whose thought is unsteady, who does not know the true Dhamma, whose serenity of mind is troubled, is not perfected.”
The Buddha, in contrast, not only laid down an altruistic philosophy and codes of conduct, but also taught the way to eliminate selfish desire entirely with right concentration, symbolised in Journey by the heavy-lifting Friar Sand. The mindful effort to achieve this is characterised by the Dhammapada verse, “By gradual practice, from moment to moment, and little by little; let the wise man blow out his own impurities; just as a smith removes the dross of ore.”
Collective concentration is also the most difficult part for society. To make human rights reality, Thailand must find its Friar Sand-like determination in the form of political commitment and full public participation – not just lip-service to the UDHR.
In the end, the naysayers may be right about one thing: human rights principles emerged from and lead to the “West”. But there’s also something else they should know. A “Journey to the West” may very well turn out to take our society closer to the land of the Buddha in a way that traditional Thai Buddhism throughout history never could.