Mahatma Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Since Sks's thread was becoming taken over by this sort of debate, I'll create this one so he can have his thread back. The original question was that if you had 3 boats that were all sinking and on one was your mother, another your father, and another a cow. Which would you save? And what justifies that if all life is equally important to a Buddhist. I would not choose between my parents, however I would not pick the cow because the potential for a human to contribute more to the world is greater. This is not how all Buddhists will feel, but it is my opinion. Moving on to the last thing that was said to me on that thread: Not so.... To consider that your contributions are greater than that of the cow's is selfish. I did not say I was more valuable than the cow. I simply said the probability of my parents to be more valuable is greater. The people wanted a forced answer, so I gave at least one, although I will not choose between my mother and father. As for the rest of your replies to other people, feel free to copy and paste from the other thread, I just did not feel like copying and pasting everything that was last said by each of the people in this discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why make a choice? Do your best to save all three and live fine with the result. It's not the question or the answer here that's important. It's how you live your life, now and after the incident. The universe makes no judgments of you so why should you make judgments regarding your own decisions? In your scenario above, it's not important that you save any of the three. They made the decisions to get into untested boats, boats that had holes in them. And the chances of three boats sinking side by side are nil. Take the one closest to you and work your way out. The cow will sustain your physical life much longer should you float off and get stranded on a deserted island. Decisions, decisions. Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 ...... I did not say I was more valuable than the cow. No, I'm not discussing that point. I was disputing THIS statement: My contributions to the world are going to be greater than the cow. Only you can suppose and assume that. Others may not agree. It's only a question of personal perspective and perception. And if you keep looking at the world from a position ONLY of "I" and "Me", then you remain disconnected and your Ego inflates itself to a proportion greater than the fact of Self...... Who - or what - was the 'cow' in a previous life? What will she be in the next? And what were you? And what will you be? ......for the advancement of the world, my parents are far more important than the cow How? Why? If you are a grown man, chances are they are elderly, or in advanced years, anyway. What you mean is that they are far more important to YOU than the cow..... Think carefully... With every thought you generate the Kamma you will have to work through...... Link to post Share on other sites
ed-205 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Only you can suppose and assume that. Others may not agree. It's only a question of personal perspective and perception. And if you keep looking at the world from a position ONLY of "I" and "Me", then you remain disconnected and your Ego inflates itself to a proportion greater than the fact of Self...... I think that is the heart of the matter. How a person answers this question tells us a lot more about what they think of themselves. For example, a Hindi would be compelled to save the cow first, because to him the cow is Holy and more valuable than either of his parents. In my case, I would definitely save my Father first, not because he is more valuable to me, but because he is the only one of the three that I *know* can't swim! Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 This is such a hard dilemma. We are torn between chosing things as Beings in samsara - stuck in the cycle of suffering - and as beings making efforts to escape this cycle, and eliminate our Negative Kamma. We have The Three Noble truths, which in essence are the fundamental explanations of Life, As It Is and Everything. We thereby also have, as a direct follow-on, the Fourth Noble Truth, (The Eightfold Path) which is the way we can follow to direct our Thoughts, Words Deeds and practice towards eliminating Suffering and Negative Kamma. We are also further guided by the 5 Precepts, that advise us on what it would be wisest to abstain from doing..... All these are Choices. it's all up to us. Some decisions, one can ponder on, think about and consider, over time. Others require an instant decision, a spur-of-the-moment almost instinctual reponse. However, in either case, no matter what the situation, the bottom line is that we can only do our best with the available materials and decide "what's best" according to what we believe and perceive, ourselves. The Buck Stops Here. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'd be interested to know what sort of contrubutions we are talking about here. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Mahatma Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 If you are a grown man, chances are they are elderly, or in advanced years, anyway. I am not a grown man. I am 18. So my parents are both still younger, probabyl younger than some of you here. Are you suggesting that you think a cow is more likely to provide more positive help to the world than a middle aged person? I realize there is no way to truly know the value. Once again though, the question was asked and I am providing an answer to what I would *probably* do and my rationale behind it. There is only a basic idea in question here. In reality, if this was happening, there would be many other circumstances to further base a decision on. Why make a choice? Do your best to save all three and live fine with the result. Then the same question can still be asked in the form of who would you save first? Link to post Share on other sites
electric_sheep Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'd be interested to know what sort of contrubutions we are talking about here. Cheers, D. Me too. The idea of "contribution" is highly relative. We are so accustomed to the cultural value system we learn while growing up that it never occurs to us to question it. Intelligence, beauty, "productivity", technology and science (the ability to manipulate and understand the environment), all these things are held in high regard. We have this notion of an arrow of time, and civilization is "advancing" and "moving forward". This kind of thinking implies we accept a certain value system as preferable, and then consider advancement in this direction as desirable. All of this is quite arbitrary, and different people may have different thoughts about it. Some might argue that present day Amish, or aboriginal tribes in Borneo, are doing just as well as we are. Some would argue they are doing better. Link to post Share on other sites
electric_sheep Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 To answer the question... because I believe no universal value system exists, I would be forced to create my own. I would consider myself, the people close to me, and the "rest" of the universe... roughly in that order. Of course, I would have to make an educated guess about what the people close to me think. As for the rest of the universe, I would have to guess at the impact, and then arbitrarily decide if that impact was "good" or "bad". Consider too that I have arbitrarily defined most human life to be more valuable than non-human life (just consider it species solidarity, if you will). I'm not claiming it's "right" that I've arrived at this decision. It just feels like the right thing to me. Giving all this, the cow would have to go. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Are you suggesting that you think a cow is more likely to provide more positive help to the world than a middle aged person? It's hard to suggest anything when you still haven't explained what you mean by "contribution" or "positive help". Both humans and cows, while they are alive, consume resources (humans much much more than cows) before finally donating their bodies back to the earth that accommodated them. In between, what do humans do that makes them so special among living creatures? Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I am not a grown man. I am 18. So my parents are both still younger, probabyl younger than some of you here. Good, because I also draw comfort from the fact that you are definitely younger than some of us here. So you have a young and impressionable mind, still going through the machinations of development, growth and maturity. Strike the last one if you wish. I'm 52, and maturity is still a question-mark in my case! This I know for sure. I personally felt I knew a lot at age 18. I now know I knew nothing, and know even less, for sure for sure, now. I take nothing for granted, and keep an open mind in everything I possibly can. Are you suggesting that you think a cow is more likely to provide more positive help to the world than a middle aged person? Why are you suggesting it couldn't? I realize there is no way to truly know the value. Bingo. I would consider myself, the people close to me, and the "rest" of the universe... roughly in that order. Of course, I would have to make an educated guess about what the people close to me think. As for the rest of the universe, I would have to guess at the impact, and then arbitrarily decide if that impact was "good" or "bad". Consider too that I have arbitrarily defined most human life to be more valuable than non-human life (just consider it species solidarity, if you will). I'm not claiming it's "right" that I've arrived at this decision. It just feels like the right thing to me. such a consideration is hasty and presumptuous.... There is no such thing as a degree of importance, because we are all of us interdependent. We can never make the assumption or presumption that 'we' are more important, useful, productive.... whatever... than others, until we find out how much we need them. And it's only by losing something that we then realise it was a vital component to our continued comfort and survival..... Link to post Share on other sites
knaveman Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 I believe that all life is sacred to a Buddhist, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Life is life is life. Posing an ethical question such as you have is irrelevant to anything. People can say to no end what they would do in such a situation, but it is the action that means the most. The action is unknowable until the event actually happens. Ethics is moot until we are in the physical situation. All ethics does is to teach us how we should act in a given situation. As a Buddhist all life, even plant life, is sacred to me. And, as a Buddhist, in the situation you proposed I would let my instincts guide me. Truly a Buddhist principal. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts