Did the Buddha prefer big government or small government?

did the Buddha think government should be a moral police and ban abortion and all form of killing ?

No. The Buddha made a division between conventional reality and ultimate, and accepted that politics, wars etc are expressions of the rise and fall of samsara. All that however must be separated from the path of practice.

" “There is the case, monk, where a monk has heard, ‘All things are unworthy of attachment.’ Having heard that all things are unworthy of attachment, he directly knows every thing. Directly knowing every thing, he comprehends every thing. Comprehending every thing, he sees all themes[2] as something separate. [3]”—SN 35.80

4 Likes

The Buddha certainly thought that states should have laws, and one can argue that it should have some measure of welfare. Part of those laws would be against killing people. Regarding abortion, it’s pretty clear to me that it is intentional killing of a being in the Dhamma. As to if abortion should be legal, well, it depends on if you see the foetus/embryo as a being with rights or not. Science doesn’t give you an answer either way, since science doesn’t deal with questions of being and personhood. As such it comes down to your religious and/or philosophical views of where personhood and so human rights begin for the foetus/embryo. Pro-choice is as much as a belief as pro-life is. Seems to me though if you believe that the unborn is a being and if you believe in human rights then you should be anti-abortion both morally and in law.

1 Like

There are many nuances to these kinds of topics, and honestly, abortion is truly a matter of personal privacy, and certainly something that a man should not be weighing in on, unless he is involved in the pregnancy and has a seat at that table. It is quite simple to avoid this kinda of internal deliberation, and yet it seems that still there are “moral police” and other similar figures in Buddhist circles–along with conspiritualists, nationalists, and all other types of people. There have been abortions as long as there have been pregnancies, let us not think that any law or attempted government control of literally any thing will ever result in these things going away. In modern times all these types of attempted control only mean that the poorest will be adversely impacted, while the rich will quite easily travel to get their abortions. Interestingly, I believe there are written and recorded procedures of abortion dating back to around 3000ish BCE China if I am remembering correctly.

It always seems this idea of “killing” and doing harm comes up a lot here. We have spent many many many hours deliberating what is skillful and unskillful in relation to this realm of thought. The most important part of our actions is the intention involved. It is important (and known and obvious to all) to note that for medical reasons, an abortion may be necessary, otherwise it can result in the death of the mother, and the unborn. So, I leave these things up to the carrying individual, and their physician to make a much more informed decision than myself and find myself quite literally unable to pass judgement in regards to these matters.

Even if government was discussed in the canon, can we even use it as a gauge in comparison to the modern day, interconnected capitalist economies? I don’t think so, but maybe somebody else knows better.

2 Likes

Well if the current gender theory is to be believed abortion is also a man’s issue, since men can get pregnant. Regardless, I don’t think you have to be a man or a woman to have a position on human rights or if the foetus/embryo is a human being or not.

It is quite simple to avoid this kinda of internal deliberation, and yet it seems that still there are “moral police” and other similar figures in Buddhist circles–along with conspiritualists, nationalists, and all other types of people. There have been abortions as long as there have been pregnancies, let us not think that any law or attempted government control of literally any thing will ever result in these things going away.

People will always kill each other, but we still have laws against it. I don’t think that is moral policing. What pro-life argues is that the unborn is too a human being, and so should not be killed in the same way a child or adult should not be killed. On another note, I find it interesting that the left in America have been pushing for gun control, as they say it will bring down gun violence, but when it comes to abortion apparently laws will have no impact on the number performed at all.

1 Like

Well, I don’t get involved in these issues. I can rephrase to please people from “woman” or “man” to “an individual who has the biological apparatus that can carry a fetus,” if that is helpful.

The left in America and the right in America are both deluded in their own ways. This is why, as we also talk about on here quite frequently, the world is unstable and filled with paradox and irony, and this is the nature of samsara if we wanted to look at it from a Buddhist perspective, is it not?

We can get caught up in these arguments, or we can try to move beyond them, which can be difficult especially when we have friends or family on both sides of the political divide. There are just no ways to please everyone regarding some (or maybe all) of these predicaments, or am I mistaken?

1 Like

I agree with that. My only correction would be that the left, right or centre in any country are deluded in some way.

2 Likes

Ain’t that the truth.

2 Likes

Most societies function by giving governments monopoly over the use of violence, and even in the rare cases when citizens are allowed to use violence such as in the case of self defense, such exceptions are granted by the central government and do not take away from the monopoly, but rather cement it. In worldly affairs, violence is not always unwholesome, but at times considered necessary and a duty. It is often presented as an assurance, or a protection of the law governing society, and without it, we end up in a chaos.

This is why, mental health experts do not use violence as a sufficient cause to determine mental illness, and it has to be coupled by other factors, often linked to law abiding. Compare this to the Buddha’s teachings, where violence, even at the level of thought, is regarded as problematic and to be transcended. Acknowledging these differences would reveal that we are dealing with two totally different sets of standards.

2 Likes

Thread closed pending moderator deliberation.