Self Defense and the First Precept in Theravada Buddhism

Recently, a situation came up in my life where I thought I might have to use self-defense. I do train in mixed martial arts, but I do it for fun/sport and not with the aim of harming people.
My question for discussion is, in the Theravada tradition, does self-defense violate the first precept?
Say, for example, a gunman has 4 of your kids at gunpoint about to shoot them and somehow you find the opportunity where, from some angle, you can shoot the gunman but the shot from this angle will likely kill him.
In a situation like this (I grant that this is extreme), is it morally permissible from a Buddhist point of view to gun down the gunman to save your kids?
How might the response apply to self-defense situations more generally?
I once wrote a paper for a philosophy of war seminar in which I chose the topic Buddhism and Self-Defense. At the time, I relied heavily on schools of Buddhism other than Theravada, such as Tibetan, where the Dali Lama, for example, says that self-defense is morally permissible but must be done out of a place of compassion for all sentient beings involved, including the aggressor.
What are you all’s thoughts on this?

2 Likes

I believe in the Vinaya it allows for monastics to “give a blow” if attacked. Killing someone though isn’t allowed. You can of course kill the man to save your kids. That is your choice, but it won’t be wholesome kamma. It would be unwholesome. Perhaps mixed kamma if you accept the Sthavira point of view (the Mahāsāáčƒghikas seem to have rejected it).

1 Like

Hi dj0710,

Please use the search function(magnifying glass on top right corner) before starting a new thread, to see if this topic is already available in previous threads. In your case please search for “self defense” and you can see various threads coming up.
Thank you. :grinning:

Alex

1 Like

Oh, ok thank you. Sorry, still a little new.

2 Likes

Hey Alex70,
I did do a very quick search, and I do not see any topic quite put this way. So I think this will be fruitful, though I do need to search first next time.

1 Like

cf. https://youtu.be/XYqzNnlMcUA?feature=shared&t=918
(15:18 if timestamp should not be working)

3 Likes

Look, Malunkyaputta, I greatly appreciate this link. This was the exact answer to my question that I needed.

Metta

Douglas

2 Likes

My pleasure. Keep in mind that altough very famous he is just one teacher.

1 Like

This thread

links to 2 previous threads also related to this topic.

I found it by searching ‘self defence’ (the AU/UK spelling :wink: )

2 Likes

My two cents.

I look at these gray scenarios via looking at individual actions and intentions. The intention to harm is always unwholesome, but other factors surrounding that may be unwholesome, wholesome, or mixed.

  • The intention to kill or hurt the gunman, the act of shooting the gunman, etc. is unwholesome.
  • The intention to prevent harm to your family is wholesome.
  • The intention to only injure in order to incapacitate (e.g. shooting them in the arm so they drop the gun) rather than outright kill the gunman is mixed because you still want to harm the gunman but you want to do as little harm as possible.
  • If the action is done out of attachment and clinging, it is more unwholesome.
  • If the action is done out of compassion, it is more wholesome.
  • If the action is done with the view that acts of harm against other beings is unwholesome or with right view, this is more wholesome.
  • If the action is done with the view that harming other beings can be wholesome or with wrong view, this is unwholesome.

So it’s overall a mixed kamma and quite confusing for us regular folk to parse out. I think only a Buddha could work out the precise results of this kind of kamma and even then He might not be able to categorize it as morally permissible or not. These situations may be too complex to boil down to a simple yes/no.

From what we see in the early texts I don’t think he would ever approve of killing.

Like never ever? Can you provide a reference? I’d be interested in reading about it!

I can’t give you an exact line that says “I would never approve of killing”, as far as I’m aware. What we have is the Buddha condemning it again and again, without giving exceptions. The first precept is not to intentionally kill. A sotāpanna has perfected virtue, so they won’t ever kill. If they won’t, Buddhas and Arahants won’t. Of course unawakened people will break the precepts from time to time.

1 Like

There’s also the funny bit in SN 1.71:

At Savatthi. Standing to one side, that devatā addressed the Blessed One in verse:

“Having slain what does one sleep soundly?
Having slain what does one not sorrow?
What is the one thing, O Gotama,
Whose killing you approve?”

The Blessed One:

“Having slain anger, one sleeps soundly;
Having slain anger, one does not sorrow;
The killing of anger, O devatā,
With its poisoned root and honeyed tip:
This is the killing the noble ones praise,
For having slain that, one does not sorrow.”

I believe this bit is repeated verbatim to a question “Do you ever approve killing?” and Buddha says he only approves killing anger.

8 Likes

That’s a good one, thanks.

1 Like

Thanks @Ceisiwr and @Dogen

I was wondering if he ever talked about it if a situation arises where killing somebody would save other people from dying in an utilitarian sense. Seems like this is not the case.

He wasn’t a utilitarian, no.

1 Like

I think a way to look at it (in my quite unenlightened opinion) is even asking this question. The fact that mind is edging toward killing, justifying killing, and for what? For our clinging and things we think it’s “worth it”.

It can very well be a slippery slope, putting effort into thinking about killing, methods of killing, things worth to kill, etc etc, instead of directing the mind to things that would lead one away from such thoughts.

Also, is it more utilitarian ultimately to kill or to show radical pacifism? It would depend on your time frame, I guess.

Of course, using this discourse to shame people who are in life-or-death combat situations now is hardly appropriate as well. It would be callous and stupid of me to find a villager who had taken arms to defend his home against pillagers and saying “Did you know Lord Buddha doesn’t approve of killing?”

But if we are in a fortunate position to ask these questions comfortably, then it’s a different beast. Perhaps asking the very question “Why do I think some things might be worth killing?” could lead us to discover our defilements.

1 Like

Yes, I agree. It’s a very different situation. I was thinking along the lines of a theoretical moral quandary (the sort that philosophers like to think about). But it can of course be a real-life situation for police officers.

Yes, His approval would be a dubious proposition at best.

My point was that the Buddha wouldn’t give a categorical answer to the OP’s scenario if asked directly. That is, His reply to the question would be an analysis, a counter-question, or setting it aside.

Mendicants, there are these four ways of answering questions. What four? There is a question that should be answered categorically. There is a question that should be answered analytically. There is a question that should be answered with a counter-question. There is a question that should be set aside.

These are the four ways of answering questions.

-AN 4.42