Is Pacifism the Most Ethical Position?
A dialogue between Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist, excerpted from The Buddhist and the Ethicist
How do we practice nonviolence without turning away from suffering?
In this timely dialogue, Peter Singer and Shih Chao-Hwei grapple with one of the most difficult ethical questions: Is pacifism simply the absence of conflict, or does it require a deeper, more active form of engagement? When we witness aggression, this conversation challenges us to find the "Middle Way"—a path that refuses to be indifferent to injustice while holding firm to the principle of non-harming.
Singer: Chao-Hwei, in our discussion of capital punishment, you touched on another area of killing on which I would like to learn your views. You told us that Lord Buddha, in one of his incarnations as a bodhisattva, was the king of a country that was invaded. To avoid suffering for people in both countries, Bud- dha retreated to the forest, yielding his country to the invader. That sounds like pacificism, the view that it is always wrong to wage war. Do Buddhists conclude, from the example Buddha set in that situation, that it is better to yield to an invading force—even to an unjust invasion—than to resist, which would presumably mean attempting to kill as many of the invaders as possible? Is killing in war—even a just war—wrong? Is pacifism the most ethical position?
Chao-hwei: Here you have raised an unanswerable question. Without a doubt, the concept of nonkilling is core to the Buddha’s teaching. He did not encourage wars because killing is inevitable on the battlefields. However, wars are often unavoidable, even in the Buddha’s homeland of Kapilavastu. Later in his life, with skillful means, the Buddha prevented the city of Vaishali from being attacked by Magadha, a great empire in East India ruled by King Ajatashatru.
Before discussing the Buddha’s approach to pacifism further, allow me to recount the brief history of the warfare that exterminated the Buddha’s home country. Kosala was a huge empire in the middle north of India. Around the beginning of the sixth century b.c.e., Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, got lost when he went hunting with his retinue, unaware that he had entered the northern border of Kapilavastu, the capital of the Shakya clan. He stumbled upon a mansion that belonged to a Shakya nobleman, Mahanama. Vasabha Khattiya, a slave woman of Mahanama, found the hungry, thirsty, and exhausted King Pasenadi and took good care of him. The king fell in love with her (unaware of her real identity). Upon his return to Kosala, he proposed to Vasabha Khattiya. As Kapilavastu was a small country, it could not risk offending Kosala. However, it would be highly inappropriate to marry a low-caste slave woman to royalty due to the taboo imposed by the caste system in India. To close this caste gap, Mahanama adopted Vasabha Khattiya and married his “daughter” to King Pasenadi.
Both King Pasenadi and Vasabha Khattiya were devoted disciples of the Buddha. They had a son named Vidudabha. At a young age, Vidudabha paid a visit to his maternal grandpa’s house and sat mischievously on the main seat in the hall. Seeing that, people shouted at him, called him “a bastard son,” and claimed that he was not entitled to sit there. This shameful discomfiture enraged Prince Vidudabha, and he vowed to take vengeance against the Shakyas. After his enthronement, Vidudabha immediately sought revenge (and set out with a large army for Kapilavastu). Naturally, the Buddha hoped to protect his homeland. But instead of waging a war in the name of justice, he walked to the battlefield and sat under a tree with scanty shade. Vidudabha saw the Buddha, whom his parents revered, and promptly got off the horse to pay respect. He asked the Buddha why he sat under a tree with scanty shade and suffered from the exposure of the strong sun, to which the Buddha gently replied, “The shade of my kinsmen keeps me cool.” Vidudabha understood and returned home with his army.
Three times Vidudabha marched against the Shakyas, and three times he turned back due to the Buddha’s influence. Nevertheless, the shameful past kept haunting him. Driven by strong hatred and ill will, Vidudabha eventually invaded and massacred almost all the Shakyas.
“Pacifism has the opportunity to be the most ethical position.”
With this story, we learn that the Buddha was obviously anti war. Having compassion for all sentient beings, he did his best to oppose wars with reasonable persuasion and skillful means of influence. The catastrophic war I have described indicates that its violence was rooted in caste discrimination, which originated from Brahmins’ teachings. As a living example, the Buddha openly denounced caste discrimination and rejected the caste system in the sangha with the assertion that “people from all four castes are equal.”
Nonetheless, the caste system had been so ingrained in Indian society that the effects of reasonable persuasion and skillful means of influence were considerably limited. I believe the Buddha had clearly perceived the fundamental absurdity of this war and understood that caste discrimination should be addressed from the roots. Without this understanding, the vicious circle of retribution will simply continue like endless nightmares, even though they are in the name of justice.
So in answer to your question of whether Buddhists conclude, from the example the Buddha set in that situation, that it is better to yield to an invading force than to resist, I would reply that with his understanding of the cruelty of the battlefield, the Buddha tried his best to prevent wars. However, he did not dissuade Vaishali’s preparation of gathering more military resources to defend its country against Ajatashatru’s ambitious invasion. He understood that to raise military power in moderation may sometimes decrease the chance of warfare and maintain peace among nations while providing safety to civilians.
Furthermore, I believe the Buddha would not disagree if the defense guaranteed fewer casualties. Please note that the Buddha did not try to convince the Shakyas to surrender, but had he realized nondefense could reduce fatalities and attempting to defend themselves would do the opposite, he would probably have suggested surrender. (As previously mentioned, in one of his former incarnations, the Buddha was King Long-lifespan, who gave up his throne in order to avoid a cruel war that took place in his kingdom.) Therefore, avoiding casualties should be the main goal under the belief of pacifism. Any strategy of military force, defense, or negotiation should be based on this premise. With this understanding, it becomes clear that defense or nondefense are simply strategies, not the major principles to follow. The main goal, as emphasized here, should be reducing casualties. The increasing deaths resulting from a war cannot be justified by the goal of achieving justice. The assertion that killing is always wrong in a war would be an oversimplified principle when addressing a complicated subject like warfare.
Hence, in response to your question of whether pacifism is the most ethical position, I believe that pacifism cannot be represented by inaction and indifference to the collateral damage caused by invasions. That would show a lack of empathy. Not only does such apathy make pacifism look like taking an ambiguous stance to war, but it also encourages invaders to wage devastating wars without any concern, which completely deviates from the purpose of pacifism. Pacifism has the opportunity to be the most ethical position. However, it can only be effective when one makes a careful judgment based on the principles of the Middle Way in each and every unique circumstance.
Singer: Thank you once again for a very clear account of the Buddhist position. It seems that here the Buddhist view and utilitarian view are similar. Neither takes pacifism as grounds for an absolute prohibition on maintaining a defensive force or, if necessary, using it, even to the point of killing invading forces. Instead, both Buddhism and utilitarianism look at what you describe as the purpose of pacifism, that is, to preserve peace whenever possible and minimize casualties on all sides.
It has been a productive day but also a long one. Shall we draw our dialogue to a close at this point?
Chao-hwei: Thank you very much. I am very happy that we could have a wonderful dialogue here. Through the brainstorming process, some rare and precious wisdom arose, and I am grateful for that. There is a Buddhist practice that after we enjoy a wisdom exchange, we say, “Good. Good. Good.” In Chinese, it’s “Shan-tzai. Shan-tzai. Shan-tzai,” and in Sanskrit, it’s “Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu.” Then we are delighted to share the joy of discovering truth (joy of dharma) with all other sentient beings. May all beings attain the joys they seek in accordance with their needs and capacities.
Share
PETER SINGER, the “father of the modern animal welfare movement,” was named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine. An Australian philosopher and professor of bioethics, he has contributed to more than 50 books in over 30 languages. Singer is founder of The Life You Can Save nonprofit and a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Visit his website to learn more.
SHIH CHAO-HWEI is a Buddhist monastic, social activist, scholar, and recent winner of the Niwano Peace Prize. A leading advocate for animal rights, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, and a key figure in the Buddhist gender equality movement, she is also a professor at Hsuan Chuang University and the founder of Hong Shih Buddhist College.