Killing for Self Protection
The Buddha has advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts
this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a person's
life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out
of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who
practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune. However, man
loves his life so much that he is not prepared to surrender himself to others;
in actual practice, most people would struggle for self-protection. It is natural
and every living being struggles and kills others for self-protection but kammic
effect depends on their mental attitude. During the struggle to protect himself,
if he happens to kill his opponent although he has no intention to kill, then
he is not responsible for that action. On the other hand, if he kills another
person under any circumstances with the intention to kill, then he is not free
from the kammic reaction; he has to face the consequences. We must remember
that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it murder. When we
punish man for murdering, we call it 'capital punishment'. If our own soldiers
are killed by an enemy we call it 'slaughter'. However, if we approve a killing,
we call it war. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we
can understand that killing is killing.
In recent years many scientists and some religionists have used the expressions
like 'humane killing', 'mercy killing', 'gentle killing' and 'painless killing'
to justify the ending of a life. They argue that if the victim feels no pain,
if the knife is sharp, killing is justified. Buddhism can never accept these
arguments because it is not how the killing occurs that is important, but the
fact that a life of one being is terminated by another. No one has any right
to do that for whatever reason.