Red Lines, Sīla - Third Ethical Maxim
Original source: satipanya.org.uk
This essay examines the third of six ethical maxims for preparing for climate change consequences: establishing personal 'red lines' - absolute boundaries we vow never to cross regardless of temptation. Noirin Sheahan explores the tension between Buddhist pacifism rooted in the first precept (not harming living beings) and the complex ethical decisions we may face when basic resources become scarce due to climate change.
The essay draws on Elizabeth Harris's research into violence in early Buddhist texts and Bhante Bodhidhamma's teachings on armed intervention, distinguishing between force (energy to correct wrongs) and violence (force motivated by ill-will). Key considerations include defending vulnerable household members, the karmic consequences of harmful actions, and the crucial role of motivation in ethical decision-making.
The piece addresses practical scenarios such as defending against intruders when resources are scarce, considering the circumstances of climate refugees, and the wisdom of establishing clear ethical boundaries before crisis situations arise. The author reflects on age-appropriate red lines and emphasizes the urgent need to practice maintaining ethical boundaries now, while we have clarity of mind, as preparation for potentially difficult future circumstances when clear thinking may be compromised by illness or hunger.
The third of thesix maxims suggested to fortify ourselves for the consequences of climate changeasks us to draw our red lines. What is it we vownotto do, no matter how great the temptation?Buddhist ethics stands on the five precepts, the first of which asks us not to harm living beings. As climate change brings destitution and basic resources become scarce, violent conflict will become common. Defending our few remaining possessions against an intruder, what red line do we pledge never to cross?A pacifist chooses death by starvation rather than physically attack the intruder. But what if our household includes children or vulnerable adults? In herenquiry into the ethics of vioence in early Buddhist texts,Elizabeth Harris writes:The person who feels violence is justified to protect the lives of others has … to remember that he is risking grave [karmic] consequences for himself in that his action will inevitably bear fruit … Such a person needs to evaluate motives … yet might still judge that the risks are worth facing to prevent a greater evil.Bhante’sessay on armed interventionargues against pacifism as an absolute stance. He points out that amongst the hundreds of rules that govern monastic life, there is none against self-defence. When Sharon Salzberg told her teacher Munindra-ji about being attacked by a drunken man, he said “Oh Sharon, you should have hit that man over the headwith all the compassion in your heart!” It is the motivation that counts. Where there is only a choice between evils, kindness demands that we prevent the greater evil. The Dalai Lama said that to prevent a mass-murder, he would shoot the attacker, not to kill but to disable, prevent them killing.Bhante’s essay distinguishes between force and violence. Force is the energy needed to put right what is wrong, violence is the same laced with some form of ill-will. Again, it is the motivation that counts and also the clarity to judge right from wrong.That clarity will be very hard to find amidst widespread poverty and starvation. Who knows how many children the intruder needs to feed? If they were a climate refugee, homeless, stateless because our affluence has made their land uninhabitable, should we not willingly give them our provisions?Because it will be so difficult to judge whether harming another is the lesser evil, I can see the wisdom of preparing red lines e.g. pledging never to use violence except to defend an immediate attack on my life or the life of someone who depends on me. The line could also be drawn at a higher level. Already close on 70, I will be very elderly if and when things deteriorate to this level; the red line could be taking any food once it becomes so scarce as to threaten lives of younger people; after all it is they, not me, who could allow civilisation, including the Buddha-Dhamma, to survive.Whatever red lines we draw, it will be a challenge to keep them in a dangerous situation when we may well be ill or famished and have little capacity for clear thought. There is an urgent need to start practicing this maxim now. To this end, I’ve set myself some red lines (simple ones but a challenge to habitual desire) as preparation for next month’s tip on practicing with this maxim.