Abstract
This essay addresses social responsibility regarding the issue of healthcare from a Buddhist perspective. Traditionally, Buddhism is viewed as a contemplative religion which focuses on a solitary quest for emancipation and spiritual advancement rather than active engagement in the world or a social movement. The question now is how to bring Buddhism into conversation with the current debate on social responsibility and healthcare based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The discussion of the essay includes Buddhist concepts of karma, dharma, and compassion and the interpretation of these concepts to respond to relevant issues under the debate, particularly in terms of the Western ideas of human rights, equality, and social justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The example of Buddhist social responsibility is the welfare state created by the Buddhist King Ashoka (274–236B.C.E.). It is a popular view in Buddhist scholarship that Buddhism arose in India as a spiritual force against social injustices and inequality. It denounced India’s caste system and advocated the equality of all men and emancipated woman, giving them complete spiritual freedom. Also, in Aggañña Sutta, the 27th Digha Nikaya (Collection of Long Discourses), there is a long passage where the Buddha criticizes the caste system. Nevertheless, Buddhism as a whole did not emerge as a social philosophy, neither a social religion in comparison to other religions like Christianity.
- 2.
See Karl Potter (2001 p. 231). Although the essay focuses on the Hindu tradition, the same thing can be applied to Buddhist teachings.
- 3.
Quoted from David Loy—Reproduction interdite (February/March 2004). http://www.zen-occidental.net/articles1/loy12-english.html (2/10/2015)
- 4.
Cited from http://buddhism.about.com/b/2014/01/20/collective-karma.htm (2/10/2015).
- 5.
Yet I am not suggesting that Buddhism cannot categorically develop a form of social teaching or movement that is similar to liberation theology (one stemming from Catholic roots) and the Social Gospel movement coming out of Protestantism at the turn of the century. Socially engaged Buddhism has done similar things in recent decades.
- 6.
See Loy, “What’s Buddhist about Socially Engaged Buddhism.”
- 7.
Compassion (karuna), loving-kindness (metta), sympathetic (muttita), and equanimity (upekkha) are called “four noble states of mind” in early Buddhism.
- 8.
Thirty Taiwanese established Tzu Chi charitable organization in 1996, by setting aside part of their daily housekeeping money. It has since grown into one of Taiwan’s largest philanthropic organizations. It now claims to have ten million volunteers globally and support charitable work overseas through its branches in 38 countries.
- 9.
Another example of socially engaged Buddhism is the Tiep Hien Order (also known as “the Order of Interbeing”) founded in Vietnam in 1964 during the war. It derives from the Linji school (臨濟宗) of the Zen/Chan tradition in China. The words “tiep” and “hien” have several meanings. “Tiep” means to be “in touch with” and “to continue.” “Hien” means “to realize” and “to make it here and now.” (See Thich Nhat Hanh, 1987, p. 11.) Other examples in Asia include the International Network of Engaged Buddhists based in Thailand (founded 1989) and the Sarvodaya (“Awakening of All”) in Sri Lanka (starting in the 1950s). For more information on socially engaged Buddhist movements, see Queen (1996).
- 10.
In my previous essay on Buddhism and human rights, I have pointed out that since Buddhism speaks of a shared human experience, the issue that may bother Buddhism regarding the language of rights is The notion of individualism, or to be more exactly, an atomic notion of individualism (in Charles Taylor’s words) embedded in the very idea of human rights. Although people talk about collective rights, that is, the rights of a particular group or community (such as children’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights), the idea of human rights, whether positive or negative, is based on free-standing individuals and individual autonomy. See Zhang (2014a). In his article “The Concept of Equality in the Theravada Buddhist Tradition,” Padmasiri de Silva discusses the ongoing debate on Buddhism’s concept of equality and human rights, and contends that the Buddhist way of looking at the issue is of equality different. He maintains that one should examine the concept of equality by looking at the reciprocal relationship of people in various social positions. See the essay in Zhang (2014b).
- 11.
In fact, Dalai Lama has even adopted the term “universal responsibility” or “global responsibility” in order to emphasize a nonsectarian approach to world problems humanity is facing today. See Dalai Lama in his speech “Universal Responsibility and the Good Heart” in Dharamsala (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives), 1096.
- 12.
In his well-known book, Just Health Care (1985), Daniels’ claim that all individuals are entitled to a decent minimum of healthcare services rests on two basic arguments: (1) a robust commitment to equality of opportunity (construed in a Rawlsian manner) that recognizes that good health is especially important in realizing most species-typical life plans, and (2) healthcare services are specially strategic in achieving improved health status. As such, it goes along with the UDB’s statement “the promotion of health and social development for their people is a central purpose of governments that all sectors of society share.” In his later work, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (2007), Daniels has toned down his original statement a little bit by saying that a principled account of justice in Rawls’ work requires a new perspective on a fair process for setting limits to healthcare. Yet, his major argument remains the same. Here, Daniels identifies “health” with “healthcare,” which he interprets as requiring universal access, and benefit-sharing as distributive justice.
- 13.
- 14.
For instance, Walpola Rahula argues that “Buddhism arose in India as a spiritual force against social injustices, against degrading superstitious rites, ceremonies and sacrifices; it denounced the tyranny of the caste system and advocated the equality of all men; it emancipated woman and gave her complete spiritual freedom” (Rahula, 1978).
- 15.
For more information on this issue, see Ven. S. Dhammika’s (1994).
- 16.
It should be pointed out that, from the early tradition, Buddhism does not see dāna as only material gifts, it can be spiritual gifts, that is, to offer the practice of precepts and wisdom to make better choices in life. This notion is connected to the Buddhist teaching of combining compassion with wisdom.
- 17.
But some people today would question if being committed to aiding the poor and vulnerable is equivalent to being committed to using government force to compel everyone in society to be charitable, that is, to make gift-giving obligatory. This question has not been an issue debated in Buddhist tradition.
- 18.
On several occasions, Dalai Lama claimed that he considered himself a Marxist. He said, “The economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis ... as well as the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and [it] cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons, the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.” Citation is from Ed Halliwell’s article “Of Course, Dalai Lama’s a Marxist” in The Guardian, June 20, 2011. Nevertheless, the Buddhist idea of freedom as minimizing non-volitionally caused suffering, whether in mind or body, is still not the same thing as what has been advocated in Marxism.
- 19.
Some ethicists in the West are skeptical about any argument that connects the language of rights and the principle of justice to healthcare. For instance, according to H. T. Engelhardt, Jr., the biggest problem of a state-controlled, single-tiered system, if one argues from the principle of utility, is that it can hardly maintain a healthcare system as it has usually promised, namely, (1) a decent equal care, (2) the same menu, (3) unlimited choices (for both patients and doctors), (4) cost controlling within manageable limits, and (5) no need for individual/family savings and fiscal responsibility (Engelhardt 2007, 27–45).
- 20.
I understand that in reality, it is difficult to implement such policies without dealing with difficult questions related to individual freedom and patients’ autonomy. It will be a problem anyone demands equal medical treatment from the government, yet no one welcomes coercive measures from the government to promote responsible behaviors.
References
Chatterjee, Satis C. 1960. Fundamentals of Hinduism. Calcutta: Das Gupta.
Dalai Lama. 1976. Universal Responsibility and the Good Heart. In Dharamsala (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives).
Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, Norman. 1998. Distributive justice and the use of summary measures of population health services. In Summarizing population health: Directions for the development and population metrics, ed. Institute of Medicine Committee on Summary Measures of Population Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Dhammika’s, Ven. S. 1994. The edicts of King Ashoka. Berkeley: Dharma Net International.
Engelhardt, H.T., Jr. 2007. The family in transition and in authority: The impact of biotechnology. In The family, medical decision-making and biotechnology, philosophy and medicine series, ed. Shui Chuen Lee, vol. 91. New York: Springer.
Garfield, Jay L. 1998. Human rights and compassion: Towards a unified moral framework. In Buddhism and human rights. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Keown, Damien, et al., eds. 2000. Buddhism and human rights. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Keown, Damien. 2005. Buddhist ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kragh, Ulrich Timme. 2006. Early Buddhist Theories of Action and Result: A Study of Karmaphalasambandha, Candrakirti’s Prasannapada, verses 17.1–20, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.
Loy, David R. “What’s Buddhist about Socially Engaged Buddhism.” http://www.zen-occidental.net/articles1/loy12-english.html.
Potter, Karl. 2001. How many karma theories are there? Journal of Indian Philosophy 20.
Queen, Christopher S. 1996. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist liberation movements in Asia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rahula, Walpola. 1978. Zen and the taming of the bull: Essays. London: Gordon Fraser.
Thich Nhat Hanh. 1987. Being peace. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Zhang, Ellen Y. 2014a. On human rights and freedom in bioethics: A philosophical inquiry in light of Buddhism. Studia Bioethica II.
Zhang, Ellen Y. 2014b. Equality and the religious traditions of Asia. London: Frances Pinter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhang, E.Y. (2018). Karma, Compassion, and Dharma: A Buddhist Perspective on Social Responsibility and Healthcare—A Reflection in Light of Buddhism. In: Tham, J., Durante, C., García Gómez, A. (eds) Religious Perspectives on Social Responsibility in Health . Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71849-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71849-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71848-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71849-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)