Buddhism/suicide/sanctity of life issues

[Denny Crane!]

I was planning to write a wall of text on this for about three months now. In the absence of my motivation I decided to make a post which would spur me into action and at the same time garner the thoughts of the community.

In the light of incidents where buddhist monks set themselves on fire, and euthanasia is a hot topic, are either acceptable. Is abortion acceptable in the realm of samsara morality? Is suicide acceptable?

I will add to this but I need this for motivation.

[Chaigidel]

It all comes back to the question of suffering and the increase or decrease in the overall system of life --- If a monk feels by an act of self sacrifice like the monk setting fire to himself in protest to vietnam, perhaps he justifies it by his act becoming a path of awareness to peace ( or something like that in the particular persons eyes) or a way for less suffering to come about in the world -- if the monk sought this from a particularly pious perspective.

and to buddhism especially the individual is not important, this adds to the ability for acts such as this, if your willing to repeat yourself so to speak.

[eventhorizen]

Suicide is a choice by the individual in question, abortion is not.

Irrespective of religious beliefs or political, legal, ethical persuasion the two things are not the same thing.

With this in mind, what right does anyone have to question a decision to commit suicide that does not physically harm another individual, taken by someone who has dedicated their entire life to observation and thought?

I am my own master, and master of no one else. If I decide it is time to die, having contemplated the issue calmly and carefully, then die is what I should be allowed to do.

[Irishman]

Abortion can be argued as ending a life, what is nice about Buddhism is that every life is sacred, not just humans, so this strengthens the argument against it.

Suicide is another story though. Suicide has many reasons, and is culturally sensitive. I find it interesting that eventhorizon completely ignores the mental suffering caused by a generally selfish actions like suicide.

There are, however, many parables in which the Buddha, as an animal gives of his body to feed a hungry tiger, or other animal.

Both issues are very controversial and I do not wish to make a definite claim on either, what I will say is that in Buddhism, what matters is living mindfully. Make these judgments with full mindfulness as to the harm and suffering your actions cause and this will prevent, as far as possible, causing unnecessary suffering.

[eventhorizen]

I find it interesting that Irishman would completely ignore the fact we are discussing Buddhists which implies an individual who has lead a life of minimal attachment and influence on others, and has come to this decision through "living mindfully".

If one is incapable or refuses to take into consideration the mental suffering of others, and the motivations behind a course of action, then I wonder what the Buddha would have to say on the ability of this individual to make decisions.

[Irishman]

I find it interesting that Irishman would completely ignore the fact we are discussing Buddhists which implies an individual who has lead a life of minimal attachment and influence on others, and has come to this decision through "living mindfully".

What? If you read my post you would see that I didn't take a side.

Also, if you knew anything about Buddhist living you would know that the lack of attachment comes from mindful and compassionate living, one of the eightfold path.

Try to understand things before you mock my points.

If one is incapable or refuses to take into consideration the mental suffering of others, and the motivations behind a course of action, then I wonder what the Buddha would have to say on the ability of this individual to make decisions.

If you do not take into consideration the mental suffering of others (in Buddhism mental suffering is far worse than physical) then you are not acting compassionately or according to the eightfold path and will only cause suffering to others and yourself.

It is a selfish position to take.

[eventhorizen]

As you seem to be rejecting the validity of the choice to end ones own life taken by those commited to a life of meditation, I take it therefore that it is your position that suicide is somehow "wrong" irrespective of any factors.

I did not ignore the "mental suffering caused to others" in my first post, but others may not equate "thinking that includes the suffering of others" with "having contemplated the issue calmly and carefully". That is hardly a fault that can be attributed to me, only to the reader, as I cannot be expected to anticipate all interpretations, and to deal with each possible interpretation equally.

It is a selfish position to take.

When you find a position that is fundamentally and truthfully different, do let me know.

[Denny Crane!]

Suicide is a choice by the individual in question, abortion is not.

Irrespective of religious beliefs or political, legal, ethical persuasion the two things are not the same thing.

Yes I realised this would be a multi faceted thread and should perhaps have split it up and did not intend to draw parallels between the two.

With this in mind, what right does anyone have to question a decision to commit suicide that does not physically harm another individual, taken by someone who has dedicated their entire life to observation and thought?

I am my own master, and master of no one else. If I decide it is time to die, having contemplated the issue calmly and carefully, then die is what I should be allowed to do.

I think this is a reasoned line of thought. If it is a rational decision, especially in the face of a hopeless agonising death then it is a perfectly acceptable decision.

In the case of the monks who would commit suicide for political impact or reasons, I am not sure I can declare that a rational decision but seems to me to be in the same mindset of a suicide bomber but without the malelovence and divine motivations.

Abortion can be argued as ending a life, what is nice about Buddhism is that every life is sacred, not just humans, so this stregthens the argument against it.

Abortion hinges on the issue of whether or not a foetus is a life of course and unless a reductionist course is taken cannot be seen as a karmically advanced being that is considered a human. While respect for life is paramount it is certain that respect is not spread equally.

Alternatively you also have to consider suffering, that a child identified as having one of a few rare (but not rare enough) diseases that will cause the child to have an extremely short life time would be unneccessarily cruel. In some cases we can consider a short life to be as little as 3 months spent entirely in pain. Similarly when the child would risk both its own and mothers life, can you consider this a possible reason for abortion.

I would suggest that human life does not exist until all the skhandas are in place, that a foetus is not a human and not subject to the same protection. At least in the early stages.

Furthermore Buddhism 2500 years ago did not have to deal with the complex moral issues of bioethics and as such I think the doctrine to be truly buddhist has to evolve and I think buddhism is the antithesis of monotheistic dogmatism and reverence of strict rules, I think there is scriptural evidence that evolution is a strong part of buddhism.

Buddhism has its origin in the rejection of any notion of souls . . . that souls cast spells . . . Of course we who are Buddhists will hold to the end that a fetus is "life." No matter what kind of conditions make abortion necessary we cannot completely justify it. But to us it is not just fetuses; all forms of life deserve our respect. We may not turn them into our private possessions. Animals too. Even rice and wheat shares in life's sanctity. Nevertheless as long as we are alive it is necessary for us to go on "taking" the lives of various kinds of such beings. Even in the context of trying to rectify the contradictions and inequalities in our society, we sometimes remove from our bodies that which is the life potential of infants. We women need to bring this out as one of society's problems, but at the same time it needs to be said that the life of all humans is full of things that cannot be whitewashed over. Life is full of wounds and woundings. In Japan, however, there is always the danger of mindless religion. There are also lots of movements that are anti-modern and they are tangled up with the resurgence of concern about the souls of the dead.

One of the most important precepts of buddhism is compassionate action. The sanctity of life, the prohibition of taking life like much I think rests on the motivations behind the actions. That a better phrase would be intentional killing, and when the sole motivation is the ending of a sentient life that action cannot be considered right. If the action is a compassionate action, taken with a full consideration of the moral implications and the judgement is not clouded by other motivations then some actions can be taken. When you start distinguishing between harm and suffering that the presentient life could present to sentient lives, families and communities then such an action can be considered compassionate.

I think ultimately if actions are always taken with the right motivations, that compassion and judgement are used astutely you are justified in making such actions.

Irishman:

what matters is living mindfully. Make these judgements with full mindfullness as to the harm and suffering your actions cause and this will prevent, as far as possible, causing unecessary suffering.

Suicide is another story though. Suicide has many reasons, and is culturally sensitive. I find it interesting that eventhorizon completely ignores the mental suffering caused by a generally selfish actions like suicide.

That is something that should also be taken into account. With what I said above, I think its important to distinguish between different types of suicide. An important one is the voluntary ending of ones life, and the voluntary ending of ones life in the face of terminal illness.

There are, however, many parables in which the Buddha, as an animal gives of his body to feed a hungry tiger, or other animal.

Both issues are very controversial and I do not wish to make a definite claim on either, what I will say is that in Buddhism, what matters is living mindfully. Make these judgements with full mindfullness as to the harm and suffering your actions cause and this will prevent, as far as possible, causing unecessary suffering.

Heh I tried to say that above and garbled it. Replaced.

I find it interesting that Irishman would completely ignore the fact we are discussing Buddhists which implies an individual who has lead a life of minimal attachment and influence on others, and has come to this decision through "living mindfully".

Thats a bit of a misinterpretation of buddhism. If you are truly buddhist then you should be closer to your family than most, closer to your friends. Its not about distancing yourself from anything you could get attached to its about not letting attachments rule you, about not being attached to ideas and concepts or attached to who you think people are but to accept things for what they really are. That includes your friends and family which should in reality not distance yourself but make you closer.

You should always consider the harm your actions may cause. Even if indirectly through relationships.

If one is incapable or refuses to take into consideration the mental suffering of others, and the motivations behind a course of action, then I wonder what the Buddha would have to say on the ability of this individual to make decisions.

What? If you read my post you would see that I didn't take a side.

Also, if you knew anything about Buddhist living you would know that the lack of attachment comes from mindful and compassionate living, one of the eightfold path.

Try to understand things before you mock my points.



If you do not take into consideration the mental suffering of others (in Buddhism mental suffering is far worse than physical) then you are not acting compassionately or according to the eightfold path and will only cause suffering to others and yourself.

It is a selfish position to take.

As you seem to be rejecting the validity of the choice to end ones own life taken by those commited to a life of meditation, I take it therefore that it is your position that suicide is somehow "wrong" irrespective of any factors.

I would say that you would have to weigh your motivations in taking your life against the harm it would cause, if your motivations are good then it may still be a valid choice and should be easy to explain to loved ones and understanding reached.

[basics]

I have always accepted, even when not a Christian, that when your time is up it will be so regardless of how you finish it. Since then, and being a Christian, I now believe that God brings you into this world when the breath of life is able to support the child without the aid of the mother, even outside medical aid.

Now when people say that life is sacred that raises many questions that don't quite fit anywhere. For example is life, meaning all life, sacred all of the time? Or is it only man that is sacred all of the time? Now I ask this because no-one can be sacred for part of the time and not sacred for another part.

Plus, my belief tells me that none are sacred, the reason being the fall of man, and why all men need something more than our nature to be sacred again. Yet some " Christians " claim life is sacred so I ask at what point then does it become sacred if we are all bound by the fall? That is, in the eyes of God we are anything but sacred.

When does what is inside fallen woman become sacred? And when does the sperm of fallen man become sacred? Is it union of both? Or, is it when the foetus is able to support itself quite apart from the supporting mother? Yet again there is support from Scripture that tells us children of regenerate parents are covered by those parents and that as far as I can see is the only way children can be sacred.

As for ending one's life the problem begins, to me, again at the fall of man, where it is said that all men must die, how they die is judgement since only God depicts the time and place for any death. Does it therefore matter if fallen man takes his own life as against someone else doing it? And if man was sacred why take his life at all?

[Irishman]

When you find a position that is fundamentally and truthfully different, do let me know.

How about the opposite, caring about other's suffering both mental and physical.

As you seem to be rejecting the validity of the choice to end ones own life taken by those committed to a life of meditation, I take it therefore that it is your position that suicide is somehow "wrong" irrespective of any factors.

That is patently false. I said that situations and context matter more than anything.

I never made the claim that suicide is wrong in all contexts, I made the claim that not considering the effect of your suicide on others, and placing that suffering higher than your own, is not a conscientious way to contemplate the ending of one's life.

[Irishman]

Irishman:

what matters is living mindfully. Make these judgements with full mindfullness as to the harm and suffering your actions cause and this will prevent, as far as possible, causing unecessary suffering.

Overall it was a great post, and I agree Seneca, but I have a question about this? Were you meaning to quote me, agreeing or what?

I do agree though, that with suicide, the context is too important to make a generalized assumption.

I also agree that abortion is generally viewed as harmful (taking of a life) and I feel this way, but I do not support the banning of the practice by governments. I don't necessarily support it, but I don't disagree either, it is a hard issue.

[Denny Crane!]

Overall it was a great post, and I agree Seneca, but I have a question about this? Were you meaning to quote me, agreeing or what?

I do agree though, that with suicide, the context is too important to make a generalized assumption.

I also agree that abortion is generally viewed as harmful (taking of a life) and I feel this way, but I do not support the banning of the practice by governments. I don't necessarily support it, but I don't disagree either, it is a hard issue.

I struck through what I wrote, because you phrased it so much better. I'm anything but eloquent

Abortion viewed in the light of your quote is acceptable I feel though obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the UK has pretty much the right approach, with the exception of the abortions it allows are generally to late and those should only be considered in exceptional health risk situations to the mother.

From an anecdotal personal perspective the only people I know who had an abortion did so after much soul searching and heartache and it was perhaps the biggest hardest decision in their life. I would hope it is a decision no one would make lightly.

[Amorphos]

we are our own masters and we are also part of a community. we ‘belong’ to a family where we may have dependent children, so my first question is to ask;

1. you have been brought with much effort by your parents, can you not afford the same to your own children? so committing suicide affects others it is not purely personal, someone may love you very much inc your partner etc.

2. will you still feel the same in ten years time? suicide in teenagers is a terrible thing imho, do they know what is best for them [as compared to knowing after years more of life experience]? is it an emotional problem due to age and changes [hormonal and mental]?

life is sacred:
1. the condition of life is also sacred? so if giving birth is going to damage your life then abortion is perhaps acceptable.
2. if we have many children we over populate an already crowded planet. more people = more resources. sure there is contraception, but young teenagers may not use it due to societal conditions, or it may have failed.
3. to make it illegal would improve the situation?

i do feel that abortion is often taken a bit lightly, one of my ex-girlfriends done it without realising the dramatic effect it would have on her emotionally. then 6 months later she changed her mind and had another child! it should only be allowed under extreme conditions, i also think the fathers should have a say, it is their child too!

may i remind you all of our ancient past where people would give themselves up to human sacrifice [like the druids did in extreme circumstances][and greeks and romans from what i can tell]. isn’t burning yourself alive exactly the same?

i think we have to say it is not ok even if in some circumstances it is, otherwise some may think they have justification for it and do it. perhaps there are no justifiable reasons to do such a thing ~ i can think of none.

[chriscase]

I was planning to write a wall of text on this for about three months now. In the absence of my motivation I decided to make a post which would spur me into action and at the same time garner the thoughts of the community.

In the light of incidents where buddhist monks set themselves on fire, and euthanasia is a hot topic, are either acceptable. Is abortion acceptable in the realm of samsara morality? Is suicide acceptable?

I will add to this but I need this for motivation.

I am trying to keep a tally of all the issues here.

1) Suicide in a Western context.
2) Suicide in an Eastern (are we talking Buddhist only?) context.
3) Euthanasia in a Western context.
4) Abortion in an Eastern context.

Did I miss any?

Regarding (1), I personally believe that the taking of sentient life is an act of supreme arrogance. I suppose it is my Augustinian tendency showing. So, if the taking of a sentient life is an act of supreme arrogance, what entitles me to take my own life any more than I would be entitled to take another's? The reality that society has vouchsafed my life into my own keeping hardly entitles me to abuse that trust.

Now I will grant that there are "edge" cases where the choice is between a painless death now and months of excruciating pain before an inevitable death. And perhaps this is where the difference between hypocrisy and moral cowardice comes into play. I made a thread about that which seems to have bombed. I find it preferable to admit under some circumstances that I could not live up to my own moral standards, rather than to adjust my moral standards to suit the way I live. So I will say that even in those edge cases, I believe the taking of sentient life is supremely arrogant, but as a practical matter, I would probably be a hypocrite and act to end suffering.

So my take on (3) should be fairly obvious. In purely moral terms, I oppose it, although under certain circumstances I would probably fail to live up to those standards. However, when it comes to social policy, an additional layer of concern enters the equation. Under what circumstances should we sanction the taking of sentient life by society? That is a different, and more problematic question. Enter (5):

5) The death penalty in a Western context.

[Denny Crane!]

I am trying to keep a tally of all the issues here.

1) Suicide in a Western context.
2) Suicide in an Eastern (are we talking Buddhist only?) context.
3) Euthanasia in a Western context.
4) Abortion in an Eastern context.

Did I miss any?

Sounds about right.

Regarding (1), I personally believe that the taking of sentient life is an act of supreme arrogance. I suppose it is my Augustinian tendency showing. So, if the taking of a sentient life is an act of supreme arrogance, what entitles me to take my own life any more than I would be entitled to take another's? The reality that society has vouchsafed my life into my own keeping hardly entitles me to abuse that trust.

There is a rather large difference between forcible removal and violation of anothers rights and right to life and what you can do voluntarily with your own actions unto yourself. Its a rather large leap of judgement to equate not killing of others to killing yourself.

You speak of life as though it were some valuable gem entrusted to you by society. When in fact if society were to not prevent you from doing what you will that is them allowing you freedom. It doesn't come with caveats. Society is not there to trust you with what is yours, the government doesn't have to trust me with my money, its my money not theirs. Getting political for a moment it sounds almost like your arguement portrays society as the benefactor rather than the result.

Now I will grant that there are "edge" cases where the choice is between a painless death now and months of excruciating pain before an inevitable death. And perhaps this is where the difference between hypocrisy and moral cowardice comes into play. I made a thread about that which seems to have bombed. I find it preferable to admit under some circumstances that I could not live up to my own moral standards, rather than to adjust my moral standards to suit the way I live. So I will say that even in those edge cases, I believe the taking of sentient life is supremely arrogant, but as a practical matter, I would probably be a hypocrite and act to end suffering.

Surely if one way causes less suffering and pain then it cannot be construed as wrong.

Arrogant

exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

It is not overestimating ones own importance, or arrogant to want to end your life rather than die in excruciating pain. Unless you believe in sin and the damnation of the soul there is absolutely no reason one should suffer unneccessarily.

In fact to turn your position on its head, it is supremely arrogant to assume life is so important that you must suffer so to extend it by a few measly months.

So my take on (3) should be fairly obvious. In purely moral terms, I oppose it, although under certain circumstances I would probably fail to live up to those standards. However, when it comes to social policy, an additional layer of concern enters the equation. Under what circumstances should we sanction the taking of sentient life by society? That is a different, and more problematic question. Enter (5):

5) The death penalty in a Western context.

Never without fail. Though it becomes tricky when prisoners who are doomed to spend the rest of their lives in prison create a petition saying they wish to be allowed to die, as happened. I can't practically see voluntary self induced euthanasia ever being allowed in prison for lifers.

[chriscase]

There is a rather large difference between forcible removal and violation of another's rights and right to life and what you can do voluntarily with your own actions unto yourself. Its a rather large leap of judgment to equate not killing of others to killing yourself.

You speak of life as though it were some valuable gem entrusted to you by society. When in fact if society were to not prevent you from doing what you will that is them allowing you freedom. It doesn't come with caveats. Society is not there to trust you with what is yours, the government doesn't have to trust me with my money, its my money not theirs. Getting political for a moment it sounds almost like your argument portrays society as the benefactor rather than the result.

Surely if one way causes less suffering and pain then it cannot be construed as wrong.

Arrogant

exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

It is not overestimating ones own importance, or arrogant to want to end your life rather than die in excruciating pain. Unless you believe in sin and the damnation of the soul there is absolutely no reason one should suffer unnecessarily.

In fact to turn your position on its head, it is supremely arrogant to assume life is so important that you must suffer so to extend it by a few measly months.

In Augustinian terms, I believe the argument would be that the judgment of what life is worth saving and what life is not, and what constitutes mercy, would all be God's. In the act of assuming that role for oneself, the sin of pride takes over and makes the act immoral. I'm sure he put it more eloquently. If I have time, I will add some quotes.

Now, I am not actually religious, but I do think there is valuable psychological and moral insight to be had in this perspective. In more modern terms, who am I to say that there is no benefit to be had, overall, from my suffering or someone else's? Perhaps something truly valuable to myself or someone else would result from it. To assume I know the ultimate results of such suffering is, I believe, more than I can safely assert.

As to the role of "society" in my argument, I suppose it more or less takes the place of Augustine's God, except when I don't like it.

"Society" in this case would be the ultimate collective good. Who am I to remove a life that might, in some way unknown to me, still have something to offer to that collective good? To take it upon myself to remove that life, whether it's mine or another's, damages the potential of the collective. This is what I mean by "arrogance."

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that a specific decision, like legislation to enact capital punishment, truly represents that "collective good," since the legislation is produced and passed into law by fallible human beings. So I hold up "the collective good" as an ideal to strive toward, not an assumed property of some actual social institution.

[Denny Crane!]

In Augustinian terms, I believe the argument would be that the judgment of what life is worth saving and what life is not, and what constitutes mercy, would all be God's. In the act of assuming that role for oneself, the sin of pride takes over and makes the act immoral. I'm sure he put it more eloquently. If I have time, I will add some quotes.

I can't see any logic in that viewpoint unfortunately. The logic fails at the moment you lay morality at some object which is indefinable. We cannot know the morality of euthanasia in gods view since we can't know god. Morality must be what makes sense here relative to here.

Now, I am not actually religious, but I do think there is valuable psychological and moral insight to be had in this perspective. In more modern terms, who am I to say that there is no benefit to be had, overall, from my suffering or someone else's? Perhaps something truly valuable to myself or someone else would result from it. To assume I know the ultimate results of such suffering is, I believe, more than I can safely assert.

Perhaps maybe could. Platitudes with little actual meaning. If you are in your last week of terminal cancer and the pain is about to become unmanagable palliative care will practically do the job for you by overdosing you on morphine but more to the point its something doctors have seen time and time again.

From a christian perspective (at least some christians perspective who have a problem with this arguement) its a sin because of gods law, not because its of use. God gave life making life sacred, and it is a sin to take it. If you remove god (as is logical) and view the decision purely in terms of compassion then it begins to make more sense.

As to the role of "society" in my argument, I suppose it more or less takes the place of Augustine's God, except when I don't like it.

"Society" in this case would be the ultimate collective good. Who am I to remove a life that might, in some way unknown to me, still have something to offer to that collective good? To take it upon myself to remove that life, whether it's mine or another's, damages the potential of the collective. This is what I mean by "arrogance."

What if it would end the mothers life? It is surely arrogant to think you have the right to decide between one or another by making ones life a moral imperative and another not so much.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that a specific decision, like legislation to enact capital punishment, truly represents that "collective good," since the legislation is produced and passed into law by fallible human beings. So I hold up "the collective good" as an ideal to strive toward, not an assumed property of some actual social institution.

It is fallibility that is the ultimate arguement against capital punishment.

[chriscase]

I can't see any logic in that viewpoint unfortunately. The logic fails at the moment you lay morality at some object which is indefinable. We cannot know the morality of euthanasia in gods view since we can't know god. Morality must be what makes sense here relative to here.

I did try to address this in an edit of my last post. I admit removal of God creates a vacuum, but I do not propose the substitution of either ego or society for it.

Perhaps maybe could. Platitudes with little actual meaning. If you are in your last week of terminal cancer and the pain is about to become unmanageable palliative care will practically do the job for you by overdosing you on morphine but more to the point its something doctors have seen time and time again.

This is an edge case, as I mentioned before. I might believe I knew everything there was to know. I might even take an action based on my certainty. But I would also have to admit it was an act of arrogance. And my weakness in the face of a difficult situation would not necessarily change the ultimate morality of the act.

From a Christian perspective (at least some Christians perspective who have a problem with this argument) its a sin because of gods law, not because its of use. God gave life making life sacred, and it is a sin to take it. If you remove god (as is logical) and view the decision purely in terms of compassion then it begins to make more sense.

I think you are proving my point about what happens when we remove God from the picture. In the absence of something else, ego takes over.

What if it would end the mothers life? It is surely arrogant to think you have the right to decide between one or another by making ones life a moral imperative and another not so much.

Which mother? I am not sure what example you are referring to here.

[Archaalen]

For a teaching which states that all life is sacred, Christianity has condoned quite a lot of killing in its history. Current pro-life sentiment could really be summed up "The right to life begins at conception, and ends at birth!"

[chriscase]

For a teaching which states that all life is sacred, Christianity has condoned quite a lot of killing in its history. Current pro-life sentiment could really be summed up "The right to life begins at conception, and ends at birth!"

I am not claiming a Christian view here. I am merely adopting an abstraction of Augustinian humility, which I think is a psychologically powerful viewpoint.

In my consideration of the adoption of Augustinian humility to an atheist or agnostic philosophy, it seems that there is an immediate problem of what fills the vaccum left by the removal of God from the universe. It's well and good to posit a "collective good" as the substitute for God as a moral ideal, but who makes the decisions? In the absence of divine inspiration, humility alone leaves us morally paralyzed. If I am unfit to make affirmative moral decisions in the absence of God, then am I to commit all manner of crimes by omission? And is this any better? (On the face of it, no.)

And if not the individual, are we to foist all the responsibility for decisions of a moral nature onto "society" itself? By process of elimination, this would appear to be the only candidate left. Yet it hardly seems reasonable to rely on fallible tyrrany any more than fallible ego.

I suspect this very dilemma is what brings individual rights to the fore with the waning of religious philosophy, and what simultaneously sends the religious running back to Church dogma in the face of a universe without God. Yet, I see no reason why the need for something greater than society or the ego should require us to fall back on a God that we suspect isn't there. Transpersonal psychology posits the existence of layers of consciousness beyond the ego, layers which have heretofore been the domain of religion and mysticism. Yet some empirical study of these areas of the mind would imply that they are simply part of the greater cartography of the psyche. So I would point to this "greater mind" as what fills the void.