Story Easier said than done (normies don't seem to get it)

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

As part of an ongoing series on the Five Precepts of Buddhism (The Five Precepts are a system of morality for Buddhist lay people), the topic of this week's Dhamma class is the First Precept, the abstinence from taking the lives of living beings. This Precept is equivalent to the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", but rather than just refraining from the act of killing, the practitioner is required to exercise all right thinking, right speech and right action with regards to nonviolence, beginning with purifying your mind of ill-will. Thought, speech and action are connected—as the saying goes, thoughts become words, words become actions, so on and so forth.

Towards the end, we got into a discussion about some rather interesting topics. Such as 1) Which do you think would be the lesser of two evils when it comes to killing? a) a human being or an animal? b) larger or smaller creatures? 2) Thinking in terms of thought, speech and action, whether a hunter would have been considered to have broken the First Precept if a human got caught, and died in a trap meant for wild animals, given said hunter's various mental states. (In Buddhism, if one has broken the precepts, there must be sincere repentance and resolution not to repeat the mistake again.) 3) Whether one should continue to consume the flesh of the animal one has 'mercifully released' (Chinese Buddhists believe that the act of releasing captive animals will cleanse one's sins and bring good karma).

One question went along the lines of whether or not it's okay to hit, kick, punch, or desecrate in any way an image of a person you don't like. My teacher gave an example of flag desecration—burning or defacing a country's flag—as a form of political protest. I brought up what I heard from a tour guide that, employees at a certain company in Japan hated their boss so much that they put his picture on a wall and used it for dart practice. Personally, I have nothing against what they did, as they didn't kill anyone in real life. I do feel that people need an outlet for their anger, and that bottling up your emotions is bad for you. However, a classmate remarked that it's a 'cowardly' thing to do behind your boss' back, and another suggested that they quit their job if they're so dissatisfied with the work situation. With that being said, I pointed out that some people simply are not in the position to resign whenever they want. In other words, leaving your job is easier said than done. The same classmate insisted on quitting regardless. After the discussion, my teacher explained that the above is not the most ideal way to deal with anger, as there will come a time when your hateful thoughts manifest in action. Instead, you should find healthier ways to let go of anger.

Then came the real hot potato. When healing is no longer possible and death imminent and patients find their suffering unbearable, whether they should have a right to a peaceful death. Most Buddhist traditions consider suicide to be a negative act, insisting that we should take full advantage of the precious gift of human life to 'advance along the path'. I have written about the Buddhist parable of the blind turtle (a metaphor for how long it takes to be reborn as a human after after countless nonhuman incarnations) in a previous post. I am, without a doubt, in full support of medical assistance in dying. (I am in the minority.) Even though I brought up the fact that in countries where it is legal, patients must meet stringent eligibility requirements, most were against the idea. Many reasoned that by destroying one's self, one would break the First Precept, some are of the opinion that challenges are meant to be overcome, and others argued that PAD/PAS can be unethical and dangerous (which I don't completely disagree with). From the perspective of cause and effect, my teacher advised that it would be best to try to overcome your struggles. As expected, I have been warned by those around me that failing to do so can have dire consequences in the next life, when I brought up the topic of suicide.

Overall, it was good to get to know different perspectives. However, I can't say that I'm not disappointed by the apparent lack of empathy, even for those experiencing unbearable suffering. Sometimes I just wish people would get off their high horse for a moment and put themselves in the shoes of others.

 

[littlelungs]

However, I can't say that I'm not disappointed by the apparent lack of empathy, even for those experiencing unbearable suffering. Sometimes I just wish people would get off their high horse for a moment and put themselves in the shoes of others.

Absolutely. I can guarantee that if I – as merely one example out of countless other individuals who are suicidal and suffering profoundly – ever traded places with an anti-choicer or anybody else who believes that people are obligated to continue to suffer immeasurably and indefinitely for whatever reason, they'd be desperate for an escape after 3 days of this shit, ever mind nearly 3 fucking decades. This is not self-pity; it's unfortunately just how it is – I wish it wasn't, but life has shown me over and over again that that means absolutely nothing, no matter what I do.

Lots of people clearly have some serious issues with empathy and/or perspective (in general, but particularly regarding the right to die), and the worst part is that they think they're doing the right thing and pat themselves on the back for it, when this kind of thinking just ultimately leads to making things even more difficult than they need to be for the people who are actually suffering. This life has taken almost everything from me, but it can pry what little reminds of my dignity out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[jandek]

As part of an ongoing series on the Five Precepts of Buddhism (The Five Precepts are a system of morality for Buddhist lay people), the topic of this week's Dhamma class is the First Precept, the abstinence from taking the lives of living beings. This Precept is equivalent to the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", but rather than just refraining from the act of killing, the practitioner is required to exercise all right thinking, right speech and right action with regards to nonviolence, beginning with purifying your mind of ill-will. Thought, speech and action are connected—as the saying goes, thoughts become words, words become actions, so on and so forth.

Towards the end, we got into a discussion about some rather interesting topics. Such as 1) Which do you think would be the lesser of two evils when it comes to killing? a) a human being or an animal? b) larger or smaller creatures? 2) Thinking in terms of thought, speech and action, whether a hunter would have been considered to have broken the First Precept if a human got caught, and died in a trap meant for wild animals, given said hunter's various mental states. (In Buddhism, if one has broken the precepts, there must be sincere repentance and resolution not to repeat the mistake again.) 3) Whether one should continue to consume the flesh of the animal one has 'mercifully released' (Chinese Buddhists believe that the act of releasing captive animals will cleanse one's sins and bring good karma).

One question went along the lines of whether or not it's okay to hit, kick, punch, or desecrate in any way an image of a person you don't like. My teacher gave an example of flag desecration—burning or defacing a country's flag—as a form of political protest. I brought up what I heard from a tour guide that, employees at a certain company in Japan hated their boss so much that they put his picture on a wall and used it for dart practice. Personally, I have nothing against what they did, as they didn't kill anyone in real life. I do feel that people need an outlet for their anger, and that bottling up your emotions is bad for you. However, a classmate remarked that it's a 'cowardly' thing to do behind your boss' back, and another suggested that they quit their job if they're so dissatisfied with the work situation. With that being said, I pointed out that some people simply are not in the position to resign whenever they want. In other words, leaving your job is easier said than done. The same classmate insisted on quitting regardless. After the discussion, my teacher explained that the above is not the most ideal way to deal with anger, as there will come a time when your hateful thoughts manifest in action. Instead, you should find healthier ways to let go of anger.

Since you describe it as a "dhamma" class, I assume it's coming from a Theravadan perspective?

1. The notion of karmic "weight" behind individual acts is an interesting and complex one. I don't think there's a clear answer on this, although I know it's considered particularly heinous to harm monks or buddhas or for a son/daughter to commit violence against their parents. I presume it would be considered worse karma to kill a human being as opposed to animal, although both acts break the precept. I don't think size is considered relevant here. I remember the Dalai Lama saying it was preferable to kill a cow to feed many people than kill many fish to do the same, although I don't know if that's a personal or scholastic perspective.

2. Definitely a breach of precept. The intention to kill by setting a trap is already a breach. More ambiguous is whether the karmic result is from the unintentional result or the intended one.

3. In Theravadan Buddhism, unless you are aware that the animal has been killed specifically for you, the act of eating meat is not a breach of the precept. Theravadan countries accordingly don't have a strong tradition of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is more common in East Asian Buddhism, often required for monastics and encouraged among the laity.

As to anger, there are skillful and unskillful ways of approaching it. I think your teacher is right to say that indulging in angry and violent thoughts isn't helpful. You may want to look at Shantideva's Way of the Bodhisattva, since he gives a number of practical strategies for relating to anger. He emphasizes looking at your situation through the lens of emptiness, seeing no benefit in anger, and recognizing that the person you're angry at is also suffering. Shantideva says that anger burns up our goodness in a flash. I admit I struggle with this... is there no place for just anger in Buddhism? Maybe a person could put on a show of anger, as a form of "skillful means" in a difficult situation, while inwardly having no hostility? I'm not sure.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

(If you aren't interested in extended rambling on moral thought I'd skip this post)

Thought provoking post. I'm writing as a non-Buddhist who has in the past read and experimented with Buddhist teachings. Reading through the scenarios you describe, I still can't help but notice that all of the prescribed actions offered to you are centered around maximizing the future selfish benefits of behaving in a certain way based on the belief in reincarnation. As a moral code, I think focusing on actions primarily because they provide selfish benefit, even in a believed future life, is problematic.

I think the actual "best" way to answer these questions varies significantly based on your personal beliefs. Personally I think:

- The lives of humans and sentient animals should have equal weight. We value human life more because we're biased, because our selfish moral horizon doesn't extend much past our own lifetimes, and because we don't have the foresight to understand how much our eradication of other life will eventually affect humans too. Most of us will never live up to this so long as we find animals tasty, myself included, so while being vegan may be a superior moral choice I think it will ultimately have little real world impact because of its unpopularity (which doesn't change its morality). In the US, we would rather argue over whether burning fossil fuel really causes issues, whether women should have the right to control their own bodies, or whether a supposed fraud that never happened actually did happen because someone said so on cable news.

- Size doesn't strike me as a compelling argument for the value of a life. However, without differentiating on sentience or another factor I think total avoidance of taking lives is impossible in the modern world. Plants are alive too, yet we assign almost no value to them even though they are essential to our own continued existence and products like lumber and paper are basically impossible for us to avoid. If you disagree with killing plants counting against the precept, what justifies an ant being more morally important than a head of lettuce or a pine tree? If you accept as a given that it is impossible for us as a species to avoid killing and that such a precept is too simple, what is the most moral way of minimizing harm? How likely is such an approach to succeed against the selfish motives of modern society? If that chance is hypothetically less than 1%, is following it still morally useful to society or just essentially mental masturbation? How can we create incentives to align behavior with its actual moral cost?

- No opinion on the breach of precept as I don't really agree with it to begin with. I think that in certain circumstances such as self-defense or when acting to protect others, killing is not only justified but necessary. Without total Buddhist world domination, which seems exceedingly unlikely, a 100% Buddhist country completely committed to nonviolence under all circumstances, though admirable, would likely eventually be conquered by a less principled neighbor willing to suppress dissent using violence without someone willing to defend it, thus undermining the idea of promoting lasting peace by being unable to mount a necessary defense. For a real world example, look at what's happening to Tibet. China just suppresses any belief system that might be a threat to the CCP, simply because they have the power and self-interest to do so. Having a moral belief but no ability to defend it is ineffective.

- I think the morality of defacing an image depends on the impact of that defacement.
In your example, if the employees were doing that publicly in the office, I think the argument of that being acceptable is not very strong. True, they are not physically harming someone, but what about other impacts? Is it moral to publicly slag someone off just because you don't agree with them or you had a bad experience? What about the impact of your actions on that person? What if they're already barely holding on mentally, and learning that everyone at work hates their guts leads them to kill themselves? Would the action still be morally acceptable with that result? If you were doing that privately in your own house, I have less of an issue with it.

The flag burning example has much less impact on other people. What harm is truly being caused by someone protesting in this way? Someone's national pride has been injured? Is that truly a moral injury? I don't agree that it is, and would suggest that the moral offense is more likely to come from those objecting to the flag burning than those doing it via suppression of individual freedom of assembly and protest.

I think the argument that thoughts inevitably become words and words inevitably become actions is weak too. Sure, sometimes thoughts might progress to something more, but in the field of psychology trying to actively suppress or avoid a thought has been shown to be not only ineffective but counterproductive (see Ironic Process Theory aka the "Don't Think of White Bears" experiment). The only conclusion I can take from that is that we can't try to be thought police. We have to make our own difficult and messy subjective decisions about what is right and wrong, and only act on the thoughts that align with what we believe is best. In fact, I believe our only hope of being moral is that we don't act on every thought that comes into our head.

As to the right to self-determination, all of the reasons that were provided to you are strictly dependent on Buddhist belief, and so as a non-Buddhist I don't find them persuasive at all. To list them: 1) suicide being a "negative act", 2) human life being innately valuable, 3) "advancing along the path", 4) reincarnation, 5) the Buddhist version of cause and effect (i.e. spiritual and supernatural implications). For me the individual's innate right to choose their own fate supersedes the supernatural belief of others.

 

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

@jandek The class is conducted at a Mahayana Buddhist centre. Interestingly, as I found out, the centre's name 'sagaramudra' refers to the 'ocean-seal' state of meditative consciousness or samadhi. In the Flower Ornament Sutra, or Avatamsaka Sutra, when the mind is in a state of peace and quiet, it is said to be like still water, reflecting the landscape on its surface as though it were a mirror. But when the wind of ignorance, that is discriminative thinking, begins to blow, the water's surface becomes agitated and waves are aroused. Through meditative practice, one becomes freed from the shackles of delusion and the mind, like calm waters, can once again reflect things as they are, like a seal or stamp. Where I live, most people who identify themselves as Buddhist adhere to Mahayana Buddhism. 'Dhamma or dharma' are just different spellings of the same word for the Buddha's teachings on the nature of reality.

1. The notion of karmic "weight" behind individual acts is an interesting and complex one. I don't think there's a clear answer on this, although I know it's considered particularly heinous to harm monks or buddhas or for a son/daughter to commit violence against their parents. I presume it would be considered worse karma to kill a human being as opposed to animal, although both acts break the precept. I don't think size is considered relevant here. I remember the Dalai Lama saying it was preferable to kill a cow to feed many people than kill many fish to do the same, although I don't know if that's a personal or scholastic perspective.

We were not given a clear-cut answer why it is worse to kill a human being than an animal. To my knowledge the human realm is neither 'too hot or too cold'—neither so pleasurable that there's no motivation to seek liberation, like the higher realms, nor too full of suffering to attempt to escape samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, like the lower realms. Hence the Buddha urged us to put (our human life) to good use.

According to my teacher, meticulous planning would have to go into the slaughter of an organism as large and 'intelligent' (elephants are known to tear down electric fences with non-conducting objects) as an elephant, as compared to squashing a bug underfoot with little to no effort. In addition, as far as I'm concerned the dying process for an elephant will most likely be longer and more painful than say, an insect. Therefore, from hatching a plan to kill to performing the act of killing, in terms of thought, speech and action, the First Precept will be violated in so many ways, and on so many levels.

3. In Theravadan Buddhism, unless you are aware that the animal has been killed specifically for you, the act of eating meat is not a breach of the precept. Theravadan countries accordingly don't have a strong tradition of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is more common in East Asian Buddhism, often required for monastics and encouraged among the laity.

Yes, in the Jivaka Sutra, responding to the accusation that he eats animals killed for him, the Buddha mentions three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. It is assumed that the conditions above in which the meat, in terms of karmic quality, is considered 'blameless', refers to 1) not witnessing the actual killing, 2) not being told that the meat had been specially killed for the use of the consumer and 3) even in the absence of 1) and 2), not suspecting that such was the case. Going back to the topic of 'mercy release', even though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I am a little disturbed by the mental gymnastics performed by some to justify the (continued) consumption of crab, for example. (Fish and seafood are common market animals for mercy release.) For me it doesn't matter who prepared your meals, you and you alone are the person for whom the animal was killed.

As to anger, there are skillful and unskillful ways of approaching it. I think your teacher is right to say that indulging in angry and violent thoughts isn't helpful. You may want to look at Shantideva's Way of the Bodhisattva, since he gives a number of practical strategies for relating to anger. He emphasizes looking at your situation through the lens of emptiness, seeing no benefit in anger, and recognizing that the person you're angry at is also suffering. Shantideva says that anger burns up our goodness in a flash.

From experience, "Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." (Mark Twain) is a saying I can agree with. In The Buddha Walks Into the Office: A Guide to Livelihood for a New Generation (definitely worth a read, available as an eBook), author Lodro Rinzler quoted Shantideva exactly as you said, offering a skilful means to cultivate compassion in the workplace by putting yourself in others' shoes.

 

[jandek]

@jandek The class is conducted at a Mahayana Buddhist centre. Interestingly, as I found out, the centre's name 'sagaramudra' refers to the 'ocean-seal' state of meditative consciousness or samadhi. In the Flower Ornament Sutra, or Avatamsaka Sutra, when the mind is in a state of peace and quiet, it is said to be like still water, reflecting the landscape on its surface as though it were a mirror. But when the wind of ignorance, that is discriminative thinking, begins to blow, the water's surface becomes agitated and waves are aroused. Through meditative practice, one becomes freed from the shackles of delusion and the mind, like calm waters, can once again reflect things as they are, like a seal or stamp. Where I live, most people who identify themselves as Buddhist adhere to Mahayana Buddhism. 'Dhamma or dharma' are just different spellings of the same word for the Buddha's teachings on the nature of reality.


We were not given a clear-cut answer why it is worse to kill a human being than an animal. To my knowledge the human realm is neither 'too hot or too cold'—neither so pleasurable that there's no motivation to seek liberation, like the higher realms, nor too full of suffering to attempt to escape samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, like the lower realms. Hence the Buddha urged us to put (our human life) to good use.

According to my teacher, meticulous planning would have to go into the slaughter of an organism as large and 'intelligent' (elephants are known to tear down electric fences with non-conducting objects) as an elephant, as compared to squashing a bug underfoot with little to no effort. In addition, as far as I'm concerned the dying process for an elephant will most likely be longer and more painful than say, an insect. Therefore, from hatching a plan to kill to performing the act of killing, in terms of thought, speech and action, the First Precept will be violated in so many ways, and on so many levels.


Yes, in the Jivaka Sutra, responding to the accusation that he eats animals killed for him, the Buddha mentions three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. It is assumed that the conditions above in which the meat, in terms of karmic quality, is considered 'blameless', refers to 1) not witnessing the actual killing, 2) not being told that the meat had been specially killed for the use of the consumer and 3) even in the absence of 1) and 2), not suspecting that such was the case. Going back to the topic of 'mercy release', even though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I am a little disturbed by the mental gymnastics performed by some to justify the (continued) consumption of crab, for example. (Fish and seafood are common market animals for mercy release.) For me it doesn't matter who prepared your meals, you and you alone are the person for whom the animal was killed.

Thanks for this additional info! I was confused because "dhamma" is the Pali spelling; I've only seen it in the context of Theravada. It's great you're working with an active group and a teacher. That's the best way to go about dharma practice. The Flower Garland Sutra is wonderful, one of my favorite sutras. It has to be one of the most awesome and profound scriptures in the world. It's strangely not too well-known among English-speaking Buddhists, maybe because it's so massive, although I suppose some of its key ideas filtered into mainstream Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

Reading through the scenarios you describe, I still can't help but notice that all of the prescribed actions offered to you are centered around maximizing the future selfish benefits of behaving in a certain way based on the belief in reincarnation. As a moral code, I think focusing on actions primarily because they provide selfish benefit, even in a believed future life, is problematic.

I noticed that too, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. In Mother Nature Is Trying to Kill You: A Lively Tour Through the Dark Side of the Natural World, explaining in terms of psychological egoism, author Daniel K. Riskin argues that
Scrooge's character in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is ultimately selfish, having merely shifted his focus to investing in the afterlife, rather than life on earth. Therefore, it would be naive for the reader to see things in black and white, and to assume that Scrooge turned over a new leaf from selfishness to selflessness.

The lives of humans and sentient animals should have equal weight. We value human life more because we're biased, because our selfish moral horizon doesn't extend much past our own lifetimes, and because we don't have the foresight to understand how much our eradication of other life will eventually affect humans too. Most of us will never live up to this so long as we find animals tasty, myself included, so while being vegan may be a superior moral choice I think it will ultimately have little real world impact because of its unpopularity (which doesn't change its morality). In the US, we would rather argue over whether burning fossil fuel really causes issues, whether women should have the right to control their own bodies, or whether a supposed fraud that never happened actually did happen because someone said so on cable news.

See my response to @jandek above as to why it is considered more heinous to kill a human being than an animal from a Buddhist standpoint. In terms of taste, I agree that there is indeed, little incentive for us to switch to a meatless diet. I remember a time when I became a vegetarian for the sole purpose of reaping the (karmic) benefit of scoring better for my exams, and quickly gave up after half a year or so. Moreover, I like many others, can't help but feel that one person is unlikely make a significant impact on meat demand and supply. Like you mentioned, people are more likely to act in response to immediate or imminent dangers to health and safety, unlike the impacts of climate change that will be felt by future generations when ecosystem services become no longer adequate to meet human needs.

I asked my teacher that, if in nature there exists the relationship of predator and prey, where the organism that feeds is called the predator and the organism that is fed upon is the prey, and unlike us, carnivores don't give a hoot about the feelings of their prey, why should we care what's on our plates? With that being said, my teacher responded by saying that with my reasoning, human society should act in accordance with the law of the jungle, which is summed up by the Chinese/Japanese four-character idiom
弱肉強食 and its translation "The weak is meat the strong do eat")—to oppress the weak and obey the strong. While I do agree that the above should serve as a baseline as to how we should treat our fellow human being, I accepted her argument as it was, as I was unable to refute it.

I think that in certain circumstances such as self-defense or when acting to protect others, killing is not only justified but necessary. Without total Buddhist world domination, which seems exceedingly unlikely, a 100% Buddhist country completely committed to nonviolence under all circumstances, though admirable, would likely eventually be conquered by a less principled neighbor willing to suppress dissent using violence without someone willing to defend it, thus undermining the idea of promoting lasting peace by being unable to mount a necessary defense. For a real world example, look at what's happening to Tibet. China just suppresses any belief system that might be a threat to the CCP, simply because they have the power and self-interest to do so. Having a moral belief but no ability to defend it is ineffective.

As I see it, world peace is only possible in the hypothetical utopia, completely devoid of conflict and strife. In the Analects of Confucius, Confucius stated "When the perfect order prevails, the world is like a home shared by all. A sense of sharing displaces the effects of selfishness and materialism. Villians such as thieves and robbers do not exist. The door to every home need never be locked and bolted by day or night." (Full quote here) The notion of the "Great Unity" appeared in the Book of Rites, one of the Confucian Chinese classics. It is a Chinese example of the utopian vision of a world in which everyone and everything is at peace.

However, as many would argue, utopias are an unrealistic expectation, as they assume that humans can be perfected, and this couldn't be further from the truth. With regards to conflict, since antiquity human society has been shaped by war, the result of human greed and expansionism. Fear and insecurity necessitates the creation of armies to safeguard people and property from the greedy 'ambitions' of others.

I think the morality of defacing an image depends on the impact of that defacement.
In your example, if the employees were doing that publicly in the office, I think the argument of that being acceptable is not very strong. True, they are not physically harming someone, but what about other impacts? Is it moral to publicly slag someone off just because you don't agree with them or you had a bad experience? What about the impact of your actions on that person? What if they're already barely holding on mentally, and learning that everyone at work hates their guts leads them to kill themselves? Would the action still be morally acceptable with that result? If you were doing that privately in your own house, I have less of an issue with it.

The flag burning example has much less impact on other people. What harm is truly being caused by someone protesting in this way? Someone's national pride has been injured? Is that truly a moral injury? I don't agree that it is, and would suggest that the moral offense is more likely to come from those objecting to the flag burning than those doing it via suppression of individual freedom of assembly and protest.

I failed to mention that the employees in question were doing so in the 'comfort' of their own home. And yes, I do not condone public slander in any form, for whatever the reason.

As for flag desecration, I'm surprised it is outlawed in so many parts of the world. I thought President Trump wanted to ban flag burning (the United States flag) at one point?

Sure, sometimes thoughts might progress to something more, but in the field of psychology trying to actively suppress or avoid a thought has been shown to be not only ineffective but counterproductive (see Ironic Process Theory aka the "Don't Think of White Bears" experiment). The only conclusion I can take from that is that we can't try to be thought police. We have to make our own difficult and messy subjective decisions about what is right and wrong, and only act on the thoughts that align with what we believe is best. In fact, I believe our only hope of being moral is th

I concur. Therapist and Ex-Jehovah's Witness-turned-atheist-and-sceptic YouTuber Theramintrees eloquently explained in his video that if you should be punished for thoughtcrime, then you should be rewarded for having enough self-restraint not to act on your thoughts.

As to the right to self-determination, all of the reasons that were provided to you are strictly dependent on Buddhist belief, and so as a non-Buddhist I don't find them persuasive at all.

For me the individual's innate right to choose their own fate supersedes the supernatural belief of others.

Neither do I, due to the the lack of evidence for life (or lack thereof) after death.

 

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

Absolutely. I can guarantee that if I – as merely one example out of countless other individuals who are suicidal and suffering profoundly – ever traded places with an anti-choicer or anybody else who believes that people are obligated to continue to suffer immeasurably and indefinitely for whatever reason, they'd be desperate for an escape after 3 days of this shit, ever mind nearly 3 fucking decades. This is not self-pity; it's unfortunately just how it is – I wish it wasn't, but life has shown me over and over again that that means absolutely nothing, no matter what I do.

Lots of people clearly have some serious issues with empathy and/or perspective (in general, but particularly regarding the right to die), and the worst part is that they think they're doing the right thing and pat themselves on the back for it, when this kind of thinking just ultimately leads to making things even more difficult than they need to be for the people who are actually suffering. This life has taken almost everything from me, but it can pry what little reminds of my dignity out of my cold, dead hands.

No words can describe how sorry I am for what life has taken from you. If only people would walk a mile in others' shoes, they wouldn't be so quick to judge. As @Quiet Desperation mentioned, the fact that for many, self-interest, instead of genuine compassion, is the driving force behind altruistic decisions, reflects poorly on our society. Regardless of the motivation, others people do not have the right to tell us what, or what not to do.