Discussion of Founders’ Questionable Ethics Essay

Siddhartha Gautama

Before becoming the Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama has already thought deeply about the world around him. Being gentle and kind with all people and even animals, he could not understand why people suffered and felt pain. He wanted to leave home in order to find answers to his questions. To stop his son from thinking about it, King Suddhodana arranged for Siddhartha to be married to Princess Yasodhara, his own cousin.¹ They had a son, Rahula, however, the family did not retain the prince from traveling to realize why all living creatures suffered and how to escape suffering.² That is why one night, he asked his attendant to prepare the horse and went to see his sleeping wife and a newborn son for the last time regardless of the deep love he felt towards them.

In general, the righteousness of Siddhartha’s action is evaluated in different ways depending on an ethical theory. This, according to the theory of consequentialism, the absence of his engagement in his child’s development may be regarded as right because due to his leave, he became the Buddha and helped a lot of people. At the same time, deontological ethics characterize Siddhartha’s decision as morally wrong regardless of his contribution to human history in the future. As a matter of fact, children from one-parent families may experience a lack of emotional and physical security and behavioral problems that lead to poor academic performance, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency. Thus, despite receiving good care as a member of a royal family, Rahula would be impacted by the absence of his father’s participation in his life.

Abraham

In Genesis 22, God tested Abraham’s obedience to Him asking to sacrifice Abraham’s only son, Isaac, on a mountain shown by God. The next morning, the man took his son and two servants and reached the place of worship. When Abraham made an altar, laid his son on it, and was ready to kill him with a knife, God stopped him and said “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”³ Thus, the son was replaced by a ram that was sacrificed. God called Abraham for a second time and promised that he will be awarded with numerous descendants.

In general, it is highly difficult to define the ethical feasibility of Abraham’s action as multiple contexts should be taken into consideration. In the present day, the decision of a man to kill his son due to God’s call would be defined as totally immoral, unethical, and even illegal. It violates basic human rights and the principles of humanity. In addition, the righteousness of belief in God who supports and asks for sacrificial offerings raises multiple concerns as well. At the same time, from religious and cultural perspectives, this deed may be understood and interpreted in another way. First of all, an attitude to children at the time of Abraham differed from a modern one, and child sacrifice to demonstrate sincerity and ask gods’ help was not extraordinary. In addition, according to Christianity, Abraham believed in his God’s kindness and knew that He would not take his son. In turn, this episode teaches followers to be obedient and trust the Lord relying on His mercy.

Moses

When Moses was on the mountain with God, Israelites asked Aaron to make gods for them. Aaron gathered women’s gold earrings and made an idol cast “in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.”⁴ The next day, people organized a festival – they sacrificed burnt offerings, ate, drank, and indulged in revelry. When God saw what people did, He wanted to destroy all of them. Moses told Him not to bring disaster to people – he came down from the mountain, burned the idol, and asked people who would stand for the Lord with him. When all Levites approached, Moses commanded them to kill their brothers, friends, and neighbors.

According to Christianity, Moses’ deed may be interpreted as ethical – people were punished for idolatry and disobedience. However, from a personal perspective and on the basis of modern principles of humanity, this action is completely unethical. Basic human rights for life and freedom of religion were violated. Although people were acting according to what was right in their eyes, one person could not have a moral right who should die according to his religious beliefs.

Yehoshua (Jesus) ben Nazareth

Yehoshua taught his disciples that nothing should distract them from worshipping God. According to him, “if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”⁵ These words may be interpreted in a way that states that even highly essential things should not stand above faith.

As a matter of fact, there are no clear evidence or historical records concerning Jesus’ directions related to the necessity of self-mutilation, even if later Christians used to practice self-flagellation and even self-castration. Nevertheless, anyone’s call of others for self-harm is highly unethical. These practices are associated with deep emotional and physical suffering and severe mental health issues. It is connected with anxiety, the body’s unacceptance, and deep guilt for seeming sins compensated by physical torture. In turn, people should follow ethical rules of beneficence and nonmaleficence in relation to themselves as well.

Muhammad Ibn Abdullah

In 627, after the Battle of the Confederates, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah besieged the Banu Qurayza Jews tribe of Yathrib/Madinah for their support for enemies and the breach of pact with the city’s defenders. In Quran, this event is described as “Allah brought down from their fortresses those People of the Book who had supported the invading confederates and cast such terror into their hearts that some of them you kill and some of them you take captive.”⁶ Men were decapitated and the majority of women and children were enslaved.

The righteousness of this action depends on concerns related to the moral value of revenge, punishment, and the death penalty. On the one hand, the tribe has betrayed their ally and should be responsible for this decision. On the other hand, it is unethical to punish women and children who did not make this decision. At the same time, on the basis of cultural and historical context, such a response cannot be regarded as unusual. From a personal perspective, the involvement of all tribe members was a violation of human rights.

Bibliography

Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. Story of the Buddha Illustrated Textbook. Sydney: Buddha Dharma Education Association, 2000.

Exodus 32.Bible Gateway. 2021. Web.

Genesis 22.Bible Gateway. 2021. Web.

Matthew 18.Bible Gateway. 2021. Web.

Quran 33. Towards Understanding the Quran. 2021. Web.

Footnotes

1. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc., Story of the Buddha Illustrated Textbook (Sydney: Buddha Dharma Education Association, 2000), 13.
2. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc., Story of the Buddha Illustrated Textbook (Sydney: Buddha Dharma Education Association, 2000), 21.
3. Genesis 22:12.
4. Exodus 32:4.
5. Matthew 18:8.
6. Quran 33:26.