Thich Quang Duc --- The Burning Buddhist Monk

[Fenriz]

What is the Objectivist perspective on Thich Quang Duc's act of self-immolation back in June of 1963?

Burning Monk, Buddhist Monk Protest of Vietnam War, Pictures & Essay

[youngman]

I don't know, but that is absolutely amazing. How could these monks remain so calm and still while burning to death?

[hunterrose]

I'm not sure what the "official" perspective is, but that's not effective IMO. It seems to be a case of appealing to others' sympathy. While it may have caused some people to change their minds, you certainly can't count on any success from such acts.

On the other hand, it does take a lot of willpower. According to Wikipedia, he "never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound..."

[JMeganSnow]

It's not an appeal to sympathy; suicides cannot benefit from sympathy. It is an act of final protest, of refusal to live with the unlivable. It is a way of going on strike.

[hunterrose]

It's not an appeal to sympathy; suicides cannot benefit from sympathy.  It is an act of final protest, of refusal to live with the unlivable.  It is a way of going on strike.

Hm. I am making some assumptions her, so I suppose I should state them. Assuming his motive was to convince others that the goings-on were bad, and the reason for his macabre actions was to make people acknowledge the situation, I stand by my comment.

If indeed, as you suggest JMeganSnow, he did it as a refusal to live in those conditions, I agree with you. If this was his reason, then he wasn't trying to influence anyone in the first place, but committing a personal, if highly painful, act.

I guess the considerations of him depend on his reasons. If he simply refused to live in an unlivable world, nothing else can be said (except that there has to be an easier way to go!) If, on the other hand, he was using his death as a final appeal to others, I can't say I'd agree with that, consequentially or philosophically.

[The Wrath]

I'm not one to defend Buddhism, but I agree with Megan. Also, this act was not, as you describe, "highly painful." While I loathe the principles of Buddhism, I do not doubt that their meditation techniques allow them to focus their consciousness in a way that you and I cannot.

[hunterrose]

I'm not one to defend Buddhism, but I agree with Megan.  Also, this act was not, as you describe, "highly painful."  While I loathe the principles of Buddhism, I do not doubt that their meditation techniques allow them to focus their consciousness in a way that you and I cannot.

You agree with Megan if the monk's goal was either goal, or just leaving unlivable conditions?

And I'm definitely not going to try and empirically prove you wrong about the pain of human torching!

[The Wrath]

I agree that it was an act of protest and a way of saying that he refused to live the unlivable. And, no, I wouldn't suggest that you try to empirically prove the pain of torching. However, if you had been a Buddhist monk for 60-something years, you could probably do it without feeling any pain.

[hunterrose]

I agree that it was an act of protest and a way of saying that he refused to live the unlivable.

Do you mean that the monk's motive wasn't to influence others to stop the oppression? If that's the case, how do you know his motive wasn't to influence others? He could have killed himself anywhere ( his house, place of worship, forest, etc.) The fact that he chose a populated and public implies that it's at least possible his motive was influencing.

[The Wrath]

That's what protest means.

[hunterrose]

If you're saying his motive was both refusing unfavorable conditions and (possibly) an attempt to influence others, I agree with megan on the first motive, but I don't see how trying to influence others could be considered in as acceptable a light.

Sorry, I guess I'm just a little confused.

[LauricAcid]

It's not an appeal to sympathy; suicides cannot benefit from sympathy.  It is an act of final protest, of refusal to live with the unlivable.  It is a way of going on strike.

I may have missed something in reading about this, but I didn't read that the man had declared that his conditions were not livable.

And it seems pretty clear that the intent of his act was very much to affect people in the hope that this would lead to social and political changes.

Edited August 31, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Ragnar69]

Yes, I know it's an old post, but I did a search for "Buddhism" because I am planning to start a thread on it. Since I haven't been reading this forum long, I wanted to see if my question had been raised already.

It's not an appeal to sympathy; suicides cannot benefit from sympathy. It is an act of final protest, of refusal to live with the unlivable. It is a way of going on strike.

I wanted to comment on this because I disagree very strongly with this position. I don't think suicide can ever be Objectively ethical. It is not a way of going on strike, because a strike usually serves your self-interest in the long-term. Suicide can never serve your self-interest because you won't be around to gain anything.

Keep in mind that suicide and refusing to yield to someone who will certainly kill you (Tianamen Square, for instance) are not the same things. Of course, in that specific case, there were still probably more rational courses of action than laying down in front of a tank.

[Groovenstein]

I don't think suicide can ever be Objectively ethical. . . . Suicide can never serve your self-interest because you won't be around to gain anything.

Wrong and easily dispensed with. If you have some disease that painfully eats you away with no hope of recovery, suicide can be rational. The pain could be so unbearable as to make enjoyment of life impossible.

[Ragnar69]

Wrong and easily dispensed with. If you have some disease that painfully eats you away with no hope of recovery, suicide can be rational. The pain could be so unbearable as to make enjoyment of life impossible.

Okay, obviously I wasn't considering terminal illness. My statement stands, with the added caveat of "in a physically healthy person."

Suicide was not the most rational course of action for that monk to achieve his own self-interest or to try to end the war, if that was his goal.

[softwareNerd]

Check out this thread and this one. They address the issue of suicide.

[Bold Standard]

Keep in mind that suicide and refusing to yield to someone who will certainly kill you (Tianamen Square, for instance) are not the same things. Of course, in that specific case, there were still probably more rational courses of action than laying down in front of a tank.

Actually, the Tank Man wasn't run over by the tank (if that's what you were suggesting). The tank stopped for him, and his friends (it is supposed) eventually came and pulled him out of the way. But lots of people died in the massacre which came a few days later.

[RationalBiker]

Okay, obviously I wasn't considering terminal illness. My statement stands, with the added caveat of "in a physically healthy person."

But there are still other conditions, albeit probably very rare, where suicide is certainly moral. Any condition in which a person faces no possibility of further joy in their life or no possiblity of obtaining and/or keeping the value(s) that make their life worth living can provide an acceptable context for suicide. No person has a moral "duty" to stay alive when their life has no other prospect but misery and pain.

Natalie Merchant writes a very poignant example of a man who has lost his highest value and is contemplating suicide. The song is called "Beloved Wife". As emotionally stirring (at least to me) as this song is, I don't consider it an appeal to emotion. The song tells of a man whose wife of 50 years has now died and how he has to face life alone with little to no hope or desire to replace his highest (irreplaceable) value. He faces a future of loneliness and agony. His suffering is compounded by the fact that her death was a lingering, painful one. One passage suggest that he may have some possible joy left, but it is drastically overshadowed by the stark pain of the loss of "the very best of me."

The song ends with the question;

my love is gone

would it be wrong if I should

just turn my face away from the light

go with her tonight?

[scottkursk]

Actually, the Tank Man wasn't run over by the tank (if that's what you were suggesting). The tank stopped for him, and his friends (it is supposed) eventually came and pulled him out of the way. But lots of people died in the massacre which came a few days later.

Actually, I had that poster with the Rand quote in French on my wall in my 1st place after college. I always wondered what would have happened if the tank had not stopped. If it had just blatantly shown the brutality of an evil dictatorship instead of a monument of a individual who refused to stand up in a world whose concepts he can't agree with.

Still, given the lack of response by the west for the most part it probably wound't have changed much.

I think of an example of when a suicide is probably acceptable is like when the Soviets were battling Afghani's, the Muj would target them with a Stinger and it was game over for the pilots. They wouldn't eject. They'd just say a prayer/curse/whatever and wait for the inevitable since the alternative of ejecting and being captured was REALLY unpleasant. To misquote Kipling, "When you're lying on Afhanistan's plains, Arfghani women come out to cut up what remains, jus roll o'er your rifle an blow out your brains and go to your God like a soljer."

So in examples where your choice is of the way you die, not death vs. life, then it makes sense for their to be a rational basis.