Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 2, 2.3 (Buddhism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Somebody you love is dying and in pain that will not be controlled. One principle says do not take life. Another says relieve suffering. Both are yours, both are central, and in this room they point in opposite directions. Most religions on this course have a rule that decides it. Buddhism, more or less uniquely, does not — and understanding why that is a position rather than an omission is the whole of this unit.

What it means

The specification names the Five Precepts. They are the lay undertakings: to refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants. The first is the one this unit turns on, and note its wording — living beings, not people.

The word for the principle behind it is ahimsa, non-harming. Set against it in every hard case here is karuna, compassion: the wish that beings be free from suffering. The unit is the collision of those two.

Now the thing that makes Buddhist ethics different from the other five traditions on this course. The precepts are undertakings, not commandments. A Buddhist takes them on voluntarily, and breaking one has consequences rather than incurring guilt before a lawgiver — because there is no lawgiver.

And acts are assessed by cetana — intention — together with consequence, rather than by whether they match a rule. That is why the same physical act can carry very different weight depending on why it was done. The Buddhist category is skilful and unskilful rather than right and wrong, and the difference is not a euphemism: it is what makes the judgement case-by-case.

Why believers hold it

Follow the method and the absence of a ruling stops looking like a gap. If acts are weighed by intention and consequence, then no rule could settle these cases in advance, because the rule would have to be applied before anybody knew what was intended. A tradition that judges this way is committed to not having a verdict ready.

So the honest report of the Buddhist position is a set of tendencies with a real disagreement inside it. Theravada generally treats life as beginning at conception and abortion as breaching the first precept, while stressing that intention and circumstance affect the weight. Some Mahayana traditions give more weight to compassionate circumstance in hard cases. On euthanasia most teachers hold that it breaches the first precept, while accepting the withdrawal of futile treatment and full pain relief — which is a narrower and more defensible line than a flat prohibition.

The best single illustration is Japanese: mizuko kuyo, a memorial ritual for those who have had an abortion. Look at what it does. It acknowledges the loss, it does not condemn, and it does not pretend the question was easy. A tradition with a rule would have issued a penalty. This one responded with a ritual — and explaining that difference is worth far more than reporting a position.

Where it comes from

• Buddhist practice — The Five Precepts (pañca-sīla) (translated)

  To refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants.

  The basic ethical undertakings of lay Buddhists. They are training rules taken on voluntarily, not commandments imposed.

  What it is doing here: The specification's own named content — quote the first precept and note its own limit: these are training rules rather than absolutes, and Buddhists differ on exactly these cases.

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  What it is doing here: The compassion half of the collision, and useful precisely because of what it cannot do: boundless goodwill does not by itself tell anybody what to do in a particular case.

• Buddhist teaching — Kamma and samsara; taught throughout the Pali Canon (translated)

  Kamma — intentional action and its results; samsara — the round of rebirth.

  Intentional actions condition future experience within the cycle of rebirth, which ends with nibbana.

  What it is doing here: Explains why intention decides the weight — consequences follow from willed action, so what was meant is not a mitigating detail but the thing being weighed.

Where it bites

Buddhism is heavily involved in hospice and palliative care, which is where the two principles are held together in practice rather than in argument. There is a specific dilemma worth naming: the tradition values a calm and conscious death, so heavy sedation at the end of life is a genuinely difficult question rather than an obvious kindness. That is a real ethical problem, not a debating point, and examiners reward a learner who can produce one.

The first precept also reaches beyond humans, which is why vegetarianism is widespread. Applied absolutely it becomes unlivable, which is why Buddhist practice has always involved judgements of degree — and saying so is more accurate than presenting the precept as an absolute nobody keeps.

What people get wrong

People think: Buddhism forbids abortion and euthanasia.

Actually: There is no Buddhist authority able to settle it for everyone. There are strong tendencies — the first precept weighs against both — and there is genuine disagreement about how the conflict with compassion resolves. Reporting a flat prohibition misdescribes a tradition that decided not to have one.

People think: The precepts are Buddhist commandments.

Actually: They are undertakings a Buddhist takes on, and there is nobody who issued them as commands. That changes what breaking one is: a consequence rather than guilt before a lawgiver. The distinction is the reason the whole unit works differently from the Christian or Islamic version of it.

People think: Saying Buddhists disagree is a weak answer.

Actually: Here it is the accurate one, and the examiners penalise manufactured agreement as readily as manufactured division. What earns the marks is explaining WHY the tradition has no ruling — that acts are weighed by intention, so a rule could not do the job.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Explain the method before the position. A learner who says Buddhist ethics assesses intention and consequence rather than conformity to a rule has already earned more than one who reports a verdict.
• Use the Five Precepts by name — the specification names them — and quote the first accurately, including that it says living beings rather than people.
• Name mizuko kuyo. It is the clearest evidence available that this tradition answers a hard case with a ritual rather than a rule, and almost nobody uses it.
• On euthanasia, the precise line is worth stating: most teachers reject it while accepting the withdrawal of futile treatment and full pain relief. That precision is what a top-band answer looks like.
• For the twelve-mark question you may conclude that judging by intention leaves somebody facing the decision with no guidance, which is the strongest objection and is fair to make.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

The specification names the Five Precepts as opposing the taking of life and the causing of suffering, and asks how these bear on euthanasia and abortion. Buddhism therefore approaches both with two principles that pull against each other: the first precept forbids taking life, and compassion requires relieving suffering. Buddhist ethics is not rule-based in the way Islamic or Catholic ethics is, so the answer is worked out rather than looked up.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Five Precepts (also panca-sila)

The lay undertakings: to refrain from harming living beings, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, false speech and intoxicants.

Ahimsa (also avihimsa)

Non-harming; the principle behind the first precept.

Karuna

Compassion; the wish that beings be free from suffering.

Cetana

Intention, which determines the kammic weight of an act — decisive in Buddhist ethical analysis.

Skilful (also kusala, wholesome)

Kusala; the Buddhist category replacing right and wrong, judged by intention and consequence.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — The first precept undertakes to refrain from harming living beings, and it is not restricted to human beings.
• shared — Compassion requires the relief of suffering, which is the second principle in every case in this unit.
• shared — Precepts are undertakings rather than commandments: a Buddhist takes them on, and breaking one has consequences rather than incurring guilt before a lawgiver.
• divided — Buddhists differ on abortion and euthanasia, because the two principles genuinely conflict and no rule settles the conflict.
  • Theravada — Generally treats life as beginning at conception and abortion as a breach of the first precept, while emphasising that intention and circumstance affect the kammic weight.
  • Mahayana — Some traditions give more weight to compassion in hard cases; Japanese Buddhism has developed the mizuko kuyo ritual for those who have had abortions, which acknowledges the loss without condemnation.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that Buddhism assesses acts by intention and consequence rather than by conformity to a rule, so a single act can be more or less unskilful depending on why it was done. That is why Buddhist positions here are stated as tendencies rather than as rulings, and why the tradition's characteristic response to abortion in Japan is a ritual of acknowledgement rather than a penalty. A strong answer explains that method rather than reporting a verdict.

Sources of authority

• Buddhist practice — The Five Precepts (pañca-sīla) (translated)

  To refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants.

  The basic ethical undertakings of lay Buddhists. They are training rules taken on voluntarily, not commandments imposed.

  How to use it: Because they are undertakings rather than commands, breaking one is a failure of training rather than a sin against God — which is why Buddhist ethics has no concept of divine punishment.

  What it does not settle: They are not absolutes with fixed applications; intention matters, and Buddhists differ on abortion and on eating meat.

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  How to use it: Metta is cultivated deliberately in meditation, so Buddhist compassion is a trained capacity rather than a feeling — which explains why meditation is an ethical practice and not just a calming one.

  What it does not settle: It does not by itself prescribe an action in any particular case.

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  How to use it: Naming delusion as a root, rather than only greed and hatred, is what makes the Buddhist answer distinctive: wrongdoing is a mistake about reality before it is a moral failure.

  What it does not settle: There is no concept of sin against a deity here. Writing 'sin' without qualification misrepresents the tradition, and the specification's own wording invites exactly that error.

• Buddhist teaching — Kamma and samsara; taught throughout the Pali Canon (translated)

  Kamma — intentional action and its results; samsara — the round of rebirth.

  Intentional actions condition future experience within the cycle of rebirth, which ends with nibbana.

  How to use it: In Buddhism kamma turns on INTENTION, which is why the same outward act can have different consequences — a distinction Hindu karma does not stress in the same way.

  What it does not settle: Kamma is not fate and not divine reward. And nibbana is NOT moksha — the reports record that confusion.

Different interpretations

• Life read as beginning at conception, which is the classical Buddhist position, and read as a gradual process; the first is dominant and the second is argued by some modern Buddhists.
• Euthanasia read as breaching the first precept and read as compassion; most Buddhist teachers hold the first while accepting the withdrawal of futile treatment and full pain relief.
• Mizuko kuyo read as acknowledging grief and read as a way of managing an unresolved ethical problem; both readings are offered by scholars of Japanese Buddhism.

Differences within Buddhism

The precepts and compassion are shared. What genuinely differs is how the conflict between them is resolved, and there is no Buddhist authority that can settle it for everyone.

• Theravada — First precept applied strictly; abortion generally regarded as breaching it; euthanasia rejected while pain relief is accepted.
• Mahayana — Greater weight to compassionate circumstance in hard cases; Japanese practice includes mizuko kuyo.
• Zen — Emphasises the actor's clarity of intention rather than a general ruling, which in practice produces case-by-case judgement.

Application to the issue

It shows in strong Buddhist involvement in hospice and palliative care; in the emphasis on a calm and conscious death, which makes heavy sedation a real dilemma; in vegetarianism as an extension of the first precept; and in mizuko kuyo, which is the clearest example of Buddhism responding to a hard case with a ritual rather than a rule.

Arguments supporting

• Judging by intention rather than by rule handles hard cases better. — The same physical act can be motivated by compassion or by convenience, and Buddhism can say so. (buddhism)
  Answered by: It also gives no clear guidance, which is precisely what someone facing the decision needs.
• Extending the first precept beyond humans is more consistent than a human-only sanctity. — The precept names living beings without qualification. (shared)
  Answered by: Applied strictly it becomes unlivable, which is why Buddhist practice has always involved judgements of degree.

Arguments challenging

• A competent adult in unbearable pain should be able to choose to die. — Autonomy governs every other medical decision. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Buddhism's objection is not ownership but that a death sought through aversion is itself a kammically significant act — a different argument from the theistic one, and one that engages with the person's state of mind.
• Without a rule, Buddhist ethics cannot guide anyone. — Case-by-case judgement leaves the hardest cases undecided. (shared)
  Answered by: The precepts do give direction, and Buddhism holds that a decision made with clear awareness of one's own motives is better than one made by looking up a ruling.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Humanists support assisted dying with safeguards and abortion on the woman's decision, arguing from autonomy and the reduction of suffering. Buddhism agrees strikingly about the reduction of suffering and disagrees about the method: the concern is what the act does to the mind of the one performing it, which is a consideration secular ethics does not usually weigh.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether ethics should be settled by rules or by the quality of the intention. Buddhism is the clearest case of the second on this specification.

Defensible conclusions

• Buddhism's intention-based method is more honest about hard cases than a rule-based one, and it is correspondingly less useful to someone who has to decide today.
• The first precept and compassion genuinely conflict here, and no Buddhist authority exists to resolve it — which is a structural fact about the tradition rather than a gap in it.
• Mizuko kuyo is the most interesting response available on this specification, because it neither permits nor condemns but acknowledges, and no other tradition studied offers anything comparable.

Not defensible

• Saying Buddhism forbids abortion absolutely; the precepts are undertakings and the traditions differ.
• Treating the precepts as commandments issued by a deity, which misdescribes what a precept is.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Buddhist beliefs about the sanctity of life, or three of the Five Precepts. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two attitudes developed, ideally showing both principles — the precept and compassion — since the tension is the topic.
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain differing Buddhist attitudes to euthanasia: the first precept, compassion, the emphasis on intention, and the value placed on a conscious death.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Life is sacred and must always be protected.' Buddhism's answer uses no notion of sacredness at all, which is worth saying explicitly.

Common mistakes

• Treating the precepts as commandments from a god.
• Presenting one Buddhist position as the Buddhist position, when the traditions differ.
• Merging contraception and abortion, which the examiners name.

“Contraception and abortion raise the same question for religious believers.” — Contraception prevents conception; abortion ends a pregnancy that has begun. Traditions that treat them alike are the exception, not the rule.

Write instead: Most religious traditions treat them separately. Catholic teaching rejects both, for different reasons. Many Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh positions accept contraception while restricting abortion. Some methods are contested precisely because a tradition disputes whether they prevent or end — and noticing that is a genuinely sophisticated point. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God.” — Buddhism has no creator God to disobey. Unskilful action (akusala) harms the person who does it and others through kamma; it is a mistake rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, not an offence against a deity.

Write instead: Buddhists speak of unskilful action rooted in the three poisons — greed, hatred and delusion — and of akusala kamma, which brings unwelcome results. The specification's own Buddhist wording for 1.3 names avijja, kilesa and the three poisons. The specification titles 1.3 'Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin', which invites the error. A learner writing on Buddhism should use the tradition's own vocabulary and say why 'sin' does not fit.

Grade 9 insight

Buddhism is unusual in weighing what an act does to the MIND of the person performing it, alongside what it does to the patient. That is why a mercy killing motivated by aversion to suffering — the wish that this stop — is analysed differently from one motivated by compassion for the sufferer, even where the physical act is identical. A Level 4 answer uses that to show why Buddhist ethics cannot be summarised as a position on euthanasia at all: it is a method for examining a motive, and the verdict depends on what the examination finds.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Previous unit: 2.2 · The meaning and purpose of life
• Next unit: 2.4 · Human relationships
• Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification