Do we have a right to die? Buddhist ethics answer to this question, “Yes.” But, this decision should be derived from internal enlightenment. An agent must realize the transience of life and panca-skandha(five elements of all existence), when he or she decide to die. As we considered above, buddhist philosophy refuse any absolute truth and reality of beings in the world. Therefore, human life is also not absolute. In an attempt to seek theoretical consensus not based on the religious doctrine on the concept of human rights, an argument derived from secular principles to protect a private declaration of intention can be justified. Dworkin also argued in his commentary on Cruzan case that blind preservation of a persistent vegetative state is not interest for a sufferer. In this respect, it is possible that we have the right to decide our death. However, even though I criticize ‘ethical ideology’, I can assert that pluralism is a basic component of ethical rationality. In pluralistic and secular soceity, ‘original position’ can’t not be a presumption. Polarization that one personality is spilt in public reason and private reason is already occurred. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume ‘the original position’ for the agreement on the criteria of justice. The interiority of the ethical principle seen as a form of conscience is abundantly commented on in religious ethics. This is the reason to decide what would a patient want be. We should examine on an internal aspect of patient who is a persistent vegetative state through his or her religious ethical principles. In this respect, I demonstrated on buddhist biological ethics. According to the buddhist opinion, secular argument on the right to die can be justified. And a decriminalization of mercy killing also can be justified. Of course, it is not to say that buddhist ethical principle is a truth. I just give a explanation on the buddhist biological ethics.

Do we have a right to die? Buddhist ethics answer to this question, “Yes.” But, this decision should be derived from internal enlightenment. An agent must realize the transience of life and panca-skandha(five elements of all existence), when he or she decide to die. As we considered above, buddhist philosophy refuse any absolute truth and reality of beings in the world. Therefore, human life is also not absolute. In an attempt to seek theoretical consensus not based on the religious doctrine on the concept of human rights, an argument derived from secular principles to protect a private declaration of intention can be justified. Dworkin also argued in his commentary on Cruzan case that blind preservation of a persistent vegetative state is not interest for a sufferer. In this respect, it is possible that we have the right to decide our death. However, even though I criticize ‘ethical ideology’, I can assert that pluralism is a basic component of ethical rationality. In pluralistic and secular soceity, ‘original position’ can’t not be a presumption. Polarization that one personality is spilt in public reason and private reason is already occurred. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume ‘the original position’ for the agreement on the criteria of justice. The interiority of the ethical principle seen as a form of conscience is abundantly commented on in religious ethics. This is the reason to decide what would a patient want be. We should examine on an internal aspect of patient who is a persistent vegetative state through his or her religious ethical principles. In this respect, I demonstrated on buddhist biological ethics. According to the buddhist opinion, secular argument on the right to die can be justified. And a decriminalization of mercy killing also can be justified. Of course, it is not to say that buddhist ethical principle is a truth. I just give a explanation on the buddhist biological ethics.

buddhist biological ethics, Mercy killing, euthanasia, political liberalism, pluralism