One way of thinking about ethics is that we have a cannon, we have rules, and as lawyers, we’re bound to follow those rules. Another way of thinking about ethics is that on some fundamental level, all ethics are about not causing harm.
From either perspective the question for me is, how to be a ferocious advocate and not cause harm? Which begs a larger question, which is, how can I not only not cause harm, but also, cause, or at least be a catalyst for, harmony?
Maybe that’s not realistic. But I want to imagine it is, or at least that there’s an ethical path that makes harmony possible. And then I want to find that path. Because if it’s find-able, and walk-able, then who knows? Maybe we can create more harmony in our lives and in the world than any of us can imagine...
(In loving support for all suffering in Israel/Palestine/Gaza)
Hi everyone, it’s Judi Cohen and this is Wake Up Call 436. As we get to the end of Pema Chodron’s book, The Places That Scare You, just a reminder that we’re exploring the “paramitas” or perfections of mind, the first of which is generosity, or “dana,” on last week’s Wake Up Call, and the next of which is sila, in the Pali.
I’ve mostly heard sila translated as ethics. I’ve also heard it translated as virtue, and more recently, as harmony.
From an ethical perspective, sila can be summed up as “do no harm.” More expansively, it includes a few ways of not causing harm: not harming other beings, not taking anything not freely offered, not communicating in ways that aren’t kind and compassionate, not misusing sexuality, not using intoxicants to cloud the mind. Unpacking these should be simple; maybe it should even be simple to follow these guidelines.
As lawyers whose jobs are to be passionate advocates, and to bring ferocity to our work, for me these precepts have not always been simple. So I don’t pretend to have the solution or answer. But I do want to offer some questions.
Starting with not causing harm to other beings, how do I do that? When I win, someone else loses, and they usually feel harmed.
And what is not taking what is not freely offered, for a lawyer? Not stealing, for sure. But what about winning a motion? What I’ve moved for was not freely offered by the other side or I wouldn’t have had to make the motion. In a mediation, arbitration, or settlement, is either side freely offering? Just the very fact that our profession requires us to have sides, makes this element of sila feel dubiously achievable, to my way of thinking. But what if the conversations between or among the sides were courageous and truthful and kind and mindful? Is there a world in which resolution could fee freely offered by all? And how do we point ourselves in that direction?
Not with harsh or unkind words, and yet, looking at this third element of sila, harsh words are so often our currency. But we could speak to one another, to our clients, and to our opponents, with kindness. With compassion. With love. Seems like it would help us get pointed in that direction of solutions that freely offered by all.
Not misusing sexuality might do the same: not only not misusing our own sexuality, but also not enabling or even ignoring others’ biases against sexual orientation or gender identity. I feel like we might have a different profession…and maybe world, if we could model not misusing sexuality for society, in all its nuances.
And finally, not using intoxicants to cloud the mind: I like a glass of wine or the occasional whisky (my favorite). But when I don’t take one to try to numb myself, after a day that’s gone sideways, I’m invariably better off. What about you?
I feel like all of these questions are the main thing, not the answers. As Pema says, “it’s easy to regard the paramitas as a rigid code of ethics, a list of rules. But the bodhisattva’s work is not that simple. The power of the paramitas is not that they are commandments but that they challenge our habitual reactions….[T]hese guidelines are not written in stone. The intention to open the heart and mind is what’s essential. If we do good deeds with an attitude of superiority or outrage, we simply add more aggression to the planet.”
Maybe take a moment to consider: with these aspirations, are we simply dividing the world into good and bad, plaintiff and defendant, self and other? As Pema asks, “If we draw a line down the center of a room and tell those in it to put themselves in the category of ‘virtuous’ or ‘non-virtuous,’ are we truly more liberated because we choose ‘virtuous? More likely we’re just more arrogant and proud. Bodhisattvas are to be found among thieves and…murderers.”
And then she tells a traditional story about a ship captain traveling with 500 people and a pirate who boards the ship and threatens to kill them all. And the ship captain can see that if he allows the pirate to do this, not only will he and his passengers die, but the pirate will be sowing the seeds of his own intense suffering. So out of compassion for everyone, including the pirate, the captain kills the pirate. Maybe this is helpful in understanding that there may be a wise use of aggression or even outright destruction in the law. Pema even goes so far as to say, “There is no act that is inherently virtuous or non-virtuous. The warrior trains in the discipline of not causing harm, knowing that the way to do this skillfully will change with the circumstances,” and in undertaking this training, “become[s] less moralistic and more tolerant.”
Which bring me back to harmony. And I guess my question is, is all of sila simply pointing at harmony? In other words, is our aspiration to create a less divisive profession and world and to bring greater harmony into the world? Is that the role of sila? I love that as an aspiration so I hope so.
And is it also to bring more harmony to our inner world? Yesterday one of my students called me out about something I’ll probably explore here on the Wake Up Call once I’ve had a chance to sit with it for a while. While I do that – sit with what the student called me out for - I feel like I can see two fundamental tasks ahead of me (and maybe there are more I can’t see right now): First, be honest about what happened and not try to explain or deny, which would cause harm to the student, with whom I’ll certainly circle back. And second, practice non-harming towards myself while I sit with what I heard and try to understand. In other words, remember my own fundamental goodness, not as a shield but as a recollection of my own potential, even though clearly I wasn’t manifesting that potential in the classroom yesterday, at least from this student’s perspective.
Maybe you’re familiar with these two tasks, too: caring about someone whom you’ve harmed enough to contemplate how that happened and what you can do better next time, while still loving yourself and honoring your own good heart. In a way I hope you’re not familiar with these two tasks in the sense that I don’t want you to have to be sitting with having hurt anyone, but it’s probably not realistic to be a human, living in the world, and get by without ever doing that. So, since the first part is probably inevitable, I hope you’re also familiar with the second part.
These are what my friend and teacher Rhonda Magee calls the “long, loving look” - at others, and at ourselves. I feel like true sila, true harmony, might be attainable if we can support ourselves with practices like that.
