By its very definition, consequentialism is the theory that an action is deemed negative or positive based on the actions results. In the Dalai Lama’s “Ethics for the New Millenium,” the Dalai Lama suggests the idea that we are all connected through suffering, and that suffering can be divided into sub-categories as avoidable and unavoidable. This ties into the theory of consequentialism in that suffering can be judged by the outcome of the type of suffering like whether or not suffering is caused by man or another circumstance beyond the scope of our personal actions. To further this previous comment, the Dalai Lama states, ” [avoidable suffering] is the suffering caused by not obtaining what we desire,” ( The Dalai Lama, 135) where all else is beyond our control. Early on his book, the Dalai Lama states that the self “although perfectly adequate as a convention, the self…exists in dependence on on the labels and concepts we apply to the term” (The Dalai Lama, 43). This observation of the Dalai Lama’s is interesting in that it relates to the notion that we are all connected, however it personally creates the thought that he suggests that, in being all one, we project thoughts and actions that seem to be our own while in his sense of reality, it is a thought or action that is dependent on another. The thought could be relatable if  discussing the broader interest of everyone, which is happiness, however to think that each individual would only follow such broad concepts would follow the lines of ignorance. Since, in the Dalai Lama’s scope of things, we are all connected the notion that karma is “escapism” (Dickman 2/2) and that we are all responsible for our own actions is interesting. Therefore, one could make the connection that the Dalai Lama is contradicting himself through the sheer fact that he says that karma is the result of each individuals actions: If, in reality, we are all connected selves then there never could be a single individual to create their own personal karma.

The Dalai Lama’s theory of suffering being avoidable and unavoidable fits in with consequentialist theory in that it goes along with the notion that the outcome of an action determines whether or not that action is good or bad, or in this case, whther or not the suffering is avoidable or unavoidable. The claim that the Dalai Lama is making doesnt necessarily contradict the broader view of the consequentialist theory but it is bent slightly, where contributing factors could be personal views or the Dalai Lama’s Buddhist background that have infused their own kind of perspective into the theory. Also in regards to suffering, the Dalai Lama suggests that, in addition to his theory about avoidable and unavoidable suffering, suffering can be somewhat alleviated by thinking about another situation that is worse, or something to that effect. The Dalai Lama believes this because of his “own experience” in thinking about bad news he hears from Tibet, and that he finds comfort in the thought of the positiveness of the “basic human disposition” (The Dalai Lama, 139). Things that the reader might consider as they analyze and inerpret the Dalai Lama’s overall suggestion is, the suffering that they personally have struggled through and what helps alleviate that suffering as well as what caused the suffering itself, whether it be random or the consequences of human actions.

As with any good argument there are pros and cons, positives and negatives, and reasons to agree or disagree. It would be safe to agree that some suffering would be a result of our own actions, or the actions that are geared towards achieving our own desires and obsessions. It would also be fairly safe to say that people in such situations would hardly find that war is an unavoidable situation. Of course, the Dalai Lama more than likely really means these things in a much broader sense, however he does leave it up to interpretation. In the way that the Dalai Lama puts his views into a a broad and generalized way, the reader doesnt doesnt necessarily have to be any form of consequentialist to comprehend what he is trying to say or to buy into it. I think he pretty effectively brings down his larger concepts and ideas into a general and easily understood concept while also providing fresh and intelligent ideas. I feel that with most, if not all, bigger concepts and ideas there are things that get overlooked, especially when concepts, theories and thoughts become very broad. For instance, maybe the Dalai Lama didnt really consider, when speaking of dealing with suffering,  that others probably wouldnt find solace in thinking of worse situations than their own.