Editing Five precepts (section)

=== Comparison with human rights ===
Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.{{sfn |Keown |2012 |pages=31–34}} Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |pages=540–41}}{{sfn |Seeger |2010 |p=78}} For example, the following comparisons are drawn:
# Keown compares the first precept with the [[right to life]].{{sfn |Keown |2012 |p=33}} The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=540}}
# The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.{{sfn |Keown |2012 |p=33}}{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=540}}
# The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";{{sfn |Keown |2012 |p=33}} the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=541}}
# The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";{{sfn |Keown |2012 |p=33}} the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=541}}
# Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=541}}

Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=541}}{{sfn |Keown |2012 |pp=20–22, 33}} On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.{{sfn |Ledgerwood |Un |2010 |p=541}} Buddhist monk and scholar [[P.A. Payutto|Phra Payutto]] sees the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights|Human Rights Declaration]] as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights.<!--78--> He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development,<!--85, 88--> in which one develops from [[śīla|moral discipline]] ({{langx|pi|sīla|italic=yes |link=no}}), to [[samadhi|concentration]] ({{langx|pi|samādhi|italic=yes |link=no}}) and finally [[paññā|wisdom]] ({{langx|pi|paññā|italic=yes |link=no}}).<!--85--> He does not believe, however, that human rights are [[natural rights]], but rather human conventions.<!--79--> Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the ''attūpanāyika-dhamma'', a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of [[Golden Rule]] of comparing oneself with others<!--79-80--> {{See above|{{section link||Principles}}, above}}. From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property:<!--80--> human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.<!--86-->{{sfn |Seeger |2010 |pp=78–80, 85–86, 88}}