[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Michael Rolig]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:05:59 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Michael Rolig schreef:
> 
> >I always find it is difficult to talk about 'Buddhist ethics'. I'm not
> >so sure there are any 'Buddhist ethics' to update.  I'm curious to
> >hear other opinions, but as far as I understand, his teachings are all
> >contingent on the practitioner to want to find the enlightened way of
> >life.  Buddha didn't say "do not consume intoxicants (period)" he
> >said, "do not consume intoxicants, if you wish to follow my way of
> >awakening".  The Buddha's teachings aren't so much a means to judge
> >others as a way to improve the life of yourself and those around you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I don't understand this. There's utilism, the categorical imperative,
> Christian ethics and so on, why not Buddhist ethics? You shouldn't
> however mix up ethics with morality and psychology. The question whether
> you are behaving or not is psychology, the norms and values you cherish
> (or what the Buddha proclaimed) are morality, the question which is the
> difference between Christian ethics and utilism, or how you can justify
> killing animals in a Buddhist way is ethics. Buddhist ethics is virtue
> ethics like Aristle's or the Stoa. And there's nothing wrong comparing
> Buddhist ethics with other kinds, or investigating certain ethical
> question within Buddhist ethics.
> The question whether we are sinners or not is to me just pure narcissim,
> certainly in the light of the anaatmavaada.
> 
> erik

What I'm pointing out is that "Judeochristian ethics" make absolute
claims about what is right/wrong.  Buddhist teachings only say "IF you
choose to follow these teachings, you would be best advised to do XXX,
BUT if that doesn't seem to work, try something different"

Notice the history of the precepts for the Buddhist monastic
community:  the Buddha didn't go up on a mountain and come back with
all the rules, he came upon situations where there was trouble, of
some kind or another, and he made judgments about what rules ought to
be made to best keep order in the community.  Even more: he setup
different rules for monks and lay people.  -- not really a universal
ethical system.

Of course I think there is a value system here, just that Buddhism
doesn't project that value system beyond Buddhist practitioners.  I'm
also not saying there's anything wrong with comparing the value
systems...  That is certainly valuable to understand how different
groups of people work.  This is more an excercise in defining ethics
than it is in finding out what he "Buddhist ethics" are.  I think
Buddhism is a value system that fits within the ethical system of the
society and culture in which it is practiced.

Here's the test that makes me lean towards not using ethics to
describe buddhism:

person A is about to kill someone/thing
person B (a Buddhist) says "don't kill it"
person A asks "why?"
person B replies with 'that would cause suffering in you and others,
it will harm the world'
person A replies 'tough, suffering happens, I can live with that'

... at that point the Buddhist has no answer.  The Buddha didn't
convert people who didn't want to follow his path.  If people were
unconvinced that suffering was something they didn't want to end,
Buddhism doesn't supply any arguments to stop the killing.

I'd love to hear someone come up with clear arguments against this,
but I haven't seen any of the Buddha's teachings that go so far.

Mike


> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
> 
>