[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

> Buddhist ethics is virtue ethics like Aristle's or the Stoa.

Once again, I cannot let you get away with such a categorical claim. It
could be argued, I think, that the Buddhist dictum "Do what is
beneficial, harm no one, and keep the mind pure" comes remarkably close
to the famous "law" articulated in various ways by Kant, which he called
the categorical imperative. That is, it is a single principle from which
all particular list of precepts (those of the vinaya, those of the
laity, those of the laity during full moon and new moon days, etc) are
derived. That sounds very deontological to me. It is true that going for
refuge to the Buddha is understood as making a commitment to cultivate
the ten virtues that characterize a buddha, so one could think of this
as a form of virtue ethics or (with Kupperman) character ethics. The
bodhisattva aspiration, on the other hand, amounts to striving to do
what brings maximum well-being to all sentient beings, which sounds a
lot like utilitarianism. The various ruminations attributed to Gautama
Buddha about which vinaya rules to cancel and which to add show a style
of reasoning that closely resembles consequentialism. Since one can see
significant elements of most of the major ethical theories within
Buddhism, nothing is gained by insisting that it is only a virtue
ethic. 

> And there's nothing wrong comparing Buddhist ethics with other kinds,
> or investigating certain ethical question within Buddhist ethics.

I agree wholeheartedly and would even go further. I think that Buddhist
ethical theory has been significantly enriched by contact with European
philosophical traditions. I think we now have a much better Buddhism
than we had one hundred years ago. In fact, I think we now have a much
better Buddhism than they had while the Buddha was alive. Why? Because
the first generations of Buddhists had only the benefit of one wise man,
and Buddhist nowadays have the benefit not only of that but also the
benefit of a hundred or so generations of very thoughtful and wise
interpreters from every part of the world. 

Lest I be accused of Occidentalism, let me add that I believe European
and American thought have also been enriched by contact with Buddhist,
Hindu, Daoist and Confucian reflections on what it means to live one's
life well and to do in peace. (I must admit that American thought is in
a state of extreme crisis these days. A very popular national radio host
has recently been encouraging university students to make tape
recordings of lectures that show a "liberal bias" and to turn these
professors in to their deans and provosts. I fear for some of my liberal
colleagues.) 

> The question whether we are sinners or not is to me just pure narcissim, 
> certainly in the light of the anaatmavaada.

First of all, I don't think anaatmavaada sheds much light these days. It
is much too simplistic to be of use to use today. As for narcissism, it
shows such a level of self-preoccupation that one in its thralldom
cannot even reflect on sinfulness. Thinking of sin is the first step out
of total self-absorption and into relatedness with others. Do not
disparage that important step, even if you believe (as most mature
people do) that one should, if at all possible, evolve out of a childish
and adolescent concern with sin and into a fully mature concern with
cultivating virtue and eliminating sin, and out of that into something
rather like what Nietzsche describes in Beyond Good and Evil. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico