[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Stefan Detrez]

The problem of a 'Buddhist ethics' can be solved on a scriptural
-let's say, theoretical- basis and on a practical basis.
A theoretical basis would shed light on how the people in the
sutta's/sutra's responded in particular ethical situations, thereby
providing an example to be followed in contemporary settings. It's a
sort of literal reading of the sutta's/sutra's.
The practical basis is based on this theoretical basis, but the texts
are not regarded in such an extent that authority is that what the
texts say. Regional differences illustrate the 'local' interpretation
of the theory. An interesting example is the application of the death
penalty in Thailand, a school example of a Buddhist country.
On a scriptural basis one can go for a diachronic and a synchronic approach.
The diachronic approach would have to sort out an chronological order
of the canonization of the sutta's/sutra's. In that case, early texts
would provide a different view of what it means to be ethical, than
later texts. The synchronic approach would take all texts as equally
authoritative. My feeling is that in cases dealing with moral
problems, the synchronic approach is made.
Now, to solve contemporary ethical problems, one can fall back on
scripture, tradition and reflection. My opinion is that some moral
issues today are far more complex than those in the Buddha's time,
that it would be an unjustified simplification to try and fit those
problems within the problem-solving framework of those times.
Tradition itself (like, I don't do it, because my parents don't do it)
is not what the Buddha prescribed. In fact, paradoxically, he, as a
spiritual leader, was bold enough to disregard leaders' authority, and
by implication, his own authority (which was not done). Reflection is
what is left for proper problem solving.
Now, if scripture is too outdated for proper dealing with ethical
issues, than it might be healthy in some instances that one discards
general guidelines as found in the sutta's and find find more adapted
means to solve those problmes.
If tradition doesn't necessarily lead to the best solution, then here
again one is almost obliged to drop the weight of tradition and find
other means.
Reflection seems then to be the best resort for problem solving, but
at the same time, it engenders an implosion of the authority of
scripture and tradition, leaving us with nothing more than the now and
the yearning for the good. It leaves one in the position of the
freethinker. And that when the best results are achieved, but at the
same time, we are trapped in our particularity, not being eager to
fall back on tradition and/or scripture.
What to do?  To look for an unbiased compromise between all parties?
Difficult, but necessary.

Stefan Detrez


On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:28:13 -0700, jkirk <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:
> > 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
> ===============
> First, there are always exceptions to every general observation. That said,
> IMO, this is an interesting conundrum for our world, but I can't imagine
> anyone thinkng this way in the Buddha's time because people then were not as
> individualist as we are today. I can't imagie most people being capable of
> saying "tough, suffering happens, I can live with that."  Even quasi royal
> Devadatta deluded himself that he was doing the right thing by trying to
> kill his enemy, the Buddha. Most ordinary people's identity, and therefore
> their concepts of duty or obligation and notions of what's right and wrong,
> were deeply bound up with their kin memberships, and also with the fact that
> most people needed one another to survive economically.
> Royals, in that period, however, were less dependent economically in that
> they controlled power and the weapons of power, so they could force people
> to work for them, fight for them, kill for them. They easily did these
> things themselves, as with Ajatashatru who killed the king, his father, in
> order to be king himself.  This sort of raises the question as to what
> extent the Buddha's teachings were inspired by the elite social milieu that
> he came from, a milieu where he saw rampant individualism and sensual excess
> obviously not available to ordinary people. In such a socio-cultural milieu
> cynicism would be entirely possible.
> Ordinary people according to some of the sutra and jataka stories were very
> capable of perceiving suffering in selves and in others. But we actually
> know nothing, far as I know, of the levels of crime among ordinary people in
> those times. We also know very little about crime and mayhem among the
> elites, except for war stories and an occasional parricide. My guesses about
> the nature of society in those days are extrapolations from the agricultural
> societies we know of from the 19th c in India (or before) and elsewhere in
> Asia.
> 
> So maybe the Buddha did not succeed in converting anyone who did not care to
> follow his path for the eradication of suffering. But everybody, presumably,
> Buddha or no Buddha, still can understand that birth, sickness, old age and
> death cause suffering, to self and to others. Even the legendary Angulimala,
> a serial killer, finally saw the error of his ways and converted. So he
> seems to have been a criminal for whatever reasons, but not a sociopath.
> Thus, anyone who says "tough, that's the way it is, I can live with that"
> has to be some kind of sociopath, and that is precisely what, IMO, our kind
> of capitalist social system engenders. No time to go into why--read Theodore
> Adorno, et al.
> 
> Ethics has no power or influence over sociopaths because ethics is based on
> the ability to identify with another. Sociopaths lack that ability.
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>