[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:56 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

> For example, a deontological moral theory might hold that lying is
> wrong, even if it produces good consequences. Historically, the most
> influential deontological theory of morality was developed by the
> German philosopher Immanuel Kant

Yes, Kant is famed for his categorical imperative, his attempt to
articulate a single law of which all particular moral injunctions are
instances. His categorical imperative is stated in two different ways.
One way is "avoid acting in a way that one would not wish for everyone
to act." The second way is "treat no one as a means to an end, but
rather treat everyone as an end." 

The business about lying is not quite as simple as you state it. Kant's
moral principle was that one should never do what one knows is wrong for
the sake of achieving a consequence that MIGHT but also might not
result. His point was that one can never be sure of the consequences of
one's actions. Moreover, one's actions always have a multiplicity of
consequences, some of which are beneficial and some of which are
harmful. Therefore it is wrong-headed, he argued, to try to guess what
the results of one's actions might be. Instead, one should ask whether
one is using another person. When one lies, one is using the person to
whom one lies as a means to some other end. When one tells the truth,
then one is treating the other person as an end. Therefore it is never
wrong to lie.

I still maintain that there is a deontological element in Buddhist
injunctions insofar as all particular precepts can be seen as derived
from a single principle that is remarkably like Kant's categorical
imperative.

> My reading of Foucault and Hadot convinced me that the Greeks were not 
> familiar with the concept of sin which developed in Christendom and 
> became even hereditary because of St. Paul. 

I quite agree. The Christians redefined the Greek word that earlier
Greeks had used to mean damage. For the Christians that same word came
to mean disobedience to God. All this means is that one has to be
careful to specify in which sense one is using the word "sin". There is
no need to avoid it altogether.

> I think that eating the apple was more then just missing the mark or damage. 

There was no mention of an apple in the garden of Eden. What was eaten
was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of the difference between good
and evil. In eating of this fruit, Adam and Eve missed the mark, because
they had been told not to eat it. This shows that in some theological
contexts the principal way of missing the mark or doing damage is to
disobey God. But if one is an atheist, one will not see sin in this way.
One will just see it as failing.

> I'm not that optimistic about relationships with God. Some people seem 
> to benefit from it but it seems to me that for the greater part God is 
> just a kind of cosmic hollow mirror. But knowing your involvement with 
> unitarism, I can understand that we here must agree to disagree.

I have no idea what Unitarianism has to do with this. Unitarians come in
many flavors. Some are theists, some are atheists, some are agnostics.
Many are so-called secular humanists. I count myself as a Buddhist
Unitarian, because both my brand of Buddhism and my brand of
Unitarianism is essentially humanistic.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico