[Buddha-l] Ethics

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 11:52 -0700, Jim Peavler wrote:

> Fairness (like truth) is a concept. I said "CONCEPT", inherently 
> ingrained and evolved in the brains of humans (maybe some animals for 
> all I know). But it requires a "judgment" on the event that can almost 
> never be the same for all possible persons or groups judging the event.

I think this is probably why the highest of all the brahma-vihaaras is
impartiality or indifference (upekshaa). It is considered to be the
highest form of friendship, beating out such contenders as compassion
and sympathetic joy. The reason impartiality is highest is because it is
most in keeping with how things are, which is, well, just how they are.
How things are cannot be valued as unambiguously good or bad, happy or
sad. If the fawn survives, the coyote starves. If the coyote eats, the
fawn dies. There is no way to look at this except with impartial eyes.
If the freedom-fighters win, the empire collapses. If the empire
survives, the freedom-fighters will be labeled "terrorist" and will die.
And so it goes.

> I am sorry. I have a hard time understanding either fairness or truth 
> except as relative to the point of view of the participants.

Well said. I am reminded of an observation made by Stanley Fish. He was
talking about Chaucer, I think, and I know you're a fan of Chaucer.
Talking about reading Chaucer, Fish said something like this: We like to
believe that there is an objective reading of a text and that everything
that differs from that "objective" reading is an interpretation. But the
opposition is not between objective readings and interpretations. The
real opposition is between interpretations made by people who know they
are interpreting and interpretations made by people who don't.

If we accept the idea, articulated by some wise guys or perhaps wise
men, life itself is pretty much like a text, and all of us who live it
are pretty much like readers. Some of us like to believe that some folks
know the truth and others are just making stuff up. But the real
opposition is between people who make stuff up and know they are making
stuff up and people who make stuff up without realizing that is what
they are doing. Beware the latter. They join groups. And groups are
invariably dangerous. (Or as Kierkegaard put it, "the crowd is
untruth.")

Indifferently yours,
A fawning coyote

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico