[Buddha-l] Buddhism as a 'Selfish' Religion

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

jkirk schreef:
>  
>
>
> Hi Warner,
>
> to me this is just a confusion of concepts. Selfish means only
> caring for your own interest. No selfish person can reach
> nirvANa, one has to become unselfish and that is the best way to
> help other people. If you accept that Buddhism is (partly,
> largely) a virtue ethics, than taking care of yourself is the
> best you can do. This is not selfish at all. The Buddhist
> practice, like the one of Socrates, Stoics, Epicureans etc. 
> consists foremost in perfecting yourself untill you become an
> inspiring beacon to others. While doing this you become less and
> less selfish and sensitive to the suffering of others. In this
> way you become a caring person, helping others without any second
> thought.
> Why not start helping people right away and not waste time with
> meditation? Well, if you do that, you may cure some symptoms of
> samsAra, but not the root of suffering. This is what Christians
> do because they think that taking care of the causes of suffering
> is a job for God.
>
> Erik
> ===============
> Erik wrote:
> "If you accept that Buddhism is (partly, largely) a virtue
> ethics, than taking care of yourself is the best you can do."
>
> Not having ever had or made a formal study of ethics, is virtue
> ethics one of several types of ethics, or what? If so, what are
> the other kinds of them? (Really mean this-- not being "funny". )
>
> Cheers, Joanna 
>
>   
Hi Joanna,

different kinds of ethics are usefull if you want to decide a 
discussion. Positive action can be defended by teleology or goal ethics, 
because the intended consequences are good. There are different kinds of 
teleologies according to how you appreceate the consequences. Stoics and 
Epicurists judged the consequences according to the happiness they 
brought along, this is called eudemonism, or happiness ethics. There's 
also pleasure ethics or hedonism and J.S. Mill came with utilism: any 
action which realises the maximum profit for the maximum number of 
people is good.
Positive action on the other hand can be rejected because it is a form 
of racial discrimination and therefore principally wrong. People who 
argue this way use deontology or duty ethics. Religious ethics take on 
the principles of a religion. Immanuel Kant however came with a rational 
version: an action is OK if you can agree that the rule which can be 
derived from the action will become a universal law. F.i. lying is wrong 
because you cannot agree that everybody lies all the time. In that case 
all talk would be useless. If you tell a lie you even accept the rule 
that nobody should lie, because if not your lie wouldn't be a lie. There 
are other versions like 'always respect a person as a goal in itself, 
never use anyone merely as an instrument'.
If a teleologist and a deontologist have a discussion about ethics they 
can talk for ever, because one talks about consequences and the other 
about principles.
Virtue ethics is if you don't tell lies because you don't want to be a 
liar. It means that you try to develop your character by cultivating 
virtues or good qualities. The Stoics are a good expample but also the 
paramitAyAna and I think most kinds of Buddhism. Typical for this kind 
of ethics is a fixed number of virtues and the use of examplary persons 
or what is called these days 'good practices'.

-- 


Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms  
Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl