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

[Curt Steinmetz]

There is more than one way to accurately summarize Stoic ideas - but my 
favorite is "to always act in accordance with Nature". Stoic cosmology 
assumes that Nature is inherently rational and just.

Curt

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> 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'.
>
>