Model Essay - Buddhist dialogues with ethics - "Buddhist ethics can be define as character-based." Critically examine and evaluate this statement.

 

Plan: ‘Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based.’ Critically examine and evaluate this statement with reference to the dialogue between Buddhism and ethical studies. [25 marks - AQA]

Thesis statement: Buddhist Ethics may share the most similarities with Virtue Ethics, but that does not mean that it can be “defined as” character based, because ultimately the two are incompatible.

Buddhist Ethics AO1:

·        Samsara, Karma and Intention

·        Ahimsa

·        Magga and nirvana

·        Rules – Vinaya, 5 precepts, 6 perfections

Virtue Ethics AO1:

·        Brief context and historic society – lead to character-based ethic, “you are what you do”

·        Golden Mean – moderation between abstinence and excess, 12 virtuous characteristics.

·        Agent centred, but 3 deontological rules – no murder, theft or adultery.

·        Aim: Eudaimonia and Flourishing

AO2: Reasons why they are similar

Reasons why they are different

•         Focus on growing over time – e.g. magga flower analogy. •         Emphasis on teacher – fits with Theravada view of Gautama as a role model. •         Rebecoming/paticcasaumpadda – over time, Buddhists create what kind of person they are through their moral decisions, in the same way Aristotle argues they shape their character.

•         Buddhism has both teleological and deontological aspects as well. •         The goal is not to just grow as a person, the goal is supernatural in nature (nirvana). •         Different worldviews and contexts – Athenian gentleman’s society versus Ancient forest nomadic. •         Buddhist ethics depend on other moral authorities and have different goals, within the context of Samsara – Aristotle rejected the afterlife meaning their ideas do not fit together well.

Conclusion: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics have completely different contexts and worldviews, making them incompatible. It is inappropriate to try and define Buddhism in the framework of Virtue Ethics and they should be treated in separate ways.

Model Answer

In this answer, I will conclude that it is inappropriate to suggest that “Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based”, due to the completely differing contexts and worldviews of Aristotle and Gautama and Buddhism. This question is asking for one to compare an Ancient Athenian moral philosophy with the ethical beliefs and practices of a major world religion, and I believe that it is disrespectful to try to force Buddhist ethics to confine to a Western understanding of ethics, suggesting that the only way that Buddhism can be understood is if it is seen through the lens of a Western ethical theory.

Buddhist Ethics stem from the religious philosophy of Siddhartha Gautama, and comprise many different aspects. There are deontological aspects, in the form of set rules and ethical opinions – for example, those contained within the Vinaya Pitaka (the discipline section of the Pali Canon containing rules for monk and nuns). Other deontological rules include the 5 moral precepts that all Buddhists, including lay people, are expected to follow – guidance includes abstaining from killing and false speech. The ‘sila’ section of Magga (the ‘Middle Way’/Noble Eightfold Path) also gives guidance for ethical behaviour, suggesting that one should have a right speech, action and livelihood. It is important to note that Buddhist ethics are governed by the rule of intention: one can only receive negative karmic effects for an akusala (unhealthy) action that one actually intended to do. This shows that as well as the deontological aspects of Buddhism, the intention formed within one’s character is important within ethics. The final goal of all sects Buddhism is nirvana (true understanding of the nature of things), which will lead to eventual escape from Samsara (the cycle of death and rebirth), either as an arhat or a future Buddha. For Buddhists, ethical behaviour is a key part of the practice that will eventually lead to nirvana.

Virtue Ethics, founded by Aristotle within the context of Ancient Greece, is heavily influenced by Greek mythological literature. Greek myths focus on a “heroic society” where one’s actions indicate the nature of one’s character – Greeks aspired to be Heroes like Hercules and Theseus, and did not want to be villains like Greek monsters, or known as having a hamartia like Icarus. Therefore, in Aristotle’s day, morally it could be said “you are what you do”, and your actions show if you are a good or bad person. This idea is evidenced in Aristotle’s theory, as Aristotle encouraged people to try and perfect their character over time, eventually aiming for Eudaimonia (ultimately happiness through doing good deeds). Aristotle, whilst providing some deontological guidance (for example, he outlawed the actions of murder, theft and adultery in any context), argued that a moral agent has a duty to try and become a better person through practising being virtues. He said a virtuous life is one of moderation between “abstinence” (having too little of a characteristic) and “excess” (having too much of a characteristic). A balanced character leads to Eudaimonia. For example, “courage” is an Aristotlian virtue, but “cowardice” is seen as the corresponding vice of abstinence and “rashness” is seen as the corresponding vice of success. For Aristotle, societies where all people are aiming for Eudaimonia can be described as “flourishing”, because all people are in such a society are reaching their full potential.

It could be said that when comparing Buddhist Ethics and Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, that there are enough similarities which would make it appropriate to say that Buddhism can be defined in a character-based way. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the emphasis on living a life of moderation shared by Gautama and Aristotle. For Gautama, whose life of luxury and life of strict asceticism and self-mortification did not allow him to gain nirvana, magga became part of the truth that he realised: that a life of balance between two extremes was necessary to reach nirvana. For this reason, he preached non-attachment to worldly possessions balanced by the supplication of physical needs through eating alms donations and living in a monastery to his sangha. The parallels between Gautama’s “middle way” and Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” are striking – Aristotle argued that it is wrong to have too much of an emotional character, and that a balance of emotions behind one’s actions would lead to one having a truly good character. This could suggest that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, because a life of moderation is seen to lead to a follower reaching the final goal in both cases.

In addition to the above point, it could also be said that the emphasis on learning and growing over time in Buddhism shows that Buddhist ethics can be best defined as character-based. Both Gautama and Aristotle recommend learning from a more moral teacher first: Gautama himself taught his followers to be arhats, and ordained the sangha to continue this teaching tradition after his death. Aristotle too recommended that one find a teacher who exhibits virtuous characteristics and first learn from them when trying to improve one’s character. Buddhists and Virtue Ethics also do not expect immediate moral perfection, but expect one to learn to exhibit sila or become virtuous over a lifetime of ethical practice, continually trying to put their intention towards the final goal. This also suggests that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, due to the emphasis on development in both theories.

However, there are also some clear differences between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism which show that the two cannot be combined. Perhaps most importantly, Aristotle’s atheist beliefs should be considered – it is likely that Aristotle would reject the Buddhist belief in karma and rebirth, as Aristotle did not believe in an afterlife. Buddhist ethics are in part informed by the belief that all begins are trapped within Samsara, and their status is impermanent in their current reborn form, with the final goal to escape the cycle of rebirth. It is hard to see how this is compatible with Aristotle. Also, Buddhist attitudes to being within Samsara are very different to Aristotle’s ideas – Aristotle upheld the ‘Hierarchy of Souls’, meaning that humans were above plants and animals within the moral order. Buddhist would disagree with this on two grounds – firstly due to anatta (not self) which rejects the existence of a soul, and secondly due to anicca (impermanence) which means that all beings within Samsara are seen as being equal, because their current state is impermanent and they could have a more positive rebirth in the future. Therefore, it is wrong to say that humans are above animals, as Aristotle does. This shows a huge difference in worldview, and begins to highlight why it is inappropriate to combine Virtue Ethics and Buddhist ethics, as their views of ultimate reality differ so greatly.

Finally, one must remember also that Buddhism could not be solely defined as a character-based theory, because it also has deontological and teleological aspects. This means that Buddhist ethics also share facets with teleological theories such as Bentham’s Utilitarianism, and deontological theories such as Kantian Ethics. The deontological focus on rules, evident in the Vinaya, could appeal more to other deontological theories, and the importance of moral consequences within karma also shows that Buddhist ethics are partly teleological. Therefore, it is difficult to say that Buddhist ethics are solely character-based, when similarities are evident with other ethical theories.

Overall, it seems impossible to me that Buddhism can be defined as being only “character-based” in nature. Despite having an emphasis on personal moral development when on the path of Magga, it cannot be denied that Buddhism also shares aspects with deontological and teleological ethical theories within Western ethics. This entire question seems to be asking for me to force Buddhism to fit the mould of a recognisable ethical theory in the West, rather than appreciating Buddhism in its own context, as having its own moral truths. For this reason, I do not think that Buddhist Ethics are compatible with Aristotle’s ethics, and it is therefore wrong to define Buddhist ethics in this way.

Model Essay: "Buddhism is a collection of traditions with little in common." Evaluate this statement.

 

1. “Buddhism is a collection of traditions with little in common.” Evaluate this statement [15 marks - AQA]

For	Against
·        There are many key differences in texts – e.g. Lotus Sutra vs Pali Canon. ·        Difference in the view of the Buddha himself – e.g. Trikaya vs Role Model. ·        Buddhism adapts to the culture and society it is a part of – e.g. Secular/Triratna/Engaged – this shows that Buddhism is culturally relative instead of one idea (focus on views of Batchelor)	·        The final goal is the same in both major traditions. ·        There is little animosity between sects of Buddhism. ·        Buddhists are peaceful and tolerant, e.g. the Dalai Lama campaigns for the protection and equal respect of all religions and diversity within religion. ·        The message remains the same, it is the practices that evolves in each culture.

In this answer I will conclude that Buddhism is not a collection of traditions with little in common, rather it is a religion with a variety of sects and approaches, which all focus on the same goal: enlightenment, in order to end dukkha (suffering). Therefore, “Buddhism” refers to an overall doctrine, which is then interpreted differently in different cultures and time periods.

Many people may disagree with my thesis statement because they believe that when examining the sects of Buddhism, there are too many key differences in essential aspects to be able to define Buddhism as one religion. For example, the key texts within Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism are different, with Theravada Buddhists prioritising the message of the Pali Canon, and Mahayana Buddhists preferring later Buddhist sutras, particularly the Lotus Sutra. Professor Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensions of religions suggest that a religion is centred around a scriptural text, so it is difficult that different sects of Buddhism follow different books. This could even lead people to question if Mahayana and Theravada traditions are two completely different religions, each with their own text. This becomes a more pertinent question when key parts of the text are studied – for example, the difference in goals between the bodhisattva (Mahayana) and arhat (Theravada) and the differences in the view of the Buddha as the Trikaya Doctrine (Mahayana) and a human role model (Theravada) lead to big differences in Buddhist traditions. Some may even suggest that these differences are so big that there is not one Buddhist tradition, but rather Buddhism is a collection of different traditions with their own distinct ideas about key doctrinal concepts.

Nevertheless, many have pointed to the fact that for Buddhists, the final goal of Buddhism remains the same, regardless of what tradition they adhere to. The final goal is nirvana (enlightenment) through the extinction of the three fires of hatred, greed and delusion, and the cessation of craving through non-attachment. This is the final goal for both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists, although the route there is different, with Theravadas aiming for personal enlightenment by becoming an arhat through following the Buddha’s teachings, and Mahayanas aiming to one day become Buddhas themselves by undertaking the bodhisattva vow. It can be argued that all of the Buddhist practices that seem to be completely “different”, are in fact all leading to this final goal. So, whilst Buddhism may be very diverse, all of its different sects in fact have a lot in common: that they are aiming for the cessation of suffering and the end of rebirth.

Stephen Batchelor strongly supports the idea that “Buddhism” does not refer to a specific religion with one set of doctrines and beliefs. As a champion of Secular Buddhism, he argues that Buddhism is an evolving concept that adapts to each culture and nation that it is brought to, producing a variety of different traditions with distinct views. The most contemporary view, that Buddhism is in fact not about “belief in” doctrines but rather in about “belief that” we should do something practical to overcome suffering is just one tradition in a long line of traditions to ensure that Buddhism has continued to survive. Nonetheless, each of these traditions are very different – for example, Secular Buddhism rejects the supernatural beliefs of Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, in favour of focusing on the 4 Noble Truths as practical “tasks” to overcome suffering. The fact that many Buddhists today reject Secular Buddhism vehemently further cements these ideas that the traditions are different and do not share key ideas and practices, meaning that have little in common.

However, many Buddhists would point to the above argument that despite practices evolving in different cultures and time periods out of necessity (for example, Buddhism must be adapted to the political climate of England, where monks cannot go on alms rounds so must instead rely on online donations to their monasteries), the same key beliefs abound throughout the different sects of Buddhism. Furthermore, Buddhism is seen as a religion of peace due to its focus on ahimsa (non-violence), meaning that despite there being differences between Buddhist sects, there is very little animosity between Buddhist groups, and almost no violent schism between sects in Buddhist history. This is radically different to almost all other world religions, and suggests that there is common nature and ethics across different traditions within Buddhism, focusing on mutual respect for life and the prevention of harm.

Overall, despite differences in practices I believe that the message of the dharma is one of love and tolerance towards all beings, represented through the peacefulness that exits between the different sects of Buddhism. Furthermore, I am convinced by the argument that these sects all share a common goal (to end human suffering), despite having different practices. This is even true of the often-criticised Secular Buddhism, which focuses on the ending of suffering, just as all other sects do.

Model Essay: Examine Ashoka's view of other faiths with reference to his 12th Edict.

 

1. Examine Ashoka’s view of other faiths with reference to his 12^th Edict. [10 marks - AQA]

Plan:

·        Introduce Ashoka and explain his conversion/the role of edicts in his empire.

·        View of 12^th edict – contact between religions is good and helps people to understand their own dharma.

·        All religions are equally worthy of respect and equal protection.

The Emperor Ashoka ruled almost the entire Indian subcontinent from 268-232BCE, and is regarded as the first Buddhist ruler of India who used his beliefs in his political policies. Ashoka’s conversion is recorded in edicts that he published throughout his kingdom, and he professed to have converted to following the Buddhist dharma after seeing huge amounts of bloodshed and suffering in the Kalinga war, which he waged to occupy territory. It is suggested that after seeing and causing so much suffering, Ashoka had a change of heart and began to seek the end of suffering, leading him to the spiritual dharma (truths or teachings) of Siddhartha Gautama, which were growing increasingly popular within India at this time. This then led Ashoka to radically change his policy and leadership style, embracing ahimsa through vegetarianism in his palaces, and bringing an end to his political control being achieved through violent military conquests. Ashoka made his beliefs and the laws he passed known throughout his kingdom by having huge rock edicts transcribed and erected throughout his kingdom, in order to spread his wishes to those under his command, the 12^th edict deals with his attitudes to other religions.

Ashoka, in the 12^th Edict, suggests that other faiths are worthy of respect and tolerance, and encourages contact between different religions in his kingdom. His reasoning for this is that one’s own understanding of their dharma can be aided by hearing about the truth claims of other religions. He professes that his greatest desire for the “growth in essential of all religions” within his kingdom, suggesting that he wants all faiths to be able to flourish in India. He also suggests that those of different religions can learn from one another, stating plainly that “contact between religions is good.” It is evident that Ashoka has taken some time to consider and compare similarities between different religions, identifying in the edict that many share the same moral practices, for example Ashoka suggests that rejecting false speech is a common moral standard in all religions. It seems that Ashoka is providing common ground to start interfaith dialogues within his kingdom, and that he wanted his followers to discuss with each other and find further similarities between their religions to help them gain a better understanding of both others and themselves.

Ashoka does also seem to recognise that there may be times when religions may not agree, but his edict gives guidance over how to deal with this criticism. Ashoka commands in his Edict that those who want to criticise another’s faith should only do so “mildly”, which could be seen to link to the Buddha’s sila teachings about right speech and right action. This shows that Ashoka did not encourage disparagement or rejection of other faiths, but wanted open discussions between these religions in his kingdom. Overall, it appears that Ashoka is very tolerant of the variety of religions within India at this time, and that he encouraged contact between the religions to help people become wiser in their own faith and matters of other faiths, likely as a way of maintaining peace and harmony within his kingdom.