Are Buddhist Ethics Character-Based? Creating a Dialogue between Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Buddhism

 To what extent are Buddhist Ethics character-based? 

Author: Ruth Wood

Explaining Aristotle's Virtue Ethics

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is often regarded as a “Hybrid” theory, combining elements of teleology and deontology in its method of making moral decisions. Aristotle, an Ancient Greek Philosopher writing in approximately 350CE, created an ethic that reflected the morality of his society – known as “Heroic Society” based on the evidence from Greek myths and legends. It is clear from tales such as Theseus and the Minotaur, the tale of Icarus, and the Odyssey, that the Greeks saw moral people as those who performed good actions, and saw villains as monsters who did evil, unwise and hurtful things. Within this society, it appears that the basic premise behind morality was the belief that “you are what you do”: for example those who lie and steal have a dishonest character, whereas those who are selfless and generous have a kind character. This context is evident in Aristotle’s theory, which essentially focuses on the development of one’s moral character. Unlike the theories discussed above, Aristotle’s theory is perhaps more reflective of human nature, as it encourages people to learn from their mistakes over time and to emulate the behaviour of a moral virtuous moral teacher in order to become a morally good person. One could apply the phrase "practise makes perfect" to Aristotle's Ethic - as its only by making mistakes and learning from them that one can perfect a moral character over one's lifetime. Aristotle uses the metaphor of a champion archer, and the amount of practise they must do to ensure that they become perfect in their craft. 

Aristotle provided the “Golden Mean” - a guide for moral actions for humans to perfect over their lifetime. Aristotle’s Golden Mean is characterised by its moderate nature – it falls between two “vices” of excess (having too much of a characteristic) and abstinence (having too little of a characteristic). An example of the vices in comparison to the virtue is found in the virtue of “courage” – being courageous in a situation is the moderate action between cowardice (the vice of abstinence) and rashness (the vice of excess). Aristotle argued that all humans are naturally aiming for the goal of “Eudaimonia” (ultimate happiness through developing a virtuous character), but this is not just an individual goal – he envisaged a society where everyone is aiming to be virtuous to achieve this ultimate happiness, and he described this society as “flourishing”. Humans should use practical wisdom and the guidance of others to learn over time what actions are morally good, and which are morally bad. This takes into account both the nature of the action, its consequences for an individual, and its consequences for society, hence its "hybrid" approach to morality.

However, Aristotle did not just offer the Golden Mean as a guide to human behaviour, he also offered some deontological rules in his work – it is evident from Aristotle’s writings that he viewed the actions of murder, theft and adultery as always being wrong. This is because they do not contribute to a flourishing society, and they do not uphold order and virtue for all beings in society.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a one-summary paragraph of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, explaining in your own words the context of Ancient Greek "Heroic Society" and what this means for good behaviour, the importance of a moral teacher, the Golden Mean, and examples of deontological rules. 

o   How Virtue Ethics supports and challenges Buddhist views.

Support:

-        Like Virtue Ethics Buddhism is seen as a spiritual journey where over time one “perfects” their character. This is shown through how the parts of the Eightfold Path support each other (like the gradual opening of the petals of a flower). Aristotle argues that humans learn from their mistakes and can eventually achieve moral perfection, in the same way Gautama argues that over many lifetimes all beings can learn from their mistakes to overcome the three fires of hatred, greed and delusion. This is further supported by the fact that Buddhism is based on the example of the life of Gautama, who himself experienced luxury and strict asceticism and learnt from the mistakes of these lifestyles that the way to overcome suffering is through moderation (magga/middle way).

-        The teaching of Paticassamuppada/rebecoming particularly relates to the idea that our actions condition our personality – people who choose to be angry or jealous will get into a pattern where their previous choices make their future choices less virtuous. Just as Aristotle argued dishonesty leads to a less virtuous character, fitting with Greek “Heroic Society” where people’s character was judged by their deeds. Aristotle argued that those who continually choose to display unvirtuous characteristics will develop unvirtuous souls, which is very similar to the Buddhist understanding of how personality (although not the soul) develops over many lifetimes of making wrong/right choices.

-        Buddhists can learn to be virtuous by following a teacher (Gautama or a Bodhisattva if Mahayana), in the same way that Aristotle emphasised the important of following a moral teacher on the journey to Eudaimonia.

-        Parallels between the table of virtues and the Buddha’s “middle way” of Magga are clear: the Buddha taught the middle way between luxury and extreme, and Aristotle taught the middle ways between extremes of behaviour.

-        Buddhism shares some deontological traits with Aristotle – they would agree that lying and murder are also always wrong (e.g. they will result in expulsion from the sangha). In addition Many of Aristotle’s “Virtues” would also be considered as virtuous by Buddhists – e.g. honesty. Furthermore, Intellectual virtues as a way of understanding morality could be compared to the emphasis on prajna in Buddhism.

Challenges:

-        Buddhism is not just andro-centric – all beings should be treated with love and compassion as they are simply in a different stage of rebirth, this is not true of Aristotle whose work includes the “hierarchy of the souls”, which states that humans have the ability to reason and this puts them above plants (which have souls according to Aristotle) and animals (which have lower level souls, giving them sensory experience but not the ability to reason). In Buddhism all beings are regarded as being of the same value, as their form is impermanent and could be higher or lower in Samsara in their next life, depending on their past karma.

-        The two theories have completely different worldviews – Aristotle was prescribing an ethic for Greek Society who believed in the soul and the afterlife, whereas the Buddha taught a view of ultimate reality involving many realms of rebirth, Aristotle focuses only on Ethical behaviour whereas Buddhism is a complete way of life – Buddhism is a system of religion and goes beyond a mere ethical system.

-        Aristotle was a dualist who believed in the soul, but Gautama taught anatta (no-self). Aristotle taught that despite people having a separate soul, this soul animates the body and cannot survive death, meaning that Aristotle’s theory is atheistic and rejects the existence of the afterlife. In comparison, Buddhists do believe in an afterlife despite not believing in the soul, life continues after death within Samsara and onwards in some ineffable form in pari-nirvana. The goals of the two theories are also completely different, and Eudaimonia and Nirvana have key difference – Nirvana is not just being virtuous, it is having true understanding of the nature of things and has a supernatural and spiritual aspects, whereas Eudaimonia is a utopian concept achieved by becoming totally virtuous after a lifetime of practise.

 

o   How compatible Buddhist ethics are with Aristotle’s Ethics – in addition to the points above:

 

·        Compatible: the compatibility of Buddhism and Aristotle come from the fact that they place similar emphasis on morality being a journey, one that is perfected throughout a human’s life, and takes a great deal of conscious effort and concerted behaviour to ensure that people are being virtuous. This means that their attitudes towards moderation and the middle way are obviously comparable. The importance of intention is also key – both Virtue Ethicists and Buddhists must intentionally strive for moral growth and want to be better people in order to truly become so. The Buddha taught people that effort, concentration and intention are key to morality, and this is supported by prajna (wisdom). Similarly, Aristotle saw ethics as coming from a place of strident effort, supported by human reason and the cultivation of wisdom in the form of the intellectual virtues which help people to understand what the Golden Mean is. It could also be argued that the history and lifestyles of Aristotle and Gautama make many of their ideas appear to be easily comparable. The Buddha was raised as an Indian Prince and Aristotle lived his life as an Athenian gentleman – both also came from Ancient cultures, making their theories have a similar level of antiquity. It could be argued that Virtue Ethics is most compatible with Secular Buddhism, which focuses on moral philosophy and using Buddhist practices to perfect a moral way of life, which seems very similar to the broad aims of Aristotle.

·        Incompatible: there are huge numbers of cultural differences between the two despite their shared Ancient historical nature and the similarities between the lives of the Buddha and Aristotle. Buddhism is a system of religion born out of the spiritual traditions of Ancient India. In comparison, Aristotle formulated a non-religious understanding of morality based on his own view of the soul, and the possibility of a society developing that could become perfectly moral without supernatural or spiritual intervention. Buddhism is a world religion, whereas Virtue Ethics is a way of life that is fundamentally atheistic. They have hugely different goals because of the fact that Aristotle divorced his ideas from spirituality and the afterlife, and nirvana has supernatural aspects beyond just being a moral being. 

 

o   Strengths and weaknesses of Virtue Ethics in comparison to Buddhist ethics. Counter arguments to each point in italics.

Strengths of Aristotle in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Aristotle’s theory is universal and adaptable – the virtues of the Golden Mean can apply to the lives of all people, and the reliance on personal experience and the guidance of a teacher means that, despite its ancient roots, it can be adapted to fit with modern society. This is unlike Buddhism which has a greater grounding in spirituality and ancient practices – particularly the doctrines of karma and rebirth which are for many outdated and illogical in the face of modern science. Buddhism also, for most, requires some sort of faith in the authority of the dharma and the reality of Samsara, making it less adaptable for all people, particularly in modern society as it becomes increasingly secularised. However this can be challenged by Secular Buddhism, which offers people a way of utilising Buddhist ethics without the outdated and unrealistic spirituality, which means that Buddhism too can be seen as adaptable if taken in a Secular Buddhist sense.

-        Aristotle’s focus on becoming a better person over time is realistic and fits with human nature. This is unlike Buddhism which argues that all beings in Samsara are essentially flawed by the 3 fires, and that human nature is naturally one that leads them to crave and suffer. The Buddha asks people to dedicate their effort to overcoming their natural urges and restraining the mind, whereas Aristotle argues that over time we can reflect on and learn from our mistakes, balancing out our character, which has the potential to be good.

-        Aristotle believed in the value of occasional self-care and leisure time, and Aristotle saw taking care of oneself from time to time as being essential to the development of a moral character. This allows people to function realistically, living a normal life that balances hard work and pleasure, and even allows them to at times spend money on themselves over and above other duties like giving to charity. It can be argued that despite a life of moderation being at the heart of Buddhism, that in comparison a Buddhist life is still very austere – this is shown through the fact that monks in the Forest Tradition (Thailand/Amaravarti Monastery in the UK) eat only one meal a day, live off alms donations, and give up all their possessions and even their former name when undertaking ordination. Certainly this is moderate in comparison to strict self-mortification, but is it a realistic or desirable goal for everyone?

Weaknesses of Aristotle in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Aristotle’s theory is often accused as being vague and broad, making it hard to apply to ethical dilemmas. This is partly because of the subjective nature of the virtues of the Golden Mean (for example, one person’s version of kindness is not necessarily the same as the next person). He also gives little guidance in specific situations as he only provides deontological rules against 3 actions – murder, theft and adultery. All other moral actions are left to the agent to consider. Aristotle doesn’t comment on when life begins or on whether or not the embryo is a person, leading a variety of ethical issues in today’s society up to interpretation. This is unlike Buddhism, which has lots of systems of moral guidance in place – from the existence of the sangha, which offers real teachers and leaders of morality in the form of monks and nuns (an excellent example is the Dalai Lama) to the moral texts that Buddhists follow such as the Pali Canon and Lotus Sutra. There is clear guidance for Buddhists on moral issues because of the scope of these rules. In addition, Buddhism does comment on the personhood of the embryo, and Harvey comments that in Buddhist belief life begins at conception, meaning that the embryo is regarded as a fully human person, who in most situations should be allowed to experience their “precious” human rebirth.

-        Aristotle does not necessarily consider one’s intention when he judges someone’s character based on their action. Virtue Ethics is criticised because an agent could have an immoral intention but still appear virtuous in character based on their actions (e.g. they are being selfish by hungering for fame and recognition, but still appear to be generous or honest when you look at their behaviour). The emphasis on intention in Buddhism could be seen to make it a stronger theory. Buddhists receive karmic reward and punishment based on their intention being kusala (healthy and unselfish) or akusala (selfish) – this overcomes the problem of right action but wrong intention, as both the intention and the behaviour itself are considered as part of magga. It is therefore possible that Buddhists are truly moral whereas Virtue Ethicists may just be appearing so.  

 

o   How Virtue Ethics can be used to criticise Buddhism – in addition to the points above regarding compatibility and criticism:

Aristotle saw Virtue Ethics as a way to individually perfect one’s character, and hoped for a society where everyone aimed to be more moral in order to allow everyone to live their best life and flourish. Virtue Ethics is largely secular, and does not really depend on a supernatural existence in order to be credible (despite Aristotle believing in the existence of the soul, he does not believe in an afterlife and does not use the afterlife as motivation to be moral). This means that Aristotle would likely criticise the aspects of Buddhist ethics that relate to supernatural Buddhist doctrine – namely, karma and rebirth in Samsara. In addition, Aristotle did not uphold multiple ethical sources like religious texts, but prioritised human reason and experience as the way of understanding how to perfect a moral character. 

Students, Now Try This - 

To what extent do you think that Aristotle's Virtue Ethics are compatible with Buddhist Ethics? Create a one paragraph "compatibility conclusion" to explain your view.