Are Buddhist Ethics Deontological? Creating a Dialogue

What are the similarities and differences between Kant's Deontology and Buddhist Ethics? 

Author: Ruth Wood

Explaining Kant's Deontology

“Deontology” takes its root from the word “deon” which means “duty” in Greek. Therefore, deontological theories are normative theories that tell people what right and wrong actions are. These actions are seen as being intrinsically right or wrong, so this means that human have a duty to perform the right action in each circumstance. Deontology is often understood in terms of being rules or law-based, as they offer prescriptive instructions of how to behave morally.

Deontological theories are often associated with Classical Theism – examples that we have studied include Natural Moral Law and religious fundamentalism as a form of Divine Command Theory. Both of these theories uphold the view that God has given humans direct instruction as to what actions are always right and what actions are always wrong. In their purest forms, these theories argue that the rule is always more important than the situation and that the end never justifies the means – people must always perform the good action, regardless of the consequences. Aquinas argues that God has revealed his rules for humanity through the Synderesis Principle and the human ability to reason, producing the primary and secondary precepts of Natural Moral Law. Divine Command Theories suggest that God, via scripture and Divine Revelation, provides people with the rules to live moral lives (such as the 10 Commandments in Exodus and Jesus’ Beatitudes in Matthew).

Kant however offers a unique view of deontology as his ethic is primarily secular (in that, whilst Kant did believe in God as a perfectly rational being, he did not offer an ethic based on the Bible or Christian thought). Kant argues that humanity has the ability to reason that is manifest when humans ensure they are being perfectly rational. He therefore encouraged people to separate themselves from their natural emotions when making moral decisions and try as much as possible to act in a perfectly rational way – those who can do this achieve the “summum bonum” – ultimate good. Kant argued that through reason it is possible for humans to understand which actions are inherently right, and which are inherently wrong. He argues that humans can understand right and wrong actions through the application of a “categorical imperative” – this is a rule that applies to all situations and all times, making it deontological in nature. He phrases the categorical imperative in 3 ways: i) Act in a way that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. ii) Act in a way that does not use humans as a means to an end. iii) Act as if you are a lawmaker in a universal kingdom of ends. This essentially means that all actions must be universalizable to be moral – when making a decision, one must question what would happen if all people performed this action. If this action is shown to be illogical when everyone does it (i.e. because doing so would lead to the breakdown of society) then it is the wrong action. Some examples of actions that Kant always viewed as wrong are stealing, lying and murder of humans.

Students - Now Try This:

Can you create a one-paragraph summary of Kant's ethical viewpoint using the key words deontological, summum bonum, categorical imperative and universalizable?

Creating an Dialogue Between Deontology and Buddhism (referencing Kant)

o   How Kant’s theory supports and challenges Buddhist views on ethics.

Support:

-        Buddhism has deontological aspects – for example, followers are offered guidelines regarding how they should behave, and there are laws that should not be broken according to the Buddha himself. An example of this is found in the fact that the Buddha argued that it would be wrong to falsely claim supernatural powers or having gained nirvana, and that monks and nuns who do this should be expelled from the sangha as punishment. Whilst Kant was working in a completely different geographical and spiritual content, he would agree with the idea that there are actions that are always wrong.

-        This is further explained through the fact that Buddhists believe that beings receive karmic reward regardless of what form they are born into – lions for example receive bad karma for their actions, even though this is part of their instinct. This shows that killing is always wrong, linking to Kant’s ideas that actions are always right or wrong.

-        Buddhism sees ignorance as one of the three fires that leads to suffering, it could be argued that Kant’s focus on being perfectly rational could relate to this idea – humans should try to overcome their emotions and gain wisdom.

-        Kant’s focus on universalizability could be seen to be similar to Buddhist ethics: Buddhists should show moral behaviour to all beings, they should act in a way that is selfless to all beings in Samsara and give out their punya if possible to help others.

Challenge:

-        Kantian and Buddhist ethics come from completely different contextual perspectives – the scholar’s worldviews differ wildly because of their differing geographical and academic contexts. Kant worked in Germany in C16th-17^th whereas the Buddha was teaching his ethics around 2,500 years ago in Ancient India. The concerns, life experiences and religion/spirituality are incomparable.

-        Buddhism is individualistic in nature – the focus on many sects of Buddhism is on self-realisation of the dharma, not on universalizing one’s actions, making the method for determining morality completely different.

-        Kant upheld a rational worldview which encouraged humans to be perfectly rational in order to reach the Summum Bonum and gain afterlife in the noumenal (spiritual, perfectly rational) realm. However, Buddhist ethics function within the framework of the Buddhist religion – ethics depends on supernatural beliefs in Samsara and karma, leading people to be reborn if they perform immoral deeds. The goals of the two ethics are also completely different – Buddhists aim for the bodhisattva or arhat path, whereas Kant encouraged people to be perfectly rational to reach ultimate happiness.

-        Kant would likely view a Buddhist approach as being too emotional – particularly the Mahayana path that encourages beings to show compassion to all beings in Samsara and aim to become a future Buddha to save others from suffering.

-        Humans are not seen as being fundamentally rational as all existence is conditioned by the 3 fires of hatred, greed and delusion – it is only through intense meditation practice that someone can overcome this.

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

-        Compatible: Buddhists have deontological rules, aim to overcome ignorance, and do not believe that morality is dictated by a creator God. This is similar to Kant who offered a secular deontological ethic to guide moral behaviour and encourage humans to be more rational to live better lives.

-        Not Compatible: Buddhism and Kant have completely different contexts, meaning that their worldviews are based on entirely different perspectives. They have different goals – arhat/bodhisattva VS summum bonum.  Buddhists also have multiple rules to follow to live a moral life, not just one Categorical Imperative as offered by Kant. Buddhists also take a teleological/flexible attitude to many moral situations – it could be argued that because of teachings on ahimsa, Buddhists act in a way that minimises overall suffering, which means that there could be times where moral rules are broken (for example, abortions are often seen as morally permissible in post-war Japan, but abortion is immoral according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative).

 

o   Strengths and weaknesses of these theories in comparison to Buddhist ethics. (Buddhist counter arguments in italics for each point).

Strengths of Kant in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Based on a straightforward principle – universalizability. In his explanation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant makes it clear that humans are at the centre of the theory, so cannot be used as means to an end. This is unlike Buddhism as Buddhists have a range of ethical guidelines that stem from a range of moral sources and texts, there are hundreds of rules for monks and nuns to follow, and one’s intention must always be unselfish, making Buddhist ethics much more complex in comparison to Kant.

-        Consistency in moral decision makings, easy to understand, actions are always right or wrong so there is no elongated or complex weighing up process. This is unlike Buddhism which does sometimes adopt a teleological approach to moral decisions, this might make it hard for believers to identify when they should be acting in a certain why – should they be following a rule or breaking that rule to reduce harm? Kant is clearer.

-        Human ability to reason is largely universal, meaning everyone can use this theory. This is unlike Buddhism which relies on specific supernatural and doctrinal teachings from Gautama, and bases these teachings on Buddhist texts, which can be unreliable. There is also a huge number of Buddhist texts to choose from, which may make Buddhists unsure about which ethical rules to follow.

-        Focus on reason fits with enlightenment thinking, and secular nature of the ethic means that it can be adapted to today’s society. Buddhist ethics, particularly when understood within the traditional framework of a supernatural view of Samsara and karma, is less likely to fit with science and empiricism as it is unverifiable/believes in phenomena that science rejects due to lack of evidence (specifically the idea that we are reborn and experience positive and negative karmic effects of our actions). However it could be argued in the same vein that Kant did have some spirituality and did believe in the existence of God and angels, making aspects of his theory irrational too from a scientific perspective.

Weaknesses of Kant in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Kant is known as being inflexible and absolutist, meaning that there are times where people behave in a way that does not show compassion to others – for example, abortion in the case of rape or incest would not be permitted in Kant’s theory. In comparison, Buddhism does allow for exceptions to rules because of its focus on unselfish intentions and ahimsa. Karuna (compassion) is at the core of Mahayana behaviour and this shows that Buddhists are able to bring about more positive consequences than those who just prioritise moral rules because of their duty to do so.

-        Many people believe that Kant’s goal of being fundamentally rational and non-emotional is actually impossible for humans to achieve – in comparison, Buddhism is based on the experience of Siddhartha Gautama, who based his doctrine on his own life experience and understanding of the human condition. He does not ask them to do the impossible, but bases his ethical guidelines on the idea that nirvana is a goal that is attainable for those who practise the actions of magga.

-        Kant is known as being specieist because his theory is andro-centric, stopping humans only as being viewed as a means to an end. In comparison, Buddhism teachings that ethical behaviour applies to all beings in Samsara, and that people are judged on their intentional treatments of animals as well as other people. This shows that Buddhist ethics allow people to do less harm overall, and upholds the value of all life and the minimisation of the suffering of all creatures, not just humans.

 

o   How Kant can be used to criticise Buddhism – in addition to the strengths/weaknesses above:

Kant’s criticism of Buddhism is likely to come from the fact that Kant would view this theory as irrational, and functioning with an incorrect worldview (because Buddhists believe in karma and rebirth, rather than in the noumenal and phenomenal realms). Kant encouraged humans to be perfectly rational and to divorce themselves from emotional behaviour – he would likely therefore disregard Buddhism’s focus on kindness, peace, and compassion (particularly the aims of the Mahayana sect). Kant would also likely criticise Buddhist ethics as not being universalizable, and may even see them as irrational because they cause a “contradiction in conception.” For example, Mahayana ethics encourage moral behaviour with the intention of all beings becoming a future Buddha to help others escape suffering – however, when considering this on a universal scale, it can be seen that this cannot work – eventually Samsara would be full of beings who have delayed their own entrance into pari-nirvana in order to help others, and there would be no one left to convert to Buddhism – this is illogical and undermines Mahayana ethics as a whole. Furthermore, Kant only prescribed one simple ethic, which was to universalize the maxim of one’s actions. This is unlike Buddhism which provides a multitude of moral rules, from a range of moral sources, which Buddhists can pick and choose between because of Gautama’s insistence that Buddhists much understand the Buddha through their own experiences and self-realisation.

Students - Now Try This:

Can you create a "Compatibility Conclusion" to explain to what extent Buddhist Ethics are, or are not, compatible with Kant's theory?