Are Buddhist Ethics Teleological? Creating a Dialogue

Are Buddhist Ethics Teleological? 

A Comparison Between Buddhist Ethics and Utilitarianism

Author: Ruth Wood

Explaining Bentham's Ethics

Teleological ethical theories gain their root from the word “telos”, meaning “end” in Greek. Teleological theories therefore observe the end consequence of performing an action in order to determine if the action is moral or not. This means that all teleological theories do not have moral absolutes, as the morality of an action depends on the circumstances that one finds them self in – whilst taking a life may cause suffering for example, it is seen as better to take one life in order to save many (equally, if possible, not taking a life at all is likely to bring about the best consequences).  Examples of another teleological theory you have studied is Situation Ethics by Fletcher. This theory only utilises one rule: to act in a way that brings about the most loving consequences, following the example of Jesus and the use of agape love that is encouraged in the Bible. Fletcher guides people to the rule of love through the four Working Principles and the 6 Fundamental Principles, which show that love is unconditional, does not depend on emotion or personal preference, and cannot be established in advance of a specific decision.

Jeremy Bentham was a social reformer and moral philosopher who has created a world-famous theory, known today as Utilitarianism. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is based on hedonism, and is thus a naturalist theory. This means that it identified moral goodness as being synonymous with a natural fact and property – in this case, goodness is seen as being the same as pleasure, meaning that in the theory good actions are ones that bring the majority pleasure and bad actions are ones that bring the majority pain. The basic premise of Utilitarianism is therefore “act in a way that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Beyond this rule, there are no moral absolutes and the morality of an action depends of the specifics of their situation.

Bentham offered a method to further help people to calculate the right moral action, known as the Hedonic Calculus or the “pleasure calculator”. He offered 7 guiding principles to help moral agents to consider the consequences of their actions – for example, he asks how certain people are that their action will bring about pleasure or pain, how remote/far off the pleasure is from the time of the decision, and how many people are affected/the extent of the decision. Whilst this may appear cumbersome, it is useful in democratic situations, particularly for governments to use (which makes sense as Bentham was a social reformer). However, a danger of a theory that performs actions that are best for the majority comes from the fact that this could lead to the creation of a “slave culture” or an environment where the minority are exploited in order to benefit the majority. However, this was somewhat overcome by J.S. Mill’s later adaptation of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism: Mill argued that whilst the basic premise of Utilitarianism is a good one, that some rules are necessary to protect the majority, adding a deontological edge to Bentham’s Utilitarianism, leading to his version being coined as “Rule Utilitarianism”.

Students - Now Try This:

Can you create a summary paragraph which explains Bentham's Utilitarianism in a concise manner? 

Aim to include the definition of teleology, how Bentham defines goodness as pleasure, the Hedonic Calculus, and a strength (democracy) and weakness (slave culture). 

A Comparison of Buddhist Ethics and Bentham's Ethics

o   How Bentham’s theory supports and challenges Buddhist views.

Support:

-        Buddhism, like Bentham, focuses on the reduction of pain and suffering in its ethics. This is particularly evident through ahimsa (non-violence) which Buddhists are expected to show to all beings. Keown (Buddhism, A Very Short Introduction, 1996) is convinced that the best way to describe Buddhist ethics is as a form of Negative Utilitarianism (NU). NU is a version of Utilitarianism which prioritizes the exemption from pain before the increase of pleasure, in other words, ending suffering instead of maximizing happiness.

-        In both approaches, suffering is seen as a hugely negative thing that should be avoided at all costs – it was what motivated the Buddha to strive for enlightenment and what led him to teach the dharma.

-        Karma – it could be argued that karma is teleological in nature, as it is the consequence of one’s actions that one must consider when making moral decisions. Wanting to avoid bad karmic effects is a motivator that makes people choose to do actions that cause the least harm and uphold the dharma as much as possible.

-        Mahayana Buddhists are encouraged to think of the majority through the focus on compassion and the goal to eventually becoming a Buddha in a future time-cycle in order to help all beings escape Samsara. This is like the majority focus that Bentham has in instructing people to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Challenge:

-        Bentham argues that humans are hedonists and this makes pleasure the highest moral good. However, Buddhists do not view pleasure as the highest moral good, they see pleasure as causing attachment to the world and ultimately leading to more dukkha, because feeling pleasure is associated with craving. Pleasure can also come from avenues that Buddhist ethics do not approve of: substances that cloud the mind, sex, overeating are all examples of sensual pleasures that the Buddha decried when he preached magga as a way of moderation. Ultimately, Buddhism avoids both pleasure and pain and takes a moderate approach to life in order to allow its practitioners to realise the true nature of things (nirvana).

-        In many ways, Buddhism is not a communal religion, it is individualistic. The Buddha argued that realising the dharma is a process of self-realisation, and he argues that each individual is on their own path to nirvana, so the focus of Buddhist ethics is on one’s own experience and moral behaviour, it does not consider the majority.

-        Buddhists also would be against any actions that exploit the majority, an issue that is present in Bentham’s ethics. This is because Buddhists must practice right intention, action and livelihood – living a life that uses another being to advance oneself would be seen as immoral, whereas Bentham would support this if it helped the majority.

 

o   How compatible Buddhist ethics are with Utilitarianism – in addition to the points above:

 

·        Compatible: Buddhist ethics have teleological aspects, including reduction of harm, at their heart. Bentham also offers a secular ethic that can be used outside of the framework of classical theism. This is going to make Bentham’s ethics fit better with Buddhist ethics than more religious theories will – both approaches do not believe that morality is dictated by a creator God.

·        Not Compatible: Buddhism and Bentham have completely different contexts, meaning that their worldviews are based on entirely different perspectives. Bentham was a social reformer looking for a way for governments to create a utopian society, whereas Buddhism is an Ancient world religion and system of spirituality with supernatural aspects. They have different goals – arhat/bodhisattva VS greatest good for greatest number.  Buddhists also have multiple rules to follow rather than a set framework such as the Hedonic Calculus. Buddhists also have deontological rules that must always be followed, such as monks being forbidden from falsely claiming enlightenment, whereas Utilitarianism takes a much more relativist approach where morality depends on the situations.

 

o   Strengths and weaknesses of Bentham in comparison to Buddhist ethics. (Counter arguments for each point in italics).

Strengths of Bentham in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Bentham’s theory is based on the single principle of bringing about the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. 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 Bentham.

-        It is based on the natural principle of Hedonism, which is easily understandable and recognisable for humans – we can all understand that pleasure is a good thing and pain is a bad thing. This is unlike Buddhism which is based on more supernatural ideas – particularly Mahayana Buddhist ethics which uphold the goal of becoming a bodhisattva, a semi-divine being with unlimited moral power (punya) that can be conferred to others. Buddhism is non-naturalist in the sense that goodness can be understood from outside the natural world, as it works within the supernatural system of Samsara and karma.

-        Bentham is democratic in nature, doing what is best for the majority, making it a particularly good system of governance in modern society. Overall, Bentham’s ideas are contemporary and fit well with our moral society. This is in comparison to Buddhism which is an ancient system of spirituality and morality, using premises that take their origin from Ancient Indian society, like karma and rebirth. Buddhist ethics are also religious/spiritual in nature, not secular, meaning that they are not useful for everyone.

Weaknesses of Bentham in comparison to Buddhism:

-        Bentham’s work could be used to justify a slave culture or any action that serious harms a minority of people, as long as the action that one is performing brings about pleasure for more people. The issues of such an ethic are evident in history, from the slave trade to the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews, in today’s society it could lead to animal exploitation, unfair trade practices for workers, and the persecution of religious and racial minorities. In comparison, Buddhism does consider the harm that people do to others and karmic reward and punishment would apply to people that hurt/help minority groups. For Buddhists, a healthy intention is unselfish, so cannot be one that exploits a minority in order to benefit others. This is particularly true for Tibetan Buddhists who have experienced first-hand how it feels to be a religious minority in the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

-        In reality, it is impossible for humans to predict the future, making it a flawed system as they can never really be certain if their actions will bring about pleasure or not. In comparison, Buddhism is a system that uses deontological rules that are tried and tested by a wise ultimate figure (Gautama Buddha) – this means that there is a deontological framework to guide moral behaviour, rather than asking humans to do the impossible in each situation.

-        Bentham’s theory could allow people who have immoral intentions to still appear to be moral people, as long as their actions bring about pleasure, this could be for a selfish reason. In comparison, the Buddhist rule of intention shows the importance of selflessness (kusala actions) – and these are the only moral actions that bring about karmic rewards.

 

o   How Utilitarianism can be used to criticise Buddhism – in addition to the points above.

There is a huge contextual difference between Buddhism and Bentham – the former being a world religion with ancient spiritual roots and the latter being a relatively contemporary democratic method of moral decision making. Bentham would criticise the religious nature of Buddhism, as he offered a secular ethic and felt that ethics outside of religious were the best. He upholds pleasure as the most important moral aspect, equating the experience of pleasure with moral goodness, making him an Ethical Naturalist. This is unlike Buddhism which defines goodness in terms of one’s intentions within the realms of Samsara and the reward system of karma. Bentham would likely agree with the fact that Buddhists seek to reduce harm but would not agree with the origins of their methods in holy texts and the example of Gautama. Rather, he would argue that Buddhist individuals should weigh up the consequences of their actions using the Hedonic Calculus each time, as he saw this as the best method for calculating moral behaviour through considering the consequences of one’s actions.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a "Compatibility Conclusion", explaining in your own words how compatible you think that Buddhist Ethics are with Bentham's Utilitarianism.