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.