Human Life and Death in Buddhism and Ethics - Comparing Buddhism with Christian Theology and Ethical Theories

 Author: Ruth Wood

Describing the ethical approaches taken in Western Philosophy and Ethics that are relevant to issues of human life and death

Christian Approaches:

·        Natural Moral Law – offers a deontological view of issues of human life issues. Human life is seen as sacred, particularly innocent life – and Aquinas argues that all humans would understand that this is essential for ethical behaviour when using their God-given reason. This is further supported by Divine Law, which dictates that life begins at conception (Psalm 139 – “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” and Jeremiah – “in my mother’s womb you knew me, before I was born you set me apart), and that murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13 – “you shall not murder.” This is part of the Decalogue). Aquinas upholds self-preservation and the preservation of innocent life, so it is important to note that he is in favour of capital punishment – this is because these lives are not innocent, they are deserving of death as a matter of justice and the maintenance of an ordered society. Aquinas also does not highly regard the life of animals – he makes it clear in the Summa Theologica that animals should be regarded as “things” which are given by God to be used by humans to reach Eudaimonia. It is therefore likely that he would take little issue with using animals to benefit humans, even if this means the suffering of death and animals in the process.

·        Situation Ethics – offers a more flexible approach to moral decision making, as it uses the example of Jesus to show that morality should consider the consequences of one’s actions, and this determines if something is right or wrong. Fletcher upholds the example of Jesus in the Bible, suggesting that he was a moral relativist – his actions showed that at times it is acceptable to break a deontological rule if in doing so loving circumstances were brought about (agape love) – for example, when he forgave the woman caught in adultery and prevented her from being stoned to death. The Working Principle “personalism” and the Fundamental Principles that Fletcher illustrates the Rule of Love with all indicate his attitude to human life – life is inherently valuable and people should work to preserve human life and limit human suffering. However, because this theory is teleological, there are no moral absolutes, meaning that no action can ever be deemed inherently right or wrong, “the morality of the action depends on the situation” (Fletcher). Nevertheless, Personalism does indicate that it is more likely that Fletcher would preserve human life over animal life, and that he views human life as more important in moral decision making.

Secular Ethics:

·        Virtue Ethics: Aristotle offers a secular theory that does not depend on divine guidance of any kind, rather one should cultivate characteristics that will lead to personal moral growth and the flourishing of society. However, his theory offers moral guidance regarding the issue of murder, and it is clear that Aristotle takes a deontological attitude to this action in his work, meaning that he views this action as always being wrong. However, as Aristotle does not directly comment on the personhood of the embryo, it is difficult to find direct teachings that can be applied to the issues of human life and death that discuss the rights and status of unborn children. Virtue Ethics is therefore mostly subjective, leaving the moral agent to make up their mind regarding the kind of characteristics that one is exhibiting when dealing with issues of human life and death. However, it is important to remember that Aristotle’s focus on “flourishing” society’s does mean that there is a communal aspect to morality, and that acting to benefit a society as a whole is a moral action in his eyes. Furthermore, Aristotle upheld the importance of law and order and lived at a time when capital punishment was acceptable, meaning that it is likely that he would support capital punishment in circumstances where the most justice is done by administering the death penalty. Aristotle created the ‘hierarchy of the souls’ suggesting that animals are below humans and thus animal life can be used in support of human flourishing.

·        Utilitarianism: Bentham’s Hedonic Principle encourages that minimisation of human suffering, but does this by considering what is best for the majority. For this reason, Bentham’s theory is often seen to support actions that use an embryo as a means to an end, as actions such as embryo research lead to move overall happiness for the greatest number, particularly if they are able to achieve feats such as the ending of genetic diseases. It has also been argued by many that Bentham was not speciesist, meaning that his theory can be used to reduce the suffering of animals as well as the suffering of humans. However, this is subjective, and many Utilitarians may feel that should the moral dilemma involve preserving a human life by taking an animal life (e.g. by using them in organ transplants) then this is acceptable. However, Bentham may not support the widespread suffering of animals for limited human enjoyment, for example through intensive farming and blood sports – but again, this is debated.

 Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Natural Moral Law

·        Natural Moral Law is andro-centric, and argues that innocent human life should be protected at all costs. The primary and secondary precepts tell us that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are wrong, as they destroy the image of God that humans were created in. 

Although they have a different view of human life, Buddhists would also agree that the human form is precious because it is the only form in which one can gain enlightenment. Therefore they would agree with Aquinas on these moral issues. 

Like Natural Moral Law, Buddhists view embryos as persons and believe that life begins at conception. Their treatment of the embryo is therefore likely to be fairly similar, as they view the embryo as being a precious form that should be respected. In the case of Double Effect where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, Buddhists and Aquinas would also come to the same conclusion that in this case abortion is moral, as the action is designed to prevent harm to the mother. 

Counter-Argument: However this is where the similarity ends – NML’s view of the embryo stems from Aquinas’ belief in the divine creator who has bestowed reason upon humanity, allowing them to understand morality. It is through creation that human life is made sacred, as the Bible teaches that every being is created by God for a purpose. Aquinas is also far more deontological than Buddhism, having a strict view of the treatment of the embryo, whereas it is evident at times that Buddhism may relax its view of the embryo should the action result in widespread reduction of dukkha – therefore, there are times where Buddhists may support actions such as embryo research and abortion (such as in post-war Japan). For this reason, Buddhism could be seen as most similar to Proportionalism from Hoose and McCormick, as they too are preoccupied with finding a proportional response that upholds good moral rules whilst also reducing harm in its consequences.

Criticism of  Buddhist Beliefs from Natural Moral Law:

Natural Moral Law:

·        Buddhists are wrong because they do not view the world as being created by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator God.

·        Karma would be rejected as illogical and theologically incorrect – the system of reward and punishment in the universe comes from God.

·        Aquinas believes that humans have souls, meaning that he would reject the doctrine of anatta and all its implications for Buddhism.

·        Aquinas’ view of the afterlife depends on the system of heaven and hell in the Bible, not on the system of Samsara.

·        NML is strictly deontological, meaning that Aquinas would criticise the flexible teleological aspects of Buddhist ethics, such as the idea that there are times where actions such as abortion are acceptable.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Situation Ethics

·        Like in Fletcher's Situation Ethics, Buddhists also uphold love in their actions – meditation on love is a key aspect of Buddhist moral practice, and there are Buddhist texts such as the Brahma Viharas that encourage Buddhists to develop feelings of lovingkindness for all beings that are trapped in Samsara. Furthermore, the Mahayana Buddhism emphasis on compassion could be compared to the focus on agape love in Situation Ethics. This foundation seems to imply that Buddhists and Fletcher would come to the same conclusions about moral actions reducing harm in regard to human life and death. There could therefore be some agreement between Situation Ethics and Buddhism on all the human life and death issues, depending on the specifics of the situation. 

Counter-Argument: However, Buddhists do have moral absolutes aside from upholding love, meaning that they have a stricter view of ethics than Fletcher. This means that they are given specific rules regarding human life, such as do not murder or physically assault other humans. Buddhist monks also have a strict view of sexual conduct and are encouraged not to have sex or have children, as these actions form attachment, and Fletcher may not always see this as the most loving thing, as sex and children can bring one happiness, meaning embryo research such as IVF/Designer Babies would be acceptable. Fletcher’s love is also based on the example of Jesus, which would be irrelevant to Buddhists who follow Gautama as a moral figure.

Criticism of Buddhism from Situation Ethics:

 Agape love depends on an omnibenevolent creator God who has given us a model for morality in the form of Jesus.

·        SE has no moral absolutes, so would criticise the deontological rules of Buddhism – such as the 5 moral precepts of lay people.

·        Love is the most important moral characteristic, whereas Buddhists uphold the 8 parts of magga as being equally important – love is an extreme, overwhelming emotion that should outweigh all other obligations whereas the Buddhist focus on moderation could be seen by Situation Ethicists as a weak perspective.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics

·        As we have seen, there are many similarities between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism, particularly regarding the creation of a good character to ensure that a person is moral. Virtue Ethics could be argued to fit most easily with Buddhism as it is secular in nature, meaning that it can be compared with Buddhist values in a way that other theories cannot (because they rely on a creator God). Furthermore, the fact that Virtue Ethics does not comment directly on issues such as the personhood of the embryo allows Buddhists to apply their own view of the embryo within the framework of perfecting their character. Virtue Ethics does encourage good moral action and sees murder as being wrong, which is similar to Buddhists who view murder as being a karmically wrong action – it therefore seems likely that the way that Virtue Ethicists treat humans would be similar to how Buddhists would treat humans. 

Counter-Argument: However, Virtue Ethics does depend on Aristotle’s view that there is no afterlife, and so the desire to become a good human is part of this belief that humans have one chance to aim for morality through cultivating the characteristics of the Golden Mean. Buddhists however base their ethics in the idea that their actions will be repaid through karma in Samsara, meaning that Buddhists are more likely to hold themselves accountable externally – they should not treat humans better because they have an obligation to perfect their character in their limited lives, but because if they don’t treat humans properly they will experience karmic punishment later on. It could be argued that Virtue Ethics focuses more on ‘intrinsic motivations’ (people being expected to want to be better people as they have one life and one chance to get it right) whereas Buddhists have ‘extrinsic motivations’ (Buddhists treat humans well because they are frightened of the karmic consequences they will otherwise receive).

Criticism of Buddhism from Virtue Ethics:

    Aristotle rejects the belief in the afterlife so argues that humans only have one lifetime to morally perfect themselves, meaning that they would reject the belief in Samsara that underpins Buddhist ethics.

·        Aristotle would reject the 227 rules of the Vinaya, arguing instead that it is more important to focus on building a moral character – Aristotle only provides 3 deontological rules in his framework (no lying, theft and adultery) meaning that his ethical theory is much more broad and less prescriptive than Buddhist ethics.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Utilitarianism

·        Utilitarians and Buddhists are often likely to perform similar actions when it comes to the treatment of humans, as both Bentham and Buddhists uphold the limitation of suffering as a good thing. Therefore, Buddhists and Bentham would act in a way that prevents humans from suffering, and takes into account the consequences of one’s actions. 

Counter-Argument: However, Bentham’s focus on pleasure would be unlike Buddhist understandings of pleasure – ultimately, pleasure is a bond that causes attachment and craving, Buddhists think it is better to live a moderate life that allows people to realise the nature of things, whereas Bentham sees human morality as allowing all beings to feel happiness, but may not recognise this happiness in a spiritual way (as Buddhists do). Furthermore, Bentham’s theory does not have moral absolutes, whereas Buddhism does have moral rules regarding the treatment of humans – no murder or harm being examples. Buddhists do not use humans as a means to an end, whereas Bentham would see this as acceptable as long as it benefitted the majority.

Criticism of Buddhism from Utilitarianism: 

        It is more important to maximise pleasure for the greatest number instead of following rules such as the Vinaya.

This is an Ethically Naturalist theory meaning that it equates “good” with “pleasure” – Buddhists do not always see good as pleasure because it causes craving and attachment, so Bentham would reject this.

Buddhists have scriptures and rules to guide them whereas Bentham argues that the Hedonic Calculus is the most important method for morality.

  Bentham rejected religion as a system for morality and saw ethics as needing to be secular, meaning he would reject the supernatural and authoritative aspects of the Buddha and Buddhist texts as the source of morality.

 How Buddhism may respond to the criticisms of Western Ethics.

Buddhist responses to the above criticisms:

·        Buddhist ethics are grounded in the dharma realised by Siddhartha Gautama, this gives them authority over and above the views of others, as the Buddha is an authority for all sects of Buddhist as the first being to gain enlightenment and preach the way to nirvana in this time-cycle. Ultimately, Buddhists are convinced that their understanding of Buddhist ethics is right, and more important that other religions and ethical systems, as they come from Gautama who has authority.

·        Buddhism has been proved to Buddhist believers through religious experiences, this makes the doctrine of Buddhism more authoritative for Buddhists than the ideas of other ethicists. Examples of religious experiences that Buddhists may have experienced include miracles, visions of the Buddha or a numinous/mystical experience through meditation.

·        Buddhist ethics are part of the wider teachings of Buddhism, which must be realised through self-authentication, meaning that believers have to try and test the dharma for themselves. They would argue that without trying Buddhist ethical practices, the above scholars would not have an opportunity to understand their truth.

·        The Buddha argued that other religious believers had only realised part of the dharma, this means that Buddhists would argue that it is better to follow the ethical guidance of Gautama than other moral teachers, as he is the only being that has realised the full moral dharma.

·        Buddhist ethics depend on a worldview based on Samsara and Karma, those that do not understand this worldview do not have a good understanding of ultimate reality and the way that the world functions, so they have an incorrect view (this particularly applies to scholars that express views on the afterlife – such as NML/SE/VE). 

Students - Now Try This:

Create a summary of views of human life and death from Christian and secular ethical belief systems.

Create a comparison paragraph between similarities and differences in Buddhist beliefs.

Explain how Buddhists may respond to criticisms from Western ethics. 

Create your conclusion - is there are dialogue here? Overall, do you think that Buddhists are likely to change their beliefs when they encounter Western ethical theories?  

Buddhist Ethics and Bentham, Kant and Aristotle: A Summary

Author: Ruth Wood

This post will discuss to what extent Buddhist ethics could be considered to be either deontological, teleological or consequentialist in nature. This post summarises what can be found in my previous three posts, "Creating a Dialogue" with ethics. 

In the AQA Dialogues Paper, it is your job to become the scholar and decide whether Buddhism is compatible with the Western theories prescribed for study. Due to the vast differences in context, this is often difficult to do. It is therefore your job to show the examine what the points of similarity are, whilst also making it clear that you understand that these approaches are and should be seen separately. 

Use the below summary points to help you consider to what extent Buddhism could be characterised as one of the below theories:

Buddhist ethics are deontological because:

-        There are set rules that are always right or wrong. For example, it is always wrong to break the five precepts, and it is always wrong to perform actions that undermine the sangha, such as falsely claiming enlightenment and supernatural powers.

-        Buddhists believe that beings receive karmic rewards regardless of their form in Samsara – for example, animals will still receive bad karma when they act on their own instinct. This shows that the systems that exist in Buddhism imply that certain actions (such as killing) are always right and wrong.

-        Buddhists agree that humans are able to understand, through their own ability for wisdom and reason, what constitutes moral behaviour. This is evident in the fact that the Buddha encouraged the cultivation of prajna and also encouraged people to test ethical ideas for themselves.

Buddhist ethics are teleological/consequentialist because:

-        Karma shows that Buddhist ethics have teleological aspects: immoral actions can be seen as ones which cause dukkha, leading to the punishment of negative karmic experiences within Samsara.

-        Buddhists are required to consider the effects of their behaviour on other beings to determine their morality – this is particularly true when it comes to ahimsa, which dictates how the embryo, animals and people in wars should be treated.

-        Buddhists believe that through practising magga, which focuses on cultivating prajna (wisdom) and sila (morality) people will come to a place where they will understand and choose to behave in a way that is selfless. This leads them to the eventual teleological goal of attaining enlightenment and experiencing the end of human suffering, like Utilitarianism which suggests the possibility of a Utopian future where everyone acts in a way that ensures pleasure for other people. 

Buddhist ethics are character based because:

-        There is a focus on perfecting one’s character over time – this is evidenced in the way that magga is seen as a way of life that is perfected gradually (compared to the way that the petals of a flower all support each other in opening up, the stages of magga work together to lead people to moral, wise and effortful lives). This is also evident in Aristotle’s emphasis on learning from one’s mistakes.

-        There is emphasis on following a virtuous teacher – it is not unreasonable to assume that Aristotle would support people following Gautama, providing that they are focused on perfecting their moral character.

-        There is an emphasis on right actions and the personality that these actions show – the teaching of rebecoming in Samsara supports the idea that one’s personality is conditioned by our previous behaviour, and the only way to live an ethical life is to overcome negative patterns and behave in a more moral way.

 

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.