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.

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 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.