Studies in Buddhist ethics 5 – Categorical Thinkers

Last updated on: April 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm by Justin Whitaker

Studies in Buddhist ethics 5 – Categorical Thinkers 2012-04-23T15:52:20-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Categorical Thinkers

This is part five of a series of posts based on a 27 February talk I delivered for the Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies; click for parts

one, Introduction and orientation
two, Buddhist ethics in the 1970s
three, Buddhist ethics in the 1990s and
four: Ongoing debates.

Despite the warnings that ‘in ethics everything is pretty messy, and there is not much room for […] ethical theory,’ the lure of categorical comparisons seems as strong today as it ever was. Damien Keown covers the breadth of them in his 1992 book, and recounts a few consequentialist/utilitarian accounts in a 1996 paper:

Among early opinions may be cited that of J. B. Pratt who in 1928 described “the Buddha’s ethic” as one of “utilitarian or (altruistic) hedonism” (1928, 32). He suggested: “The principle on which the good and evil forms of happiness are to be distinguished is explicitly stated. It is the principle of utilitarianism” (1928, 28). Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys Davids took the view that “The Buddhist . . . was a hedonist, and hence … his morality was dependent or … utilitarian” (1974, xci). Among modern scholars, David Kalupahana has noted that “The emphasis on happiness as the goal of ethical conduct seems to give the Buddhist theory a utilitarian character” (1976, 61). The most recent opinion is that of Padmasiri de Silva: “Buddhism may be described as a consequentialist ethic embodying the ideal of ultimate happiness for the individual, as well as a social ethic with a utilitarian stance concerned with the material and spiritual well-being of man-kind” (1991, 62). (‘Karma, Character, and Consequentialism’, JRE, p.330)

When I wrote my masters dissertation in 2005, I suggested that Keown was successful in his refutation of Utilitarian interpretations of Buddhist ethics.[1] At the time there had been no attempt by scholars to reassert the claims of I.B. Horner (1950), David Kalupahana (1976), Dharmasiri (1986), and others who had suggested that Buddhist ethics is Utilitarian in nature.[2] But in the years immediately following, Mark Siderits published his book, Buddhism as Philosophy (2007), wherein he argued for a consequentialist reading of Buddhist ethics, based on the perceived centrality of anattā. Charles Goodman also published his book, Consequences of Compassion (2009) in which he too found Buddhist ethics to be consequentialist.

Meanwhile the Aristotelian or Virtue Ethics approach has also been taken up by numerous authors, including James Whitehill (‘Buddhist Ethics in Western Context: The Virtues Approach’, JBE, 1994), Simon James and David E. Cooper (Buddhism, Virtue and Environment, 2005), and others. Similarly, several scholars questioned particular aspects of Keown’s work and sought to make minor alterations in his system. In particular, Georges Dreyfus (1995, pp.34-36) cast doubt on Keown’s interpretation of cetanā, Lance Cousins (1996) problematized Keown’s canonical interpretations of kusala and puñña, and Abraham Velez de Cea (2004, pp.124-125) criticised Keown’s understanding of the criteria for right action in Buddhist ethics. The debate over the meaning of canonical terms suggests that creative philology will certainly lead to yet more understandings of Buddhist ethics, even if these understandings continue to flourish in relatively isolated confusion, as the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant suggests of most quests for truth.

Two more sections remain, a short discussion of Buddhist ethics in the 21st century and the conclusion…

[1] I follow Keown in adopting John Rawls’ definition of Utilitarian theory as one in which ‘the good is defined independently from the right, and then the right is defined as that which maximizes the good’ (1980: 24), cited in Keown 2001, p.166.

[2] Keown 2001, pp.14-18 lists several of the prior suggestions toward the conception of Buddhist ethics as Utilitarian.

For the Whitehill, Dreyfus, and Velez de Cea articles, see the Journal of Buddhist ethics.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 19, 2012

The Dark Side of Meditation

Next Post

April 25, 2012 How to buy happiness

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz