jeeprs wrote:Shel wrote:Moral intrinsic reality in Buddhism is based in cause and effect, yes? That's how it is in the scientific-secular view also.
I beg to differ. The idea of the laws of science do not extend at all to questions of ethics. According to the secular-scientific worldview, ethics are grounded in Darwinian principles, in other words, they serve only the purposes of survival. In fact, there is no purpose other than survival. According to the strict scientific materialists, life itself originated fortuitously. (Interestingly, this very idea is criticized as ucchevavada in the Brahmajāla Sutta. Bikkhu Bodhi actually remarks 'this has become the dominant outlook of the present-day materialist, which he takes to be the dictum conclusively proven by modern science’ in his commentary on same.)
The divorce between science and ethics, or facts and values, goes back to David Hume, and his famous distinction between 'is' and 'ought'. Since then the predominant view of Western philosophy is that the Universe is absent of any intrinsic meaning or purpose. These are strictly human notions and are attributable solely to evolutionary requirements.
I have argued this point at length on secular forums, of course there is a divergence of views, but those who identify themselves as atheist generally always insist that the notion of morality is a human invention that can be explained in evolutionary terms. As a Buddhist, I feel obliged to disagree with that outlook.
I think it is quite a stretch to argue that Buddhism espouses an intrinsic morality.
What grounding do interpretation, value and meaning have - beyond a merely conventional and nominal grounding?
It seems to me that the key issue is the status of language and concepts - and even in the Sarvastivadan Abhidharma, these are denied any intrinsic reality.
It follows that meaning and value - necessarily linguistic imputations - are similarly denied any intrinsic reality.
It follows that intrinsic morality must also be denied this basis. Or to rescue your position somewhat, even if it is intrinsic, we certainly can't say that it is.
It is no coincidence that Hume has often been considered the western thinker closest to the Buddha, particularly on account of his view of the self.