What is the foundation or justification for Buddhist Ethics?

[Kozuaki]

Hi everyone. I practiced Zazen for many years, and am returning to a more thorough investigation of the veracity of many elements of what one might say comprises a Soto Zen Buddhist Philosophy or way of life. For the purposes of this specific topic, I am confused about how a Zen Buddhist (or any Buddhist for that matter) justifies or grounds 1) Ethics, and 2) Metaphysical phenomena (e.g. beauty, truth, justice, good, or evil).

Drawing from my own experience in the United States with Christianity, morality is grounded objectively in the very essence of God himself - that is to say, one acts morally or ethically insofar as one conducts oneself in agreement or in congruence with: Love, Justice, Forgiveness, Mercy. One acts immoral insofar as he/she contradicts God's essence. Or, as in Judaism, morality is objectively grounded in the 10 commandments given by God (i.e. classically known as Divine Command Theory).

However, I am having trouble understanding the justification or epistemology for Buddhist Ethics. I understand there is the noble eight fold path (e.g. Right Action, Right Thought, Right Livelihood, etc.), but how can one argue that one has an obligation or moral duty to the eight fold path or loving kindness if it is not objectively grounded in a corollary similar to God's essence?

Similarly, in Christianity, the idea of beauty, truth, justice, and other metaphysical phenomena are said to derive their essence and ontology from perfect beauty, perfect, truth, and perfect justice from the essence of God - much like Plato's forms. How does Buddhism view the ontology of metaphysical phenomena such as these? If they do not derive their essence from some objective standard by which we perceive them, they seem to be reduced to arbitrary or otherwise shaky ontological grounds.

[Genjo Conan]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

[Kim O'Hara]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Also, "one acts morally or ethically insofar as one conducts oneself in agreement or in congruence with: Love, Justice, Forgiveness, Mercy" if one is a Buddhist, too. We don't need a God looking over our shoulders to make us do it. We see that it is in accordance with the Eightfold Path, and helps us on our way to liberation. Or we remember the Brahmaviharas and act accordingly.

It's possible to go further and say that morality in all successful religions and cultures is prosocial, i.e., it promotes behaviour which is good for the community, and that that is the reason they are successful.


Kim

[Hazel]

The law of cause and effect. It's pretty baked into Buddhism.

Also, why do people need some divine reason to not be a jerk? I think everyone gets being a jerk is bad. People are just also wrong about a lot of stuff and that gets in the way. Any philosophizing is grafted on after the fact.

This is not necessarily a Soto Zen perspective...

[Genjo Conan]

The law of cause and effect. It's pretty baked into Buddhism.

...

This is not necessarily a Soto Zen perspective...

I'm a Soto Zen practitioner, and it is our perspective.

[Hazel]

The law of cause and effect. It's pretty baked into Buddhism.

...

This is not necessarily a Soto Zen perspective...

I'm a Soto Zen practitioner, and it is our perspective.

I more meant my talking about philosophizing being an after thought and that we are all essentially trying to do the right thing and are just varying levels of confused. Maybe that's what you meant though!

Either way, I am glad some actual Soto Zen practitioners are responding .

[Johnny Dangerous]

Bodhicitta is the foundation of ethics in the Mahayana.

[Aemilius]

I would say that morality is best and concretely described in the Jatakas or Birth stories. You seem to be asking why does karma exist? Or why do generosity, patience, and other virtues have positive effects, in this life and in the future lives? The buddhist answer would be that it belongs to the nature of existence. The principle of karma and the nature of existence exist primordially, without having been created by some agent or another.

[Giovanni]

Bodhicitta is the foundation of ethics in the Mahayana.

This is so. And cultivating Bodhicitta is not compatible with being a jerk. It means kindness. And that has to be practised. Or I find so. I am not a kind person by nature. I have to work at it. I have a friend who is always sweet and kind and gentle..really. He is just good. That is not me. I have to try every day. Sometimes I succeed. Sometimes not so good.

[SilenceMonkey]

Bodhicitta is the foundation of ethics in the Mahayana.

I believe the basis for ethics is the bodhisattva vow that we all take as practitioners of the Mahayana, the vow to liberate all sentient beings from the suffering of samsara.

If we don't make the vow (and preserve it), it will be impossible for us to wake up to our Buddha nature. No bodhisattva vow, no awakening. We won't be able to achieve the goal.

[KathyLauren]

The foundation of Buddhist ethics is compassion. We choose to act ethically because not doing so causes suffering and we do not want to cause suffering for others (or for ourselves, for that matter).

Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths consider ethics and morality to be bound up with obedience. If God wants you to kill your son, the correct response is, "Yes, Lord. How dead do you want him?" The lesson is that it is obedience to commands, not any notion of right or wrong, beneficial or detrimental, that is to motivate us. Obedience is right, even if it causes suffering, and disobedience is wrong, even if it reduces suffering.

Buddhism does not give commands. As noted in posts above, it tell us of likely consequences for our actions, but leaves it up to us to decide how to act. The motivation in all cases is what will cause the least suffering and relieve the most suffering.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

[Kozuaki]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Thank you for your response. This is interesting - thank you for your thoughts. I suppose my thought is that this might be begging the question: who/what constructed the terms or necessary conditions for liberation to be what they are? Is it just an accident that this is the way the universe unfolded? I think its hard to avoid a tautology here by just saying "Buddhist ethics are what they are because they aid in liberation, and they aid in liberation because Buddhist ethics are what they are".

[Johnny Dangerous]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Thank you for your response. This is interesting - thank you for your thoughts. I suppose my thought is that this might be begging the question: who/what constructed the terms or necessary conditions for liberation to be what they are? Is it just an accident that this is the way the universe unfolded? I think its hard to avoid a tautology here by just saying "Buddhist ethics are what they are because they aid in liberation, and they aid in liberation because Buddhist ethics are what they are".

Are you familiar with Buddhist cosmology? There is no single universe unfolding, or rather there are multiple universes/samsara which are ultimately beginning-less, cyclic and are essentially caused by ignorance. So the only "purpose" of them is for sentient beings to wake up from Samsara. As such, most of the areas of debates involve the nature of enlightenment/liberation, there are not many Buddhist schools stressing something like ideal forms, etc. from which ethics emanate. Some schools would lean that way in a sense (stressing primal qualities of enlightenment conducive to liberation), but even in those schools, I'd argue that ethics are something which are "naturally" (for lack of a better word) something which leads to liberation from Samsara, not something designed in particular.

Similarly, particularly in Mahayana teachings there is sometimes more "wiggle room" with ethical rules in order to benefit sentient beings.

[Kozuaki]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Also, "one acts morally or ethically insofar as one conducts oneself in agreement or in congruence with: Love, Justice, Forgiveness, Mercy" if one is a Buddhist, too. We don't need a God looking over our shoulders to make us do it. We see that it is in accordance with the Eightfold Path, and helps us on our way to liberation. Or we remember the Brahmaviharas and act accordingly.

It's possible to go further and say that morality in all successful religions and cultures is prosocial, i.e., it promotes behaviour which is good for the community, and that that is the reason they are successful.


Kim

Thanks for your response Kim! I would say first that it is presumably a wonderful thing that both Christians and Buddhists agree on most ethics generally.

My point of confusion is similar to my previous response further up in the thread. If love, justice, forgiveness, mercy, and so on are "...in accordance with the Eightfold Path, and helps us on our way to liberation", then who/what made it so? Is it just a coincidental feature of the Universe that these actions are in accordance with what aids in liberation? In other words, I am confused about the epistemological grounding of this Code of Ethics, to say nothing about other metaphysical phenomena like truth, or beauty. I don't see how it helps to say that the Eightfold Path derives its essence from "[helping] us on our way to liberation". That would just be utilitarianism, not a metaphysical ontology - which is what I think is required to ground a Code of Ethic or Morality. Perhaps you disagree with my view on what is required of an Ethic or Morality to be called such a thing?

[Kozuaki]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Thank you for your response. This is interesting - thank you for your thoughts. I suppose my thought is that this might be begging the question: who/what constructed the terms or necessary conditions for liberation to be what they are? Is it just an accident that this is the way the universe unfolded? I think its hard to avoid a tautology here by just saying "Buddhist ethics are what they are because they aid in liberation, and they aid in liberation because Buddhist ethics are what they are".

Are you familiar with Buddhist cosmology? There is no single universe unfolding, or rather there are multiple universes/samsara which are ultimately beginning-less, cyclic and are essentially caused by ignorance. So the only "purpose" of them is for sentient beings to wake up from Samsara. As such, most of the areas of debates involve the nature of enlightenment/liberation, there are not many Buddhist schools stressing something like ideal forms, etc. from which ethics emanate. Some schools would lean that way in a sense (stressing primal qualities of enlightenment conducive to liberation), but even in those schools, I'd argue that ethics are something which are "naturally" (for lack of a better word) something which leads to liberation from Samsara, not something designed in particular.

Similarly, particularly in Mahayana teachings there is sometimes more "wiggle room" with ethical rules in order to benefit sentient beings.

I know very little of Buddhist cosmology, so thank you for explaining. This is so interesting to me! I am so glad you mentioned that "the only 'purpose' of [universes] is for sentient being to wake up from Samsara". This is very telling if true. I hope you don't mind my Socratic form of discussion as we go back and forth, but I truly am perplexed. Whether we live in a single universe that is finite or a multiverse that is infinite, if there is a purpose to any of them (i.e. for sentient beings to be liberated), to put it philosophically: whence is the purpose? If the purpose exists, where does it exist? Surely it doesn't exist physically within the space to which it refers, so it must be metaphysical - just as the classical definition of Ethics are in the Western philosophical traditions. Purpose is binding too, is it not? Just as Ethics are binding - producing a moral duty to abide by them or suffer the consequences: demerit in Karma, separation from God in Christianity, or more practically: the loss or damage to those qualities which are conducive to liberation. Purpose would be binding in the sense that to do anything contrary to it would produce an outcome unfit for the object to which it refers: using a wristwatch to open a can of green beans would break the watch. We are perfectly free to use the wristwatch as we wish, but the purpose for the wristwatch is binding insofar as if we wish to get the full use out of the watch that was intended by the watch maker, we have a duty to use the watch in the way it was intended.

In summation, I am again confused by the metaphysical epistemology used to ground or justify a code of ethics (or more in the vein of this conversation, purpose) without falling into a tautology or some type of utilitarianism. I apologize if I'm missing the point!

[Kozuaki]

Buddhist ethics are those which are conducive to liberation. You have no obligation or moral duty to them: if you want to behave unethically, that's up to you. But your choices have consequences.

Isn't consequences following unethical behavior the definition of what it means to have a moral duty?

[Kozuaki]

The law of cause and effect. It's pretty baked into Buddhism.

Also, why do people need some divine reason to not be a jerk? I think everyone gets being a jerk is bad. People are just also wrong about a lot of stuff and that gets in the way. Any philosophizing is grafted on after the fact.

This is not necessarily a Soto Zen perspective...

I think this is sort of straw-manning my position. I think it does great value to have a reason (or a cogent argument to support) "not being a jerk". Public opinion isn't necessarily a good argument for any position - moral or otherwise. That would make morality mutable and somewhat slippery in my estimation, wouldn't it? I do agree, though, that most people generally know right from wrong, my question is trying to determine how we can know, or the epistemology of Buddhist Ethics.

[Genjo Conan]

I suppose my thought is that this might be begging the question: who/what constructed the terms or necessary conditions for liberation to be what they are? Is it just an accident that this is the way the universe unfolded? I think its hard to avoid a tautology here by just saying "Buddhist ethics are what they are because they aid in liberation, and they aid in liberation because Buddhist ethics are what they are".

As far as we are given to know, the conditions necessary for both samsara and liberation are beginningless--or at least, their origins aren't worth worrying about. (see AN 4:77 and MN 63)

But I don't believe it's tautological. I would recast your statement as "Buddhist ethics are what they are because they aid in liberation, as experienced and attested to by reliable sources whom we trust." To go on to say "...and I can realize this myself" of course requires a certain amount of faith, though we can personally experience at least some of the fruits of practice for ourselves, right now--and, at any rate, requires no more faith than an ethics grounded in belief in a creator deity who made up the rules and punishes noncompliance.

[Kozuaki]

Bodhicitta is the foundation of ethics in the Mahayana.

Thank you for your response! I had to look up what Bodhicitta means, so forgive me if I'm wrong about this.. A quick google search defined it as "the mind that strives toward awakening, empathy, and compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings." This isn't necessarily an ontology for Buddhist Ethics, or an epistemology that explains the means of understanding their essence as they are - which is what I'm interested in. I think this is just stating what the ethic is: striving towards awakening, empathy, and compassion - but what is the foundation upon which morality rests to justify a moral duty to follow them?

[Johnny Dangerous]

I know very little of Buddhist cosmology, so thank you for explaining. This is so interesting to me! I am so glad you mentioned that "the only 'purpose' of [universes] is for sentient being to wake up from Samsara". This is very telling if true. I hope you don't mind my Socratic form of discussion as we go back and forth, but I truly am perplexed. Whether we live in a single universe that is finite or a multiverse that is infinite, if there is a purpose to any of them (i.e. for sentient beings to be liberated), to put it philosophically: whence is the purpose? If the purpose exists, where does it exist?

From a Buddhist perspective, this is considered an unproductive, and fully non-answerable question. If you want to go back to Pali sources, the Buddha mentions in many places that finding a purpose to the universe is an unanswerable question (one of the Four Imponderables), and mostly just a big waste of time:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

There are variations on this theme, but the general idea is that these questions are non-falsifiable either through direct experience of inference, are not conducive to liberation, and are a form of conceptual proliferation - prapanca.

Surely it doesn't exist physically within the space to which it refers, so it must be metaphysical - just as the classical definition of Ethics are in the Western philosophical traditions. Purpose is binding too, is it not? Just as Ethics are binding - producing a moral duty to abide by them or suffer the consequences: demerit in Karma, separation from God in Christianity, or more practically: the loss or damage to those qualities which are conducive to liberation. Purpose would be binding in the sense that to do anything contrary to it would produce an outcome unfit for the object to which it refers: using a wristwatch to open a can of green beans would break the watch. We are perfectly free to use the wristwatch as we wish, but the purpose for the wristwatch is binding insofar as if we wish to get the full use out of the watch that was intended by the watch maker, we have a duty to use the watch in the way it was intended.

I'm going to just suggest you read up on Buddhist cosmology and phenomenology, perhaps start with Dependent Origination and Shunyata, or emptiness. Meaning no offense, it sounds like you are almost entirely unfamiliar with these things, and it is causing you to assume "the wristwatch" is something created from nothing, which has some sort of static existence - a position wholly and completely disputed in Buddhism. This is expanded on even more in the Mahayana, essentially there is no real beginning to phenomena, and no discrete universe beyond relative perception of dependently origination phenomena.

In summation, I am again confused by the metaphysical epistemology used to ground or justify a code of ethics (or more in the vein of this conversation, purpose) without falling into a tautology or some type of utilitarianism. I apologize if I'm missing the point!

It seems like maybe you have some real hours in with Western philosophy, and maybe not so much with Buddhist philosophy. That might be a good place to start. There are a number of books explaining the basic philosophical positions found within Buddhism. Off the top of my head you could check out A Profound Mind by the Dalai Lama. Again I'm not trying to be rude here, but you are lacking "the basics" of the Buddhist worldview in a way that can't be answered in a few posts.