Thank you for the response! I will restate my question like this: I have no problem with the premise: 1) Virtues have positive effects. This seems to be self-evident prima facie. Rather, I am confused about the ontological basis for which positive effects can be claimed. It seems a lot of people say that they have their basis in the fact that they lead to liberation, but this seems to be simply a utilitarian argument for adopting a Buddhist Ethic, not a moral one in the classic sense.Aemilius wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:03 am 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.
To me, ethics or morality is that which binds upon those concerned a duty to perform them. Anything else falls either into utilitarianism or subjective philosophies or individual codes of conduct that would not necessarily be binding. So I am having trouble understanding the way in which Buddhist Ethics has a binding nature or imposes a moral duty to those concerned to abide by them. If they do not in fact impose a moral duty, then I don't necessarily see them as ethics or morals but rather subjective codes of conduct aimed at achieving some outcome (e.g. enlightenment, human flourishing, and so on) which have no metaphysical basis for justification.