What is the foundation or justification for Buddhist Ethics?

[Kozuaki]

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.

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.

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.

[Johnny Dangerous]

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.

Well then, you have your answer. I feel like the bolded bit is actually quite accurate, as Buddhism does not rely on or reference Western metaphysics for it's philosophical or ethical positions, and certainly not something like Platonic Idealism. The closes you would find to that is rough some takes on Yogacara, and even there there are no ideal forms, etc.

[Kozuaki]

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.

Hi and thank you for the response. Again this seems to me to be an argument from utilitarianism with no reference to a metaphysical basis for justification. Presumably you think it is "better" to take a bodhisattva vow than to not. And I presume you think it is "better" that all beings are liberated than for all beings to be unliberated. I think this is begging the question: why is it better? I do not disagree that it is better, but I am curious about the epistemology for this.

[Johnny Dangerous]

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.

Hi and thank you for the response. Again this seems to me to be an argument from utilitarianism with no reference to a metaphysical basis for justification. Presumably you think it is "better" to take a bodhisattva vow than to not. And I presume you think it is "better" that all beings are liberated than for all beings to be unliberated. I think this is begging the question: why is it better? I do not disagree that it is better, but I am curious about the epistemology for this.

Because liberation means the end of suffering. This is the Four Noble Truths, it's as simple as that really.

Beyond that:

This is not a Western Philosophy site. Some people here might be familiar with your terminology, etc., but conversation here tends to be geared towards Buddhist thought, not Western critiques of it.

I feel like this runs the risk of being a somewhat antagonistic conversation if it continues as is, again I think it might be more constructive if you go do some reading, then come back with some more detailed questions once you have a bit more information on "the basics" of the Buddhist worldview.

[KathyLauren]

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 think it is the idea of intention that is tripping you up. Understandable, since western religions are all about intentionality. But it is not so in Buddhism.

The nature of the universe, the nature of morality, the nature of cause and effect are all emergent phenomena. They need no intention: that is just the way the universe works. You are looking for the influence of "the Creator" when there isn't one. A purpose would be about as useful to the universe as legs on a snake.

The Buddha perceived that beings suffer, and that we should reduce their suffering because we would wish it so for ourselves. He did not deduce that someone made it so, or that there is a pre-existing purpose that we need to discover. The wonder of his discovery is that he perceived the universe to work this way without the need for an uncreated creator or an agent of universal intention.

Buddhist ethics are not binding in the sense of a judicial system that would compel you to suffer punishment, either at the hands of a police agency or at the hands of a deity. They are emergent codes of conduct, based on observation of the way the universe invariably works. That is not quite the same as saying that they are subjective. You cannot just make up your own, because that universe objectively works in a particular way.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

[Kozuaki]

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

Hi Kathy and thank you for your response. To me, compassion is a feature of ethics, not its foundation. If it is a feature, as is loving kindness, forgiveness, and so on, what is the epistemology for this? Why is suffering worse than not suffering? I don't mean to sound trite - obviously excessive suffering or superfluous suffering is not ideal and should be avoided - this is prima facie self-evident. But I am really trying to drill down into why this is so without appealing to a tautology, and in order to do that I think a thorough investigation into the ontology of ethics and morality is necessary.

I think obedience in Christianity might be the wrong word to describe its ethic - perhaps a more apt description would be cooperation. I like this example: suppose I buy an automobile and it calls for regular unleaded gas. I am certainly free to put perfume in the gas tank, but the creator of that automobile knew that to get the best use out of that car I would need to use regular gas - not perfume. So too, if God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being, presumably it follows necessarily modus ponens that he knows the best way for us to live to get the best use out of it.

Picking the story of Abraham is a common story to cite against Christianity, and I certainly understand that. However a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of this story goes far beyond what I intend to address for the purposes of this conversation. My point in my opening remark was that in general, drawing from my own experience with Christianity in the US, acts are ethical insofar as they are congruent with the nature of an omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient being and are thus justified insofar as they reflect them and not contradict them. That is the basis, and I see no such metaphysical basis in Buddhism - be it God or something else like Plato's forms.

[Johnny Dangerous]

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

Hi Kathy and thank you for your response. To me, compassion is a feature of ethics, not its foundation. If it is a feature, as is loving kindness, forgiveness, and so on, what is the epistemology for this? Why is suffering worse than not suffering? I don't mean to sound trite - obviously excessive suffering or superfluous suffering is not ideal and should be avoided - this is prima facie self-evident. But I am really trying to drill down into why this is so without appealing to a tautology, and in order to do that I think a thorough investigation into the ontology of ethics and morality is necessary.

I think obedience in Christianity might be the wrong word to describe its ethic - perhaps a more apt description would be cooperation. I like this example: suppose I buy an automobile and it calls for regular unleaded gas. I am certainly free to put perfume in the gas tank, but the creator of that automobile knew that to get the best use out of that car I would need to use regular gas - not perfume. So too, if God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being, presumably it follows necessarily modus ponens that he knows the best way for us to live to get the best use out of it.

Picking the story of Abraham is a common story to cite against Christianity, and I certainly understand that. However a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of this story goes far beyond what I intend to address for the purposes of this conversation. My point in my opening remark was that in general, drawing from my own experience with Christianity in the US, acts are ethical insofar as they are congruent with the nature of an omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient being and are thus justified insofar as they reflect them and not contradict them. That is the basis, and I see no such metaphysical basis in Buddhism - be it God or something else like Plato's forms.

Again the purpose of Buddhist ethics is the reduction and eventual end of suffering, that's it.

Buddhist cosmology and worldview acknowledges nothing like a Prime Mover nor Ideal Forms from which ethics would be derived.

Again I'd suggest you tackle dependent origination and shunyata, the idea of a static "foundation" for anything will be refuted by study of these, and I think this will explain the Buddhist position to you in the areas where it is not making sense.

[KathyLauren]

Hi Kathy and thank you for your response. To me, compassion is a feature of ethics, not its foundation. If it is a feature, as is loving kindness, forgiveness, and so on, what is the epistemology for this? Why is suffering worse than not suffering?

Why does it need to have an epistemology? It is an observation of a universal truth. The truth does not need a creator. It just needs to be observed. In Buddhism, compassion is the foundation of ethics.

Why is suffering worse than not suffering? Ah, finally, a good, Buddhist question! Why indeed? Meditate for a while on the nature of suffering. What exactly is it? What does it mean to suffer? What is the difference between pain and suffering? In the First Noble Truth, what is the connection between desire and suffering? The answer is easily missed, because it is too simple to be understood easily. You apparently don't like tautologies, but the answer is very close to being one.

Suffering is called suffering because we don't want it. It is any experience that we don't want. And, because we are like other sentient beings, we can presume that they do not want it either. Hence, compassion.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

[PadmaVonSamba]

Suffering is called suffering because we don't want it. It is any experience that we don't want.

Perfectly said!
Worth noting: dukkha (suffering) doesn’t only refer to pain and misery, but also to any sense of dissatisfaction, longing, restlessness, etc.

[Malcolm]

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?

Kants categorical imperative is not grounded in any divine essence. Nor for that matter is the utilitarianism of Mill,or for that matter analytic philosophy in general, in the anglo American tradition, exemplified by Rawls, etc.

[PadmaVonSamba]

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?

The problem with this question is that you are assuming that following various Buddhist teachings is a matter of moral obligation. It’s not.

What the Buddha taught was various practical means to attain realization and thus freedom from the cycle of samsaric existence.

Suppose you want to drive from your house to a location many miles away, over rivers and mountains. You maybe have a GPS app on your phone that talks to you and tells you how to get there, so you follow those instructions, and you get there. It’s just like that. It’s very simple. It’s not a matter of ethics or morality in the sense you assume.

It just so happens, however, that the way out of samsara is the eightfold path, the Bodhisattva practices and so forth. “It just do happens” means that we also find similar instructions in Abrahamic religions. The Bible says “thou shalt not kill” and the eightfold path says to avoid killing. The justification for one is to avoid punishment by a god. The justification for the other is that killing people messes with your mind. When your mind is messed up, you kept taking rebirth in the experience of samsaric existence.

So, your question really needs to be, “why are these the methods which lead one to liberation from samsara?”

And the reason why, is because these methods counter those actions of body, speech and mind that propel our samsaric existence.

[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.

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.

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.

"Binding nature of morality"? From the buddhist point of view all beings are in the wheel of becoming, they are bound to this to begin with. You will not be free from the wheel of reincarnation by dismissing or ignoring Buddhism. If you believe there is reincarnation, you will know that you are bound. If you don't believe in karma and rebirth, you will be living in a dream-like state, in an illusionary freedom from reincarnation, which is not real.
Does this make any sense to You?

[Giovanni]

Buddhadharma is pragmatic. Ethical considerations there are but at a secondary level.
The Buddha said if you are shot with an arrow you are not helped by analysing the wood or feathers before it is removed.
All sentient life including human is vulnerable to suffering. The remedy is Dharma. It takes a leap of faith. We accept that is is true provisionally and go from there. If we find it isn’t true we have lost nothing.
Philosophy does not help our condition and philosophy does not help us to understand Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma is something we do, it is an activity. Most need a teacher to do it well.

[Aemilius]

Buddhadharma is pragmatic. Ethical considerations there are but at a secondary level.
The Buddha said if you are shot with an arrow you are not helped by analysing the wood or feathers before it is removed.
All sentient life including human is vulnerable to suffering. The remedy is Dharma. It takes a leap of faith. We accept that is is true provisionally and go from there. If we find it isn’t true we have lost nothing.

The arrow metaphor takes you only halfway there. I remember reading a sutta long time ago, in 1980's, where Gautama Shakyamuni says that he does not say that you cannot find or know the answer to the ten or fourteen unanswered questions, (i.e. whether the the world is eternal etc..) This means that after stream entry or other attainment on the path you should be able to know these things personally! And in fact we find in the buddhist history a lot more knowledge about the nature of the universe, than would be necessary according to the teaching of the shot arrow.

[clyde]

Why is suffering worse than not suffering? Ah, finally, a good, Buddhist question! Why indeed? Meditate for a while on the nature of suffering. What exactly is it? What does it mean to suffer? What is the difference between pain and suffering? In the First Noble Truth, what is the connection between desire and suffering? The answer is easily missed, because it is too simple to be understood easily. You apparently don't like tautologies, but the answer is very close to being one.

Suffering is called suffering because we don't want it. It is any experience that we don't want. And, because we are like other sentient beings, we can presume that they do not want it either. Hence, compassion.

I think Kathy’s answer is on point.

I would add that in addition to looking at suffering, you examine the arising of vedana (the feeling/sensation of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral). This fits with Johnny’s suggestion to study dependent origination.

[LastLegend]

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!

There is seed and fruit. Seed produces fruit with right conditions that help the seed grow into a plant. Mind is the same way every act of mind is a seed and will follow by its ripened fruit.

All beings contain Buddha nature in mind, so we are really emanations of Buddha nature, though we appear different we are not.

[LastLegend]

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.

We think in particular way...like how our mind imposes such a way of thinking. It has to be this way because of that. When say binding, it isn’t binding because people still can make choice.