Beautiful piece, thank you. The more I think and reflect, the more I agree with the concept that ethic “is better understood as pertinent to specific situations and with the growth of the individual, not with objective judgments of “moral” or “immoral.” It is really overwhelming to “act as if your actions would become universal laws”. It is dismissive to the day to day acts that are small, fairly unimportant when in isolation, but that serve a purpose of being positive to somebody and to ourselves within a given context and in accordance with cardinal virtues.
It seems that the Buddhist approach to "prudential goods" is similar to what Epictetus says in the Enchiridion (I paraphrase since I don't have it handy): "Let me have wealth if I got it the right way." Wealth/material prosperity may come incidentally as a result of the pursuit of virtue, but it is secondary.
Great article. Thank you. I've fallen off reading for awhile, but I wonder if you have anywhere an article that contrasts virtue ethics with Christian ethics?
“Get money, then,” says some friend, “in order that we too may have it.” If I can get money and at the same time keep myself self-respecting, and faithful, and high-minded, show me the way and I will get it. But if you require me to lose the good things that belong to me, in order that you may acquire the things that are not good, you can see for yourselves how unfair and inconsiderate you are. And which do you really prefer? Money, or a faithful and self-respecting friend? Help me, therefore, rather to this end, and do not require me to do those things which will make me lose these qualities.”
I used to follow the Buddhist path (Theravada and Zen (Mahayana)) and I agree with most of them. It is a nice comparison.
However, the traditions differ greatly in their goal.
I like secularized Buddhism in which the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path play the central role and no karma & reincarnation issues arise.
=> Here the goal is the good life with the end of greed/hatred/harmful identifications, to alleviate one's own and others' suffering with wisdom & compassion (often with the image of a bird and its two wings) and similar to Epicureanism with Phronesis (Prudence) & Philia (Friendship)
In Theravada, the last conclusion of the article would unfortunately not be appropriate. Morality/virtue is like a raft that is no longer needed after crossing the river to the destination (instrumental).
=> The main goal is to prevent reincarnation, a goal that, depending on metaphysics, has always been achieved, for example for Stoics/Epicureans/Naturalists/non-reincarnation believers. Metaphysics plays a role here in deciding whether a meditative life in a cave makes sense for the "highest goal" or (if that is not achievable or has already been achieved through ignorance) is a pure waste of time and life.
The last conclusion applies to Mahayana as it does to secular Buddhism => the goal is to be a Bodhisattva, a good being, Nirvana can wait
However, it is often still associated with the belief in karma and reincarnation, which, as a neuroscientist who had the Dalai Lama explain it to him said, "this sounds like magic for us"
For me, pure belief with many contradictions and no evidence
I am looking forward to Daoism. I like the wisdom of Zhuangzi in philosophical Daoism and was looking how to practice it. In the past Zen (as a mix of buddhism & daoism in my opinion ) was my way to practice a kind of daoism : )
Unfortunately, religious Daoism is full of superstition in my opinion.
Beautiful….however nirvana is not a rare achievement it is closer to us than our own nose and virtue is the door that opens into it…as Buddhadasa exemplifies in his essay “Nibbana is for everyone” https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha013.htm
Lovely piece. Simplified such that anyone can understand it. I looked at western philosophy last 10 years & found Stoicism the most appealing with a few things missing. Being born a Hindu I found the Varna(Cast) aspect distasteful. The Buddha started his Dharma to oppose the Brahmins. I was surprised to learn that he never entered Varanasi the holiest city in India because the Brahmins controlled it with the merchant class assuring them of Moksha(breakaway from birth rebirth cycle). Here is the interesting part. The Buddha never accepted the real self(Atma) nor did he believe in the Ultimate reality(Brahma). As science has developed & Neo-Buddhism has taken root & similar to what I call Neo-Stoicism. There are more aspects similar in the 2 Philosophies than differences. Getting to suffering or Dukha or the absence of suffering which is Sukha, I equate the latter to Eudiamonia which keeps one in a state of equanimity & different from being an Arahant which is one step closer to getting Nirvana. This is sometimes equated to Moksha which it is not as Nirvana is attainable while still living & the latter occurs after death. Reincarnation in Buddhism cannot occur as there is no Self. But what does happen is if one gets cremated your remnants in the form of DNA can be passed on. This last sentence is my creation & does make sense. To end Buddha Dharam are his 4 tenants & the 8 fold pathway.
Naresh, I never understood the bit about reincarnation, which seems necessary for karma to work, and the no-self doctrine. They seem contradictory, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Good point. I think the Karma was more a Hindu Philosophy & the Buddha was operating in a hostile environment controlled by the Brahmins. There are some Hindu aspects I think he went along with & there were attempts on his life. I like his main message No Self & No Ultimate Reality. Rest can easily be embraced by Stoic Philosophy ie the pathways for managing Dukha or suffering.
In my (limited) understanding, the “No Self” seems similar to Stoic determinism and co-fate(ism) in that we are interconnected with past, present, and future generations, events, the cosmos, etc.
Jonathan, my understanding is also limited, but I think “no self” just means no permanent essence, as in Hinduism. That would be compatible with the Stoic-Heracliteian take that everything changed, panta rhei.
Thank you Massimo .Your ability to keep things simple and understandable is very much appreciated.My world is a better place because of your mentorship on Stoicism .Today's topic is most enlightening and I have a better idea of Buddhism, albeit very limited 🤔 I look forward to the next installments ready to take notes !
You mentioned Buddha's approach to externals as similar to Aristotle's; Owen Flanagan says something similar I think but could it be seen as being closer to Seneca's brand of Stoicism - externals are fine as preferred indifferents only do not crave them in Buddhist parlance? The difference being closer to the Stoics and the cynics as you also mention. I've felt for a while that Buddhism is closer to Stoicism than Aristotelianism. Anyway, there are some intriguing overlaps.
Peter, right, Buddhist ethics seems to me to be significantly closer to the Stoics than to Aristotle. Of course, the underlying metaphysics is completely different.
Peter, the relationship between metaphysics and ethics is complex. I don't think the former is irrelevant to the latter because how you think the world works influences how you behave in the world. But the relationship is certainly not one-to-one, there is a significant amount of room for flexibility. See, for instance, here: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/determinism-swerves-and-the-relationship
Thanks for the link, Massimo; that's very illuminating and informative. I suppose what I was getting at with my slightly throwaway remark was that whether I think there's a god or not (for instance) doesn't really alter the fact that there are only a certain number of ways I can interact in ethically appropriate ways with my fellow human beings but clearly, as you say, peoples' belief systems certainly "influence" their ethical behaviour. That I suppose is the key word "influence" rather than there being some one to one direct mapping. Complex, as you point out.
Peter, that's exactly right. Influence, not determine. If people believe in a benevolent god and an afterlife that may (and in some cases clearly does) affect the way they behave with others. But it doesn't have to, and I do believe that most ethical traditions have a lot in common, for the simple reason that they are concerned with, well, humans!
Beautiful piece, thank you. The more I think and reflect, the more I agree with the concept that ethic “is better understood as pertinent to specific situations and with the growth of the individual, not with objective judgments of “moral” or “immoral.” It is really overwhelming to “act as if your actions would become universal laws”. It is dismissive to the day to day acts that are small, fairly unimportant when in isolation, but that serve a purpose of being positive to somebody and to ourselves within a given context and in accordance with cardinal virtues.
Marcelo, I agree, "dismissive" is a good way to put it.
It seems that the Buddhist approach to "prudential goods" is similar to what Epictetus says in the Enchiridion (I paraphrase since I don't have it handy): "Let me have wealth if I got it the right way." Wealth/material prosperity may come incidentally as a result of the pursuit of virtue, but it is secondary.
Great article. Thank you. I've fallen off reading for awhile, but I wonder if you have anywhere an article that contrasts virtue ethics with Christian ethics?
John, you may be thinking of Enchiridion 24:
“Get money, then,” says some friend, “in order that we too may have it.” If I can get money and at the same time keep myself self-respecting, and faithful, and high-minded, show me the way and I will get it. But if you require me to lose the good things that belong to me, in order that you may acquire the things that are not good, you can see for yourselves how unfair and inconsiderate you are. And which do you really prefer? Money, or a faithful and self-respecting friend? Help me, therefore, rather to this end, and do not require me to do those things which will make me lose these qualities.”
As for Stoicism and Christianity, I have not written anything here at The Garden, but I have written a multi-part series at my old blog, How to Be a Stoic: https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/tag/one-true-life/
I used to follow the Buddhist path (Theravada and Zen (Mahayana)) and I agree with most of them. It is a nice comparison.
However, the traditions differ greatly in their goal.
I like secularized Buddhism in which the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path play the central role and no karma & reincarnation issues arise.
=> Here the goal is the good life with the end of greed/hatred/harmful identifications, to alleviate one's own and others' suffering with wisdom & compassion (often with the image of a bird and its two wings) and similar to Epicureanism with Phronesis (Prudence) & Philia (Friendship)
In Theravada, the last conclusion of the article would unfortunately not be appropriate. Morality/virtue is like a raft that is no longer needed after crossing the river to the destination (instrumental).
=> The main goal is to prevent reincarnation, a goal that, depending on metaphysics, has always been achieved, for example for Stoics/Epicureans/Naturalists/non-reincarnation believers. Metaphysics plays a role here in deciding whether a meditative life in a cave makes sense for the "highest goal" or (if that is not achievable or has already been achieved through ignorance) is a pure waste of time and life.
The last conclusion applies to Mahayana as it does to secular Buddhism => the goal is to be a Bodhisattva, a good being, Nirvana can wait
However, it is often still associated with the belief in karma and reincarnation, which, as a neuroscientist who had the Dalai Lama explain it to him said, "this sounds like magic for us"
For me, pure belief with many contradictions and no evidence
I am looking forward to Daoism. I like the wisdom of Zhuangzi in philosophical Daoism and was looking how to practice it. In the past Zen (as a mix of buddhism & daoism in my opinion ) was my way to practice a kind of daoism : )
Unfortunately, religious Daoism is full of superstition in my opinion.
Beautiful….however nirvana is not a rare achievement it is closer to us than our own nose and virtue is the door that opens into it…as Buddhadasa exemplifies in his essay “Nibbana is for everyone” https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha013.htm
Lovely piece. Simplified such that anyone can understand it. I looked at western philosophy last 10 years & found Stoicism the most appealing with a few things missing. Being born a Hindu I found the Varna(Cast) aspect distasteful. The Buddha started his Dharma to oppose the Brahmins. I was surprised to learn that he never entered Varanasi the holiest city in India because the Brahmins controlled it with the merchant class assuring them of Moksha(breakaway from birth rebirth cycle). Here is the interesting part. The Buddha never accepted the real self(Atma) nor did he believe in the Ultimate reality(Brahma). As science has developed & Neo-Buddhism has taken root & similar to what I call Neo-Stoicism. There are more aspects similar in the 2 Philosophies than differences. Getting to suffering or Dukha or the absence of suffering which is Sukha, I equate the latter to Eudiamonia which keeps one in a state of equanimity & different from being an Arahant which is one step closer to getting Nirvana. This is sometimes equated to Moksha which it is not as Nirvana is attainable while still living & the latter occurs after death. Reincarnation in Buddhism cannot occur as there is no Self. But what does happen is if one gets cremated your remnants in the form of DNA can be passed on. This last sentence is my creation & does make sense. To end Buddha Dharam are his 4 tenants & the 8 fold pathway.
Naresh, I never understood the bit about reincarnation, which seems necessary for karma to work, and the no-self doctrine. They seem contradictory, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Good point. I think the Karma was more a Hindu Philosophy & the Buddha was operating in a hostile environment controlled by the Brahmins. There are some Hindu aspects I think he went along with & there were attempts on his life. I like his main message No Self & No Ultimate Reality. Rest can easily be embraced by Stoic Philosophy ie the pathways for managing Dukha or suffering.
In my (limited) understanding, the “No Self” seems similar to Stoic determinism and co-fate(ism) in that we are interconnected with past, present, and future generations, events, the cosmos, etc.
Jonathan, my understanding is also limited, but I think “no self” just means no permanent essence, as in Hinduism. That would be compatible with the Stoic-Heracliteian take that everything changed, panta rhei.
Thank you Massimo .Your ability to keep things simple and understandable is very much appreciated.My world is a better place because of your mentorship on Stoicism .Today's topic is most enlightening and I have a better idea of Buddhism, albeit very limited 🤔 I look forward to the next installments ready to take notes !
Your appreciation is much appreciated!
Thank you Massimo, I enjoyed that.
You mentioned Buddha's approach to externals as similar to Aristotle's; Owen Flanagan says something similar I think but could it be seen as being closer to Seneca's brand of Stoicism - externals are fine as preferred indifferents only do not crave them in Buddhist parlance? The difference being closer to the Stoics and the cynics as you also mention. I've felt for a while that Buddhism is closer to Stoicism than Aristotelianism. Anyway, there are some intriguing overlaps.
Peter, right, Buddhist ethics seems to me to be significantly closer to the Stoics than to Aristotle. Of course, the underlying metaphysics is completely different.
Which maybe suggests that metaphysics is pretty irrelevant to living a good life!
Peter, the relationship between metaphysics and ethics is complex. I don't think the former is irrelevant to the latter because how you think the world works influences how you behave in the world. But the relationship is certainly not one-to-one, there is a significant amount of room for flexibility. See, for instance, here: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/determinism-swerves-and-the-relationship
Thanks for the link, Massimo; that's very illuminating and informative. I suppose what I was getting at with my slightly throwaway remark was that whether I think there's a god or not (for instance) doesn't really alter the fact that there are only a certain number of ways I can interact in ethically appropriate ways with my fellow human beings but clearly, as you say, peoples' belief systems certainly "influence" their ethical behaviour. That I suppose is the key word "influence" rather than there being some one to one direct mapping. Complex, as you point out.
Peter, that's exactly right. Influence, not determine. If people believe in a benevolent god and an afterlife that may (and in some cases clearly does) affect the way they behave with others. But it doesn't have to, and I do believe that most ethical traditions have a lot in common, for the simple reason that they are concerned with, well, humans!