Comments on “FTFY Buddhist ethics”

Great stuff. I thought the lay precepts were originally intended to guard against spider bites, AIDS, and alien space rapes. She gets upset if you fuck around with it too much. Oh the horror indeed.

I have a modified version of the FTFY morality, which I’ve usually seen in Christians:
1) I am a reasonably good person.
2) I believe X about current social issue
3) Jesus was a super-good person
4) Jesus would want X about current social issue.

It’s simple, efficient and applicable to both left and right wing Christians.

Well said. I can see the same self-deception in other religions – putting a holy spin on what you intend to do anyway.

Again, you have said what Buddhist ethics is NOT. You haven’t yet said what it IS. We’re just talking circles around something that hasn’t been carefully defined yet, a specious argument.

I mean today, you haven’t defined ‘ETHICS’ at all, much less Buddhist ethics. (I do wish there was some way to edit comments.) Until you fully explicate what you mean by “ethics”, the principles, the generation of those principles, their justifications and how they apply in various situations, this whole argument is a sham.

Roughgarden isn’t he saying that there is no actual Buddhist ethics system, only a tradition of precepts. and that we have been hustled and told that our own ethics system is the Buddhist ethics system. I ordered and am now reading “Buddhist Ethics: A very short introduction” by Damien Keown, and in there he is discussing what Buddhist ethics could be. Keown mentions a more complete text by Peter Harvey “Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values, and Issues”. He is also making the point that if people realized the actual values behind their Consensus Buddhist tradition that they wouldn’t like it; and if many of the people who are pushing this modern secular mindfulness approach thought about it and examined tantric and dzogchen approaches then they would realize that these are the approaches that would best suit them. Also, we should all be clear about what these traditions are actually teaching and not just making up our own theory about them. If we did that then we could choose more carefully which tradition we followed and then update that tradition’s presentation as needed without having to change any of their basics- the change would more likely be a modification of presentation without messing with the machine itself, which probably isn’t wise- but anyway, we should at least be clear about what’s actually going on.

It seems kind of hard not to just make stuff up, being for the most part a secular leftish person as well as a Buddhist is it any wonder we reinvent the ethics to fit with the spirit of the times. Still there is the deeper tantric logic of the charnel ground which makes our shifting consensus moralizing look pretty transparent and pathetic. Sometimes if faced with an ethical dilemma I think “What would Yeshe Tsogyal do?”.

Sell weapons to Saudi Arabia? Who knows?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-saudi-arabia-neil-macdonald-1.3251239

The definitions section of the Wiki page on ethics carries a warning “The neutrality of this section is disputed.” How can this be a good introduction to the subject? It also raises many questions that aren’t addressed by these essay - we seem to be saying that because traditional Buddhism is usually presented as normative ethics, for example, that it has no meta-ethics. But I’m certainly aware of metaethical discussions.

I’m really not convinced by this essay that modern attempts to identify ethical principles and apply them, amounts to what you say it does. The examples used don’t really establish the points you claim they do. Apparently your assumptions about what readers will understand and know about goes far beyond the terminology of moral philosophy. I think your underlying (and as yet unspoken) agenda shows here more than ever and it weakens your argument. While I appreciate the polemical tone of the essays generally, I think here you let yourself get carried away with mockery. It’s an old Buddhist rhetorical technique deriding the opposition before making a positive alternative proposition, but as with historical precedents one struggles to recognise the opposition in the caricature. And I no longer seem to be amongst the intended audience - it’s become a smug incrowd sniggering at the the mainstream affair. As always this aspect of your writing is a real turn off for me.

very entertaining and enjoyable reading, though I think it has some weaknesses. Hopefully I will find some time later to talk about some issues with which I have about the post.

jayarava // “It’s an old Buddhist rhetorical technique deriding the opposition before making a positive alternative proposition”

deriding the opposition before making a positive alternative proposition, is it a distinctively Buddhist rhetorical technique? I expect that you probably don’t think so. Anyway, your statement made me smile.

““In America the precepts are generally defined in terms of intention, rather than in terms of action.” This is characteristic of Protestant morality.

It’s not a unique characteristics of Protestant morality to taking intention into consideration. Traditional Korean lay Buddhists used to interpret the fifth precept that way even in pre modern times. and Intention is what makes Buddhist concept of Karma ‘Buddhist’. For example, in Jainism, intended killing and unintended killing is not discriminated.

Another problem or weakness in your argument is that you tend to commit fallacy of cherry picking evidence in your representation of the so-called ‘traditional (Asian) Buddhism’.

Lay Buddhist ethics in Theravada Buddhism in South eastern Asia may serve as an example for your purpose. In other words, a traditional Buddhist ethics accepted and practiced at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain sect of traditional Buddhism might be in opposition to the current Western ethics. But it does not necessarily mean all of traditional (Asian) Buddhism’s moralities are in opposition to it.

I often find your representation of Traditional Buddhism selective (intentionally or unintentionally).

“Theravada is a large fraction of all Buddhism; and (more important) it is the historical root for the Insight Meditation Society, which is the largest contributor to Consensus Buddhism.”

I see. I got it. If the largest leading sect in Consensus Buddhism is the Insight Meditation Society and its historical root is Theravada Buddhism, then it’s not a fair criticism to accuse you of cherry picking evidence.

So, I would guess Korean Buddhists thought you should not kill insects, have an abortion, commit adultery, or get drunk. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. I also think you are probably right in saying that the mainstream western Buddhists tend to distort the meaning the 5 precepts for lay Buddhists by rephrasing them, as follows.

Honor the body - Do not misuse sexuality ( https://zmm.mro.org/training/receiving-the-zen-precepts/ )

What I’m not convinced of is just that western Buddhism’s attitude - sensual/sexual pleasure is basically good and O.K - really comes from protestant moralities.

I was getting ready to write ths comment on a site called the Unrepentent Marxist in which politcal dilemmas and choices was under discussion. Then I figured what the hell, I am probably taking an unauthorized short cut, to the final solution of the human problem. Yet since the Wannsee is not to far away I might be able to get away with it.
One will not find the final solution to the problem of human suffering in the works of Trotsky, or Marx, or the Bible, or even in the writings of Thomas Paine. No an ethical final solution to all political dilemmas and all human suffering can in the end only be achieved through a firm commitment to birth control.
Whose toes would this commitment step on? Who would lack the will to carry out the final solution?

Many Western Buddhist teachers interpret precepts in a way that agrees with the already existing ethical system. But I don’t agree that it is completely non-distinguishable from non-Buddhist ethics. One of the things you quote refers to “mindful eating, drinking, and consuming”. I don’t think any non-Buddhist would put any importance on mindful eating or drinking. In mainstream Western culture excessive drinking is not seen as anything wrong (it’s your private business, as long as you don’t harm others). But according to that quote, getting completely drunk is out of the question - it’s impossible to do it mindfully.

I also see a problem with the claimed opposition between Western Buddhists, who supposedly bend the rules to match them with the pre-existing moral system, and Eastern Buddhists, who supposedly treat the rules literally and don’t try to bend them. For one thing, most of Western Buddhist figures I’ve read have relatively orthodox view of the Buddhist ethical rules (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Yuttadhammo), so I don’t see any “consensus” that you keep talking about. And for another, how come you believe that Buddhist in Asia didn’t bend the rules? Thailand/Siam, despite being a Buddhist country, has had a capital punishment for a long time, and that’s a pretty obvious violation of the first precept. Do you really believe that Thai Buddhists simply admitted “that’s clearly against our morality, but so what”? That’s not what people do. I’m not a scholar, so I don’t have proofs, but I’m pretty sure that they invented tons of rationalisations of why the capital punishment wasn’t really against the first precept. And that’s just one simple example.

Well, according to my understanding of Buddhism, it’s pretty uncontroversial that whatever you do, it’s better if you do it mindfully.
Is there any major Buddhist group that wouldn’t agree with that? In what way is it closer to Calvinism than to Buddhism?

I know that according to traditional interpretation, the fifth precept means “no alcohol at all”. But I’m not arguing that Thich Nhat Hanh’s interpretation is traditional, I’m just arguing that it isn’t identical to “current Western leftish secular ethics”, which has nothing against excessive drinking.

I didn’t say that. Where does it seem I said that? Maybe it needs clarification.

Right, you didn’t say that explicitly. But if FTFY ethics was present not just in some parts of Western Buddhism, but also in Thai Buddhism, and probably in any other kind of Buddhism that involved non-monks that lived in a society with a pre-existing ethical system, then what is the point of this blog note?

I see. Perhaps it’s just the problem that you too often write “Western” when you actually mean “American”. “The West” is a pretty large place, and much less homogenous than it may seem.

Yeah, in this case I meant references to “Western ethics”. Many Western countries aren’t even Protestant, so your linking of some norms with Protestant morality cannot be true in general for the “Western ethics”.

I have another example: polyamory. It goes against mainstream Western morality. But as far as I know, Western Buddhism has nothing against it, just like, say, traditional Tibetan Buddhism. I would assume that Consensus Buddhism doesn’t condemn polyamory, does it?

David, your series has stimulated me to formulate my own understanding of what Buddhist ethics means to me. My first attempt is here: http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/2015/12/buddhism-and-moral-coherence/ Would love your response!