What do you think?
Rate this book
The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on Effective Altruism, Engaged Buddhism, and How to Build a Better World
Eastern spirituality and utilitarian philosophy meet in these unique dialogues between a Buddhist monastic and a moral philosopher on such issues as animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more
An unlikely duo—Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist—join forces to talk ethics in lively conversations that cross oceans, overcome language barriers, and bridge philosophies. The eye-opening dialogues collected here share unique perspectives on contemporary issues like animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more. Together, these two deep thinkers explore the foundation of ethics and key Buddhist concepts, and ultimately reveal how we can all move toward making the world a better place.
An unlikely duo—Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist—join forces to talk ethics in lively conversations that cross oceans, overcome language barriers, and bridge philosophies. The eye-opening dialogues collected here share unique perspectives on contemporary issues like animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more. Together, these two deep thinkers explore the foundation of ethics and key Buddhist concepts, and ultimately reveal how we can all move toward making the world a better place.
264 pages, Paperback
First published January 3, 2024
56 people are currently reading
2994 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
186 books11k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
December 19, 2023
This book reassured me that Buddhist ethics does not hold under rational scrutiny. It was a nice, polite email exchange but it gave me this notion that religious ethics are redundant to rational ethics... they usually have nothing interesting to add, and we no longer need them in current society as they are built on a shaky ground of faith. This particular system seems a bit "wobbly". It's not like utilitarianism is not flawed, but still, after the reading, continues to be more appealing to me than any religious-based ethical system. I wish Singer challenged some of the Buddhist beliefs even further, e.g. when I tried to look at what are the core concepts of it, I thought, it's a pretty miserable life philosophy, that does not align with human biology/human nature (he addresses this a little bit). I can imagine e.g. depressed people staying depressed due to Buddhist philosophy. But yeah, nice that they try to focus on looking for common ground, e.g. for the protection of animals! Very important.
May 24, 2024
A book solidly in the Venn diagram of my interests, but oddly, it didn't convince me of beliefs I'm already convinced of even though the authors share my beliefs. In fact, they made beliefs they — and I — hold seem unappealing.
Buddhism sounded too esoteric to be practical — in fact, without a belief in reincarnation, Buddhism doesn't seem to offer good reasons to act morally, according to the co-author. Not eating meat sounded like a slippery slope to impossible-to-sustain morality. Thoughts on abortion and the death penalty felt too academic. Really, the whole thing sounds like a graduate dissertation.
Even so, Shih Chao-Hwei comes across as an amazing person with a great backstory, a nun fighting for animals and feminist causes.
There's a discussion near the end about killing pets when they're suffering and when it's justified. She tells about a rescue dog she cared for, and she kept him alive way past the time veterinarians and friends told her was appropriate. She — and those around her — cared for him well after he could no longer walk and had to poop lying down. This was a situation they both agreed was appropriate. Many such moments like this.
I learned a lot about obscure Buddhist stories and details behind contemporary ethical dilemmas so I'm glad I read it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't deeply into these issues/authors.
Buddhism sounded too esoteric to be practical — in fact, without a belief in reincarnation, Buddhism doesn't seem to offer good reasons to act morally, according to the co-author. Not eating meat sounded like a slippery slope to impossible-to-sustain morality. Thoughts on abortion and the death penalty felt too academic. Really, the whole thing sounds like a graduate dissertation.
Even so, Shih Chao-Hwei comes across as an amazing person with a great backstory, a nun fighting for animals and feminist causes.
There's a discussion near the end about killing pets when they're suffering and when it's justified. She tells about a rescue dog she cared for, and she kept him alive way past the time veterinarians and friends told her was appropriate. She — and those around her — cared for him well after he could no longer walk and had to poop lying down. This was a situation they both agreed was appropriate. Many such moments like this.
I learned a lot about obscure Buddhist stories and details behind contemporary ethical dilemmas so I'm glad I read it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't deeply into these issues/authors.
January 19, 2024
للتأكد من أن قرائنا يفهمون بشكل صحيح طبيعة النفعية، يجب أن أعلق على فكرة أن النفعية تسعى إلى تعظيم المنفعة للأغلبية. وهذا سوء فهم شائع يعود إلى شعار جيريمي بينثام، مؤسس النفعية كنهج للأخلاق والسياسة العامة: "أعظم سعادة لأكبر عدد". ومع ذلك، فهو ليس دقيقًا تمامًا، لأن النفعية تخبرنا حقًا أن نفعل ما سيؤدي إلى أكبر فائدة ممكنة، وفي بعض الأحيان يعني هذا أننا يجب أن نفعل ما سيفيد أقلية من المتضررين إذا كانت تلك الأقلية ستكسب الكثير، في حين خسارة الأغلبية للقليل فقط. من بين الاعتراضات الشعبية على النفعية أنها تبرر المشاهد القاسية في حلبات المصارعة الرومانية، على أساس أنه إذا كان عشرة آلاف شخص يستمتعون بمشاهدة عشرة سجناء والأسود تمزقهم إرباً، فإن هذا يفيد الأغلبية. لكن النفعي قد يقول إنه على الرغم من وجود عشرة سجناء فقط وعشرة آلاف متفرج، فإن السجناء العشرة سيعانون بشدة لدرجة أن الترفيه عن عشرة آلاف متفرج لا يزال لا يقارن بمعاناتهم.
.
Peter Singer
The Buddhist and the Ethicist
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
Peter Singer
The Buddhist and the Ethicist
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
Want to read
January 17, 2024Eastern spirituality and utilitarian philosophy meet in these unique dialogues between a Buddhist monastic and a moral philosopher on such issues as animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more
An unlikely duo—Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist—join forces to talk ethics in lively conversations that cross oceans, overcome language barriers, and bridge philosophies. The eye-opening dialogues collected here share unique perspectives on contemporary issues like animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more. Together, these two deep thinkers explore the foundation of ethics and key Buddhist concepts, and ultimately reveal how we can all move toward making the world a better place.
An unlikely duo—Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist—join forces to talk ethics in lively conversations that cross oceans, overcome language barriers, and bridge philosophies. The eye-opening dialogues collected here share unique perspectives on contemporary issues like animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more. Together, these two deep thinkers explore the foundation of ethics and key Buddhist concepts, and ultimately reveal how we can all move toward making the world a better place.
May 28, 2025
I really enjoyed parts of these conversations but mostly loved that a book exists to example respectful ways of discussion through discourse and agreement. An important read to aide decreasing black and white thinking!
October 9, 2024
I thought this was an excellent read and I would totally recommend this as a way to decide how you feel about ethical questions in this modern world. It’s also super cool to read a meaningful discussion, I think there’s a lot to learn here.
February 9, 2024
This was an interesting window into a school of thought I don’t know much about, though it didn’t really change my views on anything.
1. Self-sacrifice
The thing I like best about the Christian tradition I was raised in is its emphasis—at least in the abstract, and often in practice at an interpersonal level, though sadly this tends to go out the window when politics gets involved—on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, such as in Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” and of course in the story of his death. I love to see similar themes appear in other traditions, and I think Chao-hwei gives a particularly clear statement of the kind of expansive concern for everyone that ought to be the ideal:
Some of my favorite parts of the book are when Chao-hwei relates Buddhist stories where the hero engages in some sort of self-sacrifice, such as these two:
Although that story has a relatively happy ending, I like that there is also one—about Buddha and Vidudabha[4]—which extols nonviolence even when it fails to stop the aggressor.
Notably, though, Chao-hwei is not advocating strict pacifism. In her analysis, whether the Buddha recommends fighting or surrendering depends on what would minimize casualties in a given situation. And “[h]e understood that to raise military power in moderation may sometimes decrease the chance of warfare…”[5] She says that “defense or nondefense are simply strategies” for “reducing casualties”[6].
2. Nirvana
As a child, I once read a Christian book attacking Buddhism. One of its complaints was that Buddhists are trying to achieve annihilation, which was portrayed as a pathetic, dismal, absurd goal. Singer raises this topic:
The “one-sided” view has gained some adherents in Western philosophy (and in my own friend group)—I’ve reviewed a couple books by negative utilitarians—but like Singer, I find it strange. There were three interesting aspects to Chao-hwei’s response.
First, she notes “[t]he Buddha adjusted his teachings based on those with whom he was interacting” and “didn’t talk about nirvana right away.”[8] People are perhaps not expected to be able to see the desirability of nirvana immediately. Later she talks about three distinct stages a Buddhist may go through—pursuing happiness, liberation, and altruism—and indicates the Buddha has teachings addressed to each of these goals.
Second, she gives some insight into why one might want to let go of the pursuit of happiness, or at least happiness that comes from “the external world”:
Notice this is a bit different from the negative utilitarian view: the value of pleasure isn’t denied outright, but it’s viewed as inextricably linked to suffering. This resonates with me a little bit, but I also see it as a very contingent aspect of human psychology. The ultimate long-term goal for humanity, in my view, should be to break the link—to find a way to change our world or our brains such that we can have the pleasure without an excessive amount of pain. But within our present circumstances, Chao-hwei’s argument helps me understand better why there could be wisdom in trying to lessen one’s attachment to happiness.
Thirdly, I’m not entirely clear on this, but it sounds like the idea that nirvana (or “enlightenment”, or “the fourth dhyana”—are these all synonymous?) involves annihilation may just be a misunderstanding.
Chao-hwei’s descriptions of dhyana almost (but not exactly) sound like increasingly pure states of flow. And her emphasis is on release from attachment, not release from existence:
3. Scripture
Although Chao-hwei clearly has a lot of respect for Buddhist scriptures and her worldview seems to be heavily influenced by them, she is also open about the fact that she is “making a constant effort to deconstruct the authority of the so-called sacred scriptures.”[12] When the scriptures are sexist, she rejects them (though often by pointing out how other parts of the scriptures point in different directions).
I don’t know how common this willingness to overrule the scriptures is within Buddhism—I infer that it’s far from universal—but it’s certainly anathema within the forms of Christianity I’m most familiar with. I wish it were the norm. I sometimes wonder whether my relationship to Christianity would be different if I had not felt pressured to accept it all-or-nothing; if I could have engaged with the parts of the tradition that seemed false or immoral from within the tradition, rather than feeling the need to exit the tradition entirely.
4. Embryos
The biggest point of disagreement between Singer and Chao-hwei in the book is about when/whether it is wrong to kill embryos that cannot yet feel pain. Singer thinks there is nothing bad about it at all; Chao-hwei is much more concerned, because:
A utilitarian, by contrast, would care only about the former. Although I can sort of imagine that, if one of our priorities is to avoid causing harm, that justifies having some respect for the latter just for the sake of being cautious, ultimately I agree with Singer: I just don’t see why a survival instinct in and of itself merits respect if it is not associated with any conscious experience at all.
5. A story about cat sex, which I will quote without context
[1] Shih Chao-hwei, The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on Effective Altruism, Engaged Buddhism, and How to Build a Better World (Boulder: Shambhala, 2023), 48–49. She refers to the limited form of altruism as “a Chinese ideal,” but I’ve omitted that adjective since I see this as a common flaw in human moral thinking.
[2] Ibid., 3–4.
[3] Ibid., 204.
[4] Ibid., 210–11.
[5] Ibid., 212.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Peter Singer, The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on Effective Altruism, Engaged Buddhism, and How to Build a Better World (Boulder: Shambhala, 2023), 32.
[8] Chao-hwei, The Buddhist and the Ethicist, 32.
[9] Ibid., 34.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 39.
[12] Ibid., 60.
[13] Ibid., 113.
[14] Ibid., 85.
(crosspost)
1. Self-sacrifice
The thing I like best about the Christian tradition I was raised in is its emphasis—at least in the abstract, and often in practice at an interpersonal level, though sadly this tends to go out the window when politics gets involved—on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, such as in Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” and of course in the story of his death. I love to see similar themes appear in other traditions, and I think Chao-hwei gives a particularly clear statement of the kind of expansive concern for everyone that ought to be the ideal:
There is a[n] … ideal that one should sacrifice individual welfare for the greater good, but this is not the Buddhist altruistic attitude. [The former] altruistic ideal will eventually hit a boundary. No matter how large the space enclosed by the boundary is, there is still a boundary. It is therefore always possible that the person who claims to sacrifice their individual welfare for the greater good also has to sacrifice anyone who is outside the boundary of the greater good they define, such as people of other ethnicities, or animals. …
However, the practice of immeasurable samadhi (the boundless state) is different. … [it] is about dissolving one’s self (ego) through the process of exchanging self for other. That is the difference between compassion and love for the greater good. A bodhisattva does not love the drowning child due to a certain connection; instead, they turn the limited love (that we typically only have toward ourselves or those close to us) into a strong concern for this child’s well-being.[1]
Some of my favorite parts of the book are when Chao-hwei relates Buddhist stories where the hero engages in some sort of self-sacrifice, such as these two:
An eagle was attacking a dove, and the dove came to the Buddha for help. Of course, out of compassion the bodhisattva protected the dove from the eagle. Then the eagle flew down from the sky and argued with the bodhisattva, saying, “Well, I know that out of compassion you want to help the dove, but you are doing a cruel thing to me, because without food I will starve to death.” The bodhisattva thought the eagle had a point, so he decided to cut off a piece of his thigh and give it to the hungry eagle.[2]
In one of his incarnations as a bodhisattva, Lord Buddha was a king, called King Long-lifespan. When another country invaded, he gave up all his lands and power to avoid people suffering in both countries. He gave his throne to the invader and retreated to the forest with his queen and heirs. Nevertheless, the invader still hunted Lord Buddha down and executed him. While he was being executed, he looked around and saw his son, Prince Longevity, watching among the surrounding crowd. He could see the rage and anguish in his son and calmly said to him, “Confronting anger with anger can never stop this vicious circle. However, confronting anger with compassion will stop the negative loop.” After the execution, Prince Longevity did everything he could to avenge his father’s death, but in the critical moment, right before he succeeded, he remembered his father’s words and tucked his sword back in its sheath. The invading king learned from this and regretted his own behavior. He then gave the country back to Prince Longevity.[3]
Although that story has a relatively happy ending, I like that there is also one—about Buddha and Vidudabha[4]—which extols nonviolence even when it fails to stop the aggressor.
Notably, though, Chao-hwei is not advocating strict pacifism. In her analysis, whether the Buddha recommends fighting or surrendering depends on what would minimize casualties in a given situation. And “[h]e understood that to raise military power in moderation may sometimes decrease the chance of warfare…”[5] She says that “defense or nondefense are simply strategies” for “reducing casualties”[6].
2. Nirvana
As a child, I once read a Christian book attacking Buddhism. One of its complaints was that Buddhists are trying to achieve annihilation, which was portrayed as a pathetic, dismal, absurd goal. Singer raises this topic:
…I have read that for Buddhists, the ultimate goal is nirvana, which is release from the cycle of life. That is, of course, a release from suffering, but it would also seem to be a release from happiness. I am puzzled by this idea, which seems to me to be one-sided. I take the ultimate goal to be, not release from the cycle of life, but a better life for everyone.[7]
The “one-sided” view has gained some adherents in Western philosophy (and in my own friend group)—I’ve reviewed a couple books by negative utilitarians—but like Singer, I find it strange. There were three interesting aspects to Chao-hwei’s response.
First, she notes “[t]he Buddha adjusted his teachings based on those with whom he was interacting” and “didn’t talk about nirvana right away.”[8] People are perhaps not expected to be able to see the desirability of nirvana immediately. Later she talks about three distinct stages a Buddhist may go through—pursuing happiness, liberation, and altruism—and indicates the Buddha has teachings addressed to each of these goals.
Second, she gives some insight into why one might want to let go of the pursuit of happiness, or at least happiness that comes from “the external world”:
One often pursues happiness through sensual satisfaction, yet this happiness will result in two possibilities. One is that, with repetition, we become numb to the stimuli; the other is that we will seek to enhance the intensity of the stimuli. When we deepen awareness of our experiences, we realize that the happiness we believe we enjoy actually turns to suffering because we are more and more dependent on sensual pleasures.[9]
Notice this is a bit different from the negative utilitarian view: the value of pleasure isn’t denied outright, but it’s viewed as inextricably linked to suffering. This resonates with me a little bit, but I also see it as a very contingent aspect of human psychology. The ultimate long-term goal for humanity, in my view, should be to break the link—to find a way to change our world or our brains such that we can have the pleasure without an excessive amount of pain. But within our present circumstances, Chao-hwei’s argument helps me understand better why there could be wisdom in trying to lessen one’s attachment to happiness.
Thirdly, I’m not entirely clear on this, but it sounds like the idea that nirvana (or “enlightenment”, or “the fourth dhyana”—are these all synonymous?) involves annihilation may just be a misunderstanding.
…we wished that all beings would attain another level of happiness beyond sensual pleasure. This is a kind of joy that comes from having a tranquil and focused mind, which is what we refer to as dhyana, or “meditative absorption,” a happiness that comes from the mind.
There are four levels of dhyana, and the enjoyment of the body and mind deepens at each level.[10]
Chao-hwei’s descriptions of dhyana almost (but not exactly) sound like increasingly pure states of flow. And her emphasis is on release from attachment, not release from existence:
If we realize that our bodies are like the gathering foam and our hearts are like water bubbles, when we face our own death, it is like seeing a leaf falling from a tree. There is neither an unwillingness to let go nor a strong desire to move on to the next journey; this is so-called nirvana.[11]
3. Scripture
Although Chao-hwei clearly has a lot of respect for Buddhist scriptures and her worldview seems to be heavily influenced by them, she is also open about the fact that she is “making a constant effort to deconstruct the authority of the so-called sacred scriptures.”[12] When the scriptures are sexist, she rejects them (though often by pointing out how other parts of the scriptures point in different directions).
I don’t know how common this willingness to overrule the scriptures is within Buddhism—I infer that it’s far from universal—but it’s certainly anathema within the forms of Christianity I’m most familiar with. I wish it were the norm. I sometimes wonder whether my relationship to Christianity would be different if I had not felt pressured to accept it all-or-nothing; if I could have engaged with the parts of the tradition that seemed false or immoral from within the tradition, rather than feeling the need to exit the tradition entirely.
4. Embryos
The biggest point of disagreement between Singer and Chao-hwei in the book is about when/whether it is wrong to kill embryos that cannot yet feel pain. Singer thinks there is nothing bad about it at all; Chao-hwei is much more concerned, because:
From the Buddhist perspective, when we give equal consideration to all sentient beings with signs of life, we especially value two instincts of life. The first is to pursue happiness and to avoid pain and suffering, and the second is to survive and avoid death.[13]
A utilitarian, by contrast, would care only about the former. Although I can sort of imagine that, if one of our priorities is to avoid causing harm, that justifies having some respect for the latter just for the sake of being cautious, ultimately I agree with Singer: I just don’t see why a survival instinct in and of itself merits respect if it is not associated with any conscious experience at all.
5. A story about cat sex, which I will quote without context
Once there was a male cat on the college campus, and he looked so gorgeous that when a movie star saw a picture of him, she immediately liked him because of how “spiritual” he looked. She wanted her female cat to mate with that male cat, so she brought her cat to the college personally. The whole day, the other venerables at the college and I saw how the male cat tried to chase the female cat without success. Neither cat could rest properly during that whole night and the next day. We felt pity for the male and also for the female, who was trying to avoid the male and run away. In this case, we only saw the suffering of the male cat’s unsatisfied desire and the female’s constant need to escape from the male, but there was no sin. After two days of chasing, they both ran out of energy, and they just sat down and looked at each other in exhaustion.[14]
[1] Shih Chao-hwei, The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on Effective Altruism, Engaged Buddhism, and How to Build a Better World (Boulder: Shambhala, 2023), 48–49. She refers to the limited form of altruism as “a Chinese ideal,” but I’ve omitted that adjective since I see this as a common flaw in human moral thinking.
[2] Ibid., 3–4.
[3] Ibid., 204.
[4] Ibid., 210–11.
[5] Ibid., 212.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Peter Singer, The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on Effective Altruism, Engaged Buddhism, and How to Build a Better World (Boulder: Shambhala, 2023), 32.
[8] Chao-hwei, The Buddhist and the Ethicist, 32.
[9] Ibid., 34.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 39.
[12] Ibid., 60.
[13] Ibid., 113.
[14] Ibid., 85.
(crosspost)
December 19, 2023
Further evidence for how religion poisons debate in ethics
You might not think a utilitarian philosopher from the United States and a Buddhist nun from Asia would hit it off, finding common ground on issues ranging from animal liberation to effective altruism. But that’s apparently exactly what happened, and is the origin of this book.
The book itself consists of a series of dialogues between utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer and Buddhist nun Shih Chao-Hwei, as they discuss weighty moral issues such as gender equality, sexuality, abortion, animal rights, euthanasia, suicide, the death penalty, and more.
What’s surprising, right off the bat, is how Buddhism—which is constantly touted as being the most “rational” or “secular” religion—turns out, based on Chao-Hwei’s commentary, to be saddled with some of the same problems as the monotheistic religions. Buddhists, apparently, have to deal with rampant sexism that is codified in the earliest Buddhist texts, where female monks have a lower status than their male counterparts and are typically forced to walk behind them.
Buddhism also has its fair share of wild metaphysical claims; for example, Chao-Hwei struggles to explain “karma” to Singer without mentioning “future lives,” as if this is somehow self-evident if only one meditates long enough. It turns out that belief in reincarnation is required to believe in karma, and belief in karma is a core aspect of traditional Buddhism.
We also learn that Chao-Hwei’s praiseworthy and progressive views—including support for same-sex marriage and gender equality—do NOT represent orthodox views within the Buddhist community (at least according to Chao-Hwei and her self-reported negative pushback she received from other Buddhists). Unfortunately, you get the sense that Buddhism is also hampered by outdated moral systems and misogynistic thinking, as is every other religion that relies on “sacred texts.” Also, as with other religions, Chao-Hwei is shown to be morally upstanding precisely to the degree to which she goes against the orthodox views of the religion.
But one of the biggest problems with Buddhism is found within the chapter on sexuality. Singer rightfully challenges Chao-Hwei on the idea of being “liberated from sex,” as if sex is some kind of evil that needs to be banished. As Singer wrote:
“If you become like the man who, as you said, is not aroused by the woman flirting with him, then you will not suffer from sexual desire anymore, but you will also lose out on the pleasure and excitement of fulfilling sexual desire….So once again, the question is whether when we eliminate suffering, we are not eliminating sources of joy and happiness as well.”
Buddhists are intent on eliminating all suffering, but since suffering is defined as any type of craving, Buddhists are forced to try to eliminate all cravings. But if you eliminate all cravings, then yes, while you avoid suffering—and may even attain complete tranquility—you achieve this at the expense of positive enjoyment and fulfillment. This is a price that is probably not worth paying; I, for one, will take the ups-and-downs of life over the boredom of passionless meditation any day.
Additionally, as Singer points out, if two consenting adults want to have sex, then there’s probably no harm in it; but with Buddhism, since sexual anticipation counts as a craving, sex has to be viewed, like with every other religion, as a “sin” to be extinguished. No thank you.
But it gets even worse, especially when you get to the chapter on abortion.
Now, I should first say that I won’t pretend that the abortion debate is simple, and that there are not difficult issues, gray areas, and subtle distinctions. But here’s what I do know; the idea that the aborted embryo could possibly be a reincarnated buddha should NOT be one of the reasons to forgo an abortion, which Chao-Hwei spends a good amount of time defending. And her more powerful point—that aborting the embryo deprives it of future experiences—gets lost in the lunacy of reincarnation and karma. Again, religion clouds the debate and shifts the focus to factors that are almost certainly false and irrelevant to actual human happiness, possibly leading to disastrous results, all in the name of “faith.”
In fact, Chao-Hwei explicitly says that faith trumps science, as when she wrote, in the context of the debate on abortion:
“It may now seem to you that there is a difference between a scientific understanding of the world and the Buddhist scriptures, and I am choosing to embrace the latter.”
This is not to say that utilitarianism doesn’t have its problems; without being tempered by some version of the Golden Rule, you can use utilitarianism to justify horrendous acts, like killing an innocent human being at random to save many others. But at least with utilitarianism you can debate moral issues directly—based on costs and benefits and factoring in real human suffering and happiness—without having to deal with false and outdated ideas concerning reality and human nature from ancient texts, which seeks to only muddy the waters in terms of making reasonable decisions.
So, what is the ultimate purpose of this book? To show that, if you try hard enough, and ignore enough of the details, Buddhist ethics looks a lot like utilitarianism and is ultimately good for the world? To me, after reading the book—and despite Chao-Hwei’s very likable and agreeable character—it shows the opposite; namely, that Buddhism is straddled with questionable claims and, like every other religion, uses those claims to suggest things that are either inconsistent with human nature or that act to repress natural urges and decrease human happiness.
After all, you could fairly ask any Buddhist the following question: If the desire to go good in the world and engage in altruistic acts is just another “craving” that could ultimately lead to suffering, then shouldn’t this be avoided? If Nirvana is achieved through individual meditation, and Nirvana is the highest good, then isn’t engagement with the world, including altruistic acts, simply distractions from this ultimate purpose?
Buddhism, taken in its purest form, seems to suggest a life of solitary meditation, not engagement with the world. Isn’t this, after all, the reason why the Buddha abandoned his family and his position to seek “enlightenment?” These are questions that Singer repeatedly asks and, at least to my mind, that Chao-Hwei fails to adequately address. But it’s not her fault; there are no satisfactory answers because Buddhism, like every other dogma, will, in some sense, inevitably contradict itself.
And while utilitarianism is not perfect, it at least allows one to address moral concerns from a rational perspective, which makes it more likely that decisions will be made that enhance well-being and happiness rather than the opposite, which is the inevitable result of being constrained by dogma or universal rules that admit of no exceptions.
I will admit that Buddhism appears to be the least problematic of the world religions, as it’s less of stretch to support, for example, same-sex marriage as a Buddhist than it would be for a Christian. But apparently there is still a formidable barrier to progressive thinking within Buddhism, as demonstrated by the criticism Chao-Hwei has received for something as innocuous as suggesting that female monks shouldn’t have to stand behind the men in a lunch line.
And if acting ethically requires that you stray from the traditional teachings of the religion, doesn’t that suggest that maybe you ought to abandon that religion, or take only the good parts from it, or, at the very least, admit that morality comes from outside the religion, not from within it. Otherwise, how can you defend deviating from its traditional, core teachings?
So the ultimate lesson we can learn from the book is probably one that was not intended—that Buddhism is a religion, and that religious thought, based inevitably on outdated texts and rigid thinking, poisons otherwise rational discourse from otherwise decent and intelligent people. And unless you’re sympathetic to religion in some way, I don’t anticipate that you’ll find these discussions very appealing, or enlightening.
You might not think a utilitarian philosopher from the United States and a Buddhist nun from Asia would hit it off, finding common ground on issues ranging from animal liberation to effective altruism. But that’s apparently exactly what happened, and is the origin of this book.
The book itself consists of a series of dialogues between utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer and Buddhist nun Shih Chao-Hwei, as they discuss weighty moral issues such as gender equality, sexuality, abortion, animal rights, euthanasia, suicide, the death penalty, and more.
What’s surprising, right off the bat, is how Buddhism—which is constantly touted as being the most “rational” or “secular” religion—turns out, based on Chao-Hwei’s commentary, to be saddled with some of the same problems as the monotheistic religions. Buddhists, apparently, have to deal with rampant sexism that is codified in the earliest Buddhist texts, where female monks have a lower status than their male counterparts and are typically forced to walk behind them.
Buddhism also has its fair share of wild metaphysical claims; for example, Chao-Hwei struggles to explain “karma” to Singer without mentioning “future lives,” as if this is somehow self-evident if only one meditates long enough. It turns out that belief in reincarnation is required to believe in karma, and belief in karma is a core aspect of traditional Buddhism.
We also learn that Chao-Hwei’s praiseworthy and progressive views—including support for same-sex marriage and gender equality—do NOT represent orthodox views within the Buddhist community (at least according to Chao-Hwei and her self-reported negative pushback she received from other Buddhists). Unfortunately, you get the sense that Buddhism is also hampered by outdated moral systems and misogynistic thinking, as is every other religion that relies on “sacred texts.” Also, as with other religions, Chao-Hwei is shown to be morally upstanding precisely to the degree to which she goes against the orthodox views of the religion.
But one of the biggest problems with Buddhism is found within the chapter on sexuality. Singer rightfully challenges Chao-Hwei on the idea of being “liberated from sex,” as if sex is some kind of evil that needs to be banished. As Singer wrote:
“If you become like the man who, as you said, is not aroused by the woman flirting with him, then you will not suffer from sexual desire anymore, but you will also lose out on the pleasure and excitement of fulfilling sexual desire….So once again, the question is whether when we eliminate suffering, we are not eliminating sources of joy and happiness as well.”
Buddhists are intent on eliminating all suffering, but since suffering is defined as any type of craving, Buddhists are forced to try to eliminate all cravings. But if you eliminate all cravings, then yes, while you avoid suffering—and may even attain complete tranquility—you achieve this at the expense of positive enjoyment and fulfillment. This is a price that is probably not worth paying; I, for one, will take the ups-and-downs of life over the boredom of passionless meditation any day.
Additionally, as Singer points out, if two consenting adults want to have sex, then there’s probably no harm in it; but with Buddhism, since sexual anticipation counts as a craving, sex has to be viewed, like with every other religion, as a “sin” to be extinguished. No thank you.
But it gets even worse, especially when you get to the chapter on abortion.
Now, I should first say that I won’t pretend that the abortion debate is simple, and that there are not difficult issues, gray areas, and subtle distinctions. But here’s what I do know; the idea that the aborted embryo could possibly be a reincarnated buddha should NOT be one of the reasons to forgo an abortion, which Chao-Hwei spends a good amount of time defending. And her more powerful point—that aborting the embryo deprives it of future experiences—gets lost in the lunacy of reincarnation and karma. Again, religion clouds the debate and shifts the focus to factors that are almost certainly false and irrelevant to actual human happiness, possibly leading to disastrous results, all in the name of “faith.”
In fact, Chao-Hwei explicitly says that faith trumps science, as when she wrote, in the context of the debate on abortion:
“It may now seem to you that there is a difference between a scientific understanding of the world and the Buddhist scriptures, and I am choosing to embrace the latter.”
This is not to say that utilitarianism doesn’t have its problems; without being tempered by some version of the Golden Rule, you can use utilitarianism to justify horrendous acts, like killing an innocent human being at random to save many others. But at least with utilitarianism you can debate moral issues directly—based on costs and benefits and factoring in real human suffering and happiness—without having to deal with false and outdated ideas concerning reality and human nature from ancient texts, which seeks to only muddy the waters in terms of making reasonable decisions.
So, what is the ultimate purpose of this book? To show that, if you try hard enough, and ignore enough of the details, Buddhist ethics looks a lot like utilitarianism and is ultimately good for the world? To me, after reading the book—and despite Chao-Hwei’s very likable and agreeable character—it shows the opposite; namely, that Buddhism is straddled with questionable claims and, like every other religion, uses those claims to suggest things that are either inconsistent with human nature or that act to repress natural urges and decrease human happiness.
After all, you could fairly ask any Buddhist the following question: If the desire to go good in the world and engage in altruistic acts is just another “craving” that could ultimately lead to suffering, then shouldn’t this be avoided? If Nirvana is achieved through individual meditation, and Nirvana is the highest good, then isn’t engagement with the world, including altruistic acts, simply distractions from this ultimate purpose?
Buddhism, taken in its purest form, seems to suggest a life of solitary meditation, not engagement with the world. Isn’t this, after all, the reason why the Buddha abandoned his family and his position to seek “enlightenment?” These are questions that Singer repeatedly asks and, at least to my mind, that Chao-Hwei fails to adequately address. But it’s not her fault; there are no satisfactory answers because Buddhism, like every other dogma, will, in some sense, inevitably contradict itself.
And while utilitarianism is not perfect, it at least allows one to address moral concerns from a rational perspective, which makes it more likely that decisions will be made that enhance well-being and happiness rather than the opposite, which is the inevitable result of being constrained by dogma or universal rules that admit of no exceptions.
I will admit that Buddhism appears to be the least problematic of the world religions, as it’s less of stretch to support, for example, same-sex marriage as a Buddhist than it would be for a Christian. But apparently there is still a formidable barrier to progressive thinking within Buddhism, as demonstrated by the criticism Chao-Hwei has received for something as innocuous as suggesting that female monks shouldn’t have to stand behind the men in a lunch line.
And if acting ethically requires that you stray from the traditional teachings of the religion, doesn’t that suggest that maybe you ought to abandon that religion, or take only the good parts from it, or, at the very least, admit that morality comes from outside the religion, not from within it. Otherwise, how can you defend deviating from its traditional, core teachings?
So the ultimate lesson we can learn from the book is probably one that was not intended—that Buddhism is a religion, and that religious thought, based inevitably on outdated texts and rigid thinking, poisons otherwise rational discourse from otherwise decent and intelligent people. And unless you’re sympathetic to religion in some way, I don’t anticipate that you’ll find these discussions very appealing, or enlightening.
July 15, 2024
As a Tibetan Buddhist reader, I'm relating to the Buddhist passages from a slightly different tradition, but the discussion is interesting.
The immediate thing I see is the difficulty of translation. So often we read about 'self-cherishing' in Buddhist literature, which clearly has a sense of being excessive and egotistical; here it is rendered 'self-love'.
Eliminating self-love might engage our Western tendency towards self-hatred. We encourage our students to have a healthy sense of self respect, because we do not want to fall into the trap of nihilism, or despair. Going beyond reification of the "I" is not said to be depressing. (From my limited understanding)
About 1/2 way through and it is a DNF.
It seems a bit self congratulatory. I enjoy master Shih's personal history as an advocate for women and LGBTQIA+ in a conservative society, but I'm not sure of the relevance of utilitarian philosophy. Also the format of the interchange is tiring, which is more of an editing decision.
As a practitioner, much of this discussion seems beside the point. Admittedly, men such as myself tend to say "get over it" and carry on. As a non monastic in a predominantly female lay Sangha, gender equality doesn't seem as pressing as it might in a conservative monastic culture. But the issue is front and center as we see prominent teachers being defrocked in the Tibetan Buddhist and Zen traditions - not to mention Christian traditions. Regardless of this, I must practice first and talk less. Equanimity starts with us.
The immediate thing I see is the difficulty of translation. So often we read about 'self-cherishing' in Buddhist literature, which clearly has a sense of being excessive and egotistical; here it is rendered 'self-love'.
Eliminating self-love might engage our Western tendency towards self-hatred. We encourage our students to have a healthy sense of self respect, because we do not want to fall into the trap of nihilism, or despair. Going beyond reification of the "I" is not said to be depressing. (From my limited understanding)
About 1/2 way through and it is a DNF.
It seems a bit self congratulatory. I enjoy master Shih's personal history as an advocate for women and LGBTQIA+ in a conservative society, but I'm not sure of the relevance of utilitarian philosophy. Also the format of the interchange is tiring, which is more of an editing decision.
As a practitioner, much of this discussion seems beside the point. Admittedly, men such as myself tend to say "get over it" and carry on. As a non monastic in a predominantly female lay Sangha, gender equality doesn't seem as pressing as it might in a conservative monastic culture. But the issue is front and center as we see prominent teachers being defrocked in the Tibetan Buddhist and Zen traditions - not to mention Christian traditions. Regardless of this, I must practice first and talk less. Equanimity starts with us.
February 5, 2024
Hot damn was this a good book. I was pretty skeptical because these “conversation” books of two people just talking can be kind of dull or don’t really translate well to a book. This book was definitely one that made it work. This is a conversation between a utilitarian/effective altruist and a Buddhist monastic who also does social activism. They discuss a wide range of topics like animal cruelty, the death penalty, euthanasia, women’s rights, seeking pleasure, sex, and so much more.
I’m personally fascinated by Buddhist philosophy as well as utilitarianism, so this book was everything I wanted. They had such a great conversation and the book really gives the reader a lot to think about when it comes to living an ethical life.
I’m personally fascinated by Buddhist philosophy as well as utilitarianism, so this book was everything I wanted. They had such a great conversation and the book really gives the reader a lot to think about when it comes to living an ethical life.
March 24, 2024
An interesting enough book. The writing was quite stilted, which is most likely due to the need for translators.
I found the Buddhist perspective weak on some aspects, particularly around abortion, where she argued that the potential for life was enough to support the protection of frozen embryos. When the implication of that is that women are forced to carry and birth what were once frozen embryos then we’re strongly into Handmaid’s Tale territory… in many aspects I wish Singer would have gone harder on Chao-Hwei. But it was all very polite…
I found the Buddhist perspective weak on some aspects, particularly around abortion, where she argued that the potential for life was enough to support the protection of frozen embryos. When the implication of that is that women are forced to carry and birth what were once frozen embryos then we’re strongly into Handmaid’s Tale territory… in many aspects I wish Singer would have gone harder on Chao-Hwei. But it was all very polite…
December 1, 2024
I had high hopes as someone very interested in both effective altruism and secular Buddhism, but meh.
The dialogue format between Singer and Shih Chao-hwei comes across as a poor substitute for proper editing—there's a lot of talking past each other/lack of well-defined terms, question-dodging, and repetition.
I didn’t really understand the audience either. Having been on a couple Buddhist-flavored meditation retreats and being familiar with utilitarian thinking, I found many parts too basic. But then it would suddenly pivot into dense philosophy (or an academic tone) I didn’t understand (or didn’t find engaging). Maybe I wasn't the right audience—but then I'm not sure who would be.
Caveat: Only made it halfway through before I stopped reading.
The dialogue format between Singer and Shih Chao-hwei comes across as a poor substitute for proper editing—there's a lot of talking past each other/lack of well-defined terms, question-dodging, and repetition.
I didn’t really understand the audience either. Having been on a couple Buddhist-flavored meditation retreats and being familiar with utilitarian thinking, I found many parts too basic. But then it would suddenly pivot into dense philosophy (or an academic tone) I didn’t understand (or didn’t find engaging). Maybe I wasn't the right audience—but then I'm not sure who would be.
Caveat: Only made it halfway through before I stopped reading.
July 15, 2025
After reading The Years of Rice and Salt with its Buddhist storytelling structure and ideas about the evolution of world religions, I had an itch to read more about religious philosophy and this book found itself in my path. This was styled very differently to anything I have read before, as the entire book is written as a transcription of conversations the authors have about various topics.
Shih Chao-Hwei is a Buddhist nun living in Taiwan who gained some media recognition for her push for women's equality and animal rights. Peter Singer is a renowned western philosopher and professor and follows the utilitarian school of thought.
They had respectful conversations, despite disagreeing on certain topics like abortion and the use of embryos for research, and it was interesting to not only learn more about each of their beliefs but also a bit about their personal lives and advocacy. Fans of philosophy might like this more than I did overall, but it was interesting and made me think about my own beliefs, even if I found it a bit dry and lacking in some guiding narrative for my taste.
Shih Chao-Hwei is a Buddhist nun living in Taiwan who gained some media recognition for her push for women's equality and animal rights. Peter Singer is a renowned western philosopher and professor and follows the utilitarian school of thought.
They had respectful conversations, despite disagreeing on certain topics like abortion and the use of embryos for research, and it was interesting to not only learn more about each of their beliefs but also a bit about their personal lives and advocacy. Fans of philosophy might like this more than I did overall, but it was interesting and made me think about my own beliefs, even if I found it a bit dry and lacking in some guiding narrative for my taste.
June 24, 2024
Enjoyed the book overall. I learned a lot about modern Buddhist ideas and the battles that women in Buddhism have to wage against sexism. It’s sad to hear how Buddhism has strayed from the original teachings of the Buddha, especially around consuming animals.
The dialogues were well done, though a few (especially on abortion and using fetuses for research) felt a bit verbose. Lots of great insights!
The dialogues were well done, though a few (especially on abortion and using fetuses for research) felt a bit verbose. Lots of great insights!
September 8, 2025
I learned so much about myself reading this. I especially enjoyed the sections on euthanasia and assisted dying and animal welfare. Instead of feeling pressured to change my views and values, I found myself evaluating them from a new place of logic but also compassion. I am drawn to the Buddhist way and loved how the structure of this conversation left room for considerations and differences of opinions.
March 16, 2024
My most satisfying read in a long while. An ideal source to help one improve the ability to reflect cogently on both timeless questions & current day issues. Required reading for anyone who seeks to cultivate informed opinions more broadly, and refine clarity when addressing some of life’s unanswerable questions.
January 12, 2025
This book is a really interesting look at the connection between Buddhism and utilitarianism. I liked the conversational style, which made it easy to read and helped show the differences between the two philosophies. They also talked about modern topics like bioethics and feminism, with both sides sharing thoughtful ideas. It’s a light and enjoyable read, with plenty of insights.
January 1, 2026
Pretty interesting dialogue between two ethical worldviews that have previously enticed me but have never found wholly convincing, this book definitely didn’t do anything to change that, but it did make for a clearer picture of Buddhist ethics due to Singer’s probing. The authors are better thinkers than they are engaging writers, which makes for a bit of a boring read in places.
January 19, 2024
I am a fan of Peter Singer, and particularly his writings on animal rights. Although I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, Buddhism has always seemed the most compassionate religion. This book did deepen my understanding of Buddhism, but it also highlighted how irrational much of it is when considered in the light of modern scientific developments. This, as always, is the problem with teachings that are based on texts that were written hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
November 21, 2024
Some chapters were really interesting, for instance how buddhists and effective altruists look at animal welfare. However, some topics are a bit more philosophical and have less real-world impact, like the precise of details of when abortion should be allowed.
March 17, 2024
A very interesting read if you are interested in ethics. An insightful look into Buddhist thought and utilitarian thinking.
April 14, 2024
Enjoyable read to learn a little bit more about Buddhism
April 29, 2024
Really long and thought out conversations on intense topics. Thought provoking, although maybe a bit holier than thou.
June 30, 2024
As someone who’s read some utilitarian and Buddhist philosophy in isolation, I really enjoyed these conversations about their similarities and divergences
September 21, 2024
Really cool I’m now a Buddhist
October 20, 2024
There isnt much difference in philosphy between the two. Covers classic philosophical issues and ventures into abstract language. It's like a college level philosophy class.
partially-read
November 23, 2024Started reading but didn't get that into it.
May 5, 2024
I walked into this book not really knowing what to expect but ended up finding myself really captivated by these dialogues. It’s so cool to see two such intellectual thinkers respectfully and eagerly exchanging ideas. Though I don’t fully agree with either of them, they are so open to each other and understanding of their differences that it makes me equally open to their respective positions. I especially enjoyed the chapter on abortion, where the two disagreed the most. They were each given the space to defend their views in a rigorous way, and I was pleased to see them willing to accept their major differences in thought. Another thing I appreciated reminded me of Martha Nussbaum's Justice for Animals, in the way Shih and Singer never forget our presence even though they're not talking directly to us. Especially as someone who doesn't know that much about Buddhism, it was just nice to be clued into the basis of their respective ethical views, even when they’re each already aware. This is why I'm such a big defender of the NYPL new arrivals section!!
Read
May 17, 2024The following reviews have been shared by Text Publishing - publisher of The Buddhist and the Ethicist:
‘Lively, instructive and respectful...For those interested in how nuanced philosophical thought can inform our daily lives and actions, this accessible meeting of minds is a good place to start.’
Age
‘A stimulating volume which raises important questions.’
Australian Book Review
‘Lively, instructive and respectful...For those interested in how nuanced philosophical thought can inform our daily lives and actions, this accessible meeting of minds is a good place to start.’
Age
‘A stimulating volume which raises important questions.’
Australian Book Review
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews