Buddhist Ethics

by Jay L. Garfield

Buddhist Ethics presents an outline of Buddhist ethical thought. It is not a defense of Buddhist approaches to ethics as opposed to any other, nor is it a critique of the Western tradition. Garfield presents a broad overview of a range of Buddhist approaches to the question of moral philosophy. He draws on a variety of thinkers, reflecting the great diversity of this 2500-year-old tradition in philosophy but also the principles that tie them together. In particular, he engages with the literature that argues that Buddhist ethics is best understood as a species of virtue ethics, and with those who argue that it is best understood as consequentialist. Garfield argues that while there are important points of contact with these Western frameworks, Buddhist ethics is distinctive, and is a kind of moral phenomenology that is concerned with the ways in which we experience ourselves as agents and others as moral fellows. With this framework, Garfield explores the connections between
Buddhist ethics and recent work in moral particularism, such as that of Jonathan Dancy, as well as the British and Scottish sentimentalist tradition represented by Hume and Smith.

Genres: Philosophy, Buddhism

231 pages, Paperback

Published November 23, 2021

Reviews

[Alina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Garfield's work is always very clear and important. Understanding Buddhist ethics is important for anyone who's interested in Western ethics; it offers a framework that can show that the division between deontology and consequentialism doesn't have to hold. Rather, this division depends upon certain foundational assumptions about the nature of action and the self in the Western tradition.

The various Buddhist traditions didn't set aside an explicit study of ethics alone; instead, ethical considerations motivate its epistemology and metaphysics, and there are significant ethical claims and consequences intimately tied with these. In other words, there's no clear separation between practical and theoretical philosophy. While this may sound like a lack of focus or precision, Garfield shows that claims in practical philosophy are dependent upon those in theoretical philosophy, and the latter will also be influenced by the former. So separating off these domains of philosophy and studying each independently can actually obscure underlying theoretical assumptions in doing ethics. Becoming aware of those assumptions is crucial to examining them and making progress in ethics.

The Buddhist metaphysical claims that have the most direct consequences for ethics are those of interdependence or dependent origination. The existence of any particular thing (e.g., an object we see, a concept we possess, the experience of the self) depends upon (1) all the causal interactions between all things in this world, (2) the part-whole dependencies between elements of that thing, and (3) the conceptual dependencies between concepts in our belief system which partially determines how this thing shows up to us. The recognition of how complex, indeterminate, and fluid reality is makes Buddhist ethics seem "untidy"--philosophers in this tradition don't even pretend that there are top-down principles or rules that would explain what is ethical. In other words, we can't reduce our sense of what is ethical to particular rules, because ethical phenomena are just too messy.

A crucial consequence of this metaphysics for ethics is that there is no self. So the dilemma in Western ethics "why be good?" doesn't arise; this is a dilemma only when we assume that there is a self, which is fundamentally self-interested. This also means that agency isn't a primary moral category in Buddhist ethics, where agency is understood as an absolute individual who is the starting point for any action.

We still find ourselves as individuals in this world, although this is an illusion, due to psychological conditions. Given this practical starting point, the main moral task is for us to transform our perceptual capacities. If Western ethics is focused on "output" or what we do, Buddhist ethics is focused on "input," or what we can possibly see from our limited perspectives, and how this alters the possibility space of emotional response and action.

We might ask, what does responsibility look like in the Buddhist tradition, given that the self doesn't exist? Our actions are seen as stemming from causal forces distributed across people and the world and history. The individual no longer becomes an absolute locus of responsibility. But the individual does have a capacity for freedom to break from and start new events into these causal chains that have led up to her present moment. This isn't a totally unconditioned, decontextualized freedom, but it is a freedom nevertheless. There is no tension between freedom and determinism in the Buddhist tradition because this tension, Garfield argues, depends upon a Western theological framework where God is posited as all knowing and powerful (this was an interesting argument; I'm not sure if I entirely agree, but it offers inspiration for thinking nevertheless.)

Moreover, in the Buddhist tradition, it is impossible to find a moral truth located in any particular component of action (e.g., an intention, a consequence). Rather, moral truth is something that we come to terms with by interpreting our experiences and actions, which takes into account both intentions and consequences alike. Depending on the context, it might be more "skillful" (viz., more potent for freeing ourselves from suffering given all the causal chains that shape us) to place emphasis on a person's intention or the consequences of her action, in the moral evaluation of her. But there are no bottom-down laws about this; every case of action is unique in time and place, and at best we can have rules of thumb. Such guidelines are found in the form of narratives or parables in the Buddhist tradition. This might frustrate Western readers who are trained to expect explicit rules or principles; but the deliverance of moral truths through narratives is justified and based in the metaphysics of this tradition.

It turns out the divisiveness between deontology and consequentialism found in the Western tradition depends upon assumptions such as that intentions and outcomes of action can possibly exist independently of one another, and that they are ontologically distinct; also that while we are influenced by external sources, we nevertheless are genuine individuals and can be evaluated as such. If we toss out these assumptions, radically new ways of thinking about the nature of ethics, and how to practically become more ethical, are opened to us.

[Hugh Simonich · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoy reading Jay Garfield's books. He's a Buddhist scholar and professor of Philosophy, has deep theoretical and practical knowledge of the subject, and knows how to write well for the layperson. His books have a flow, repeat certain core themes throughout, but never gets too wordy. He stays on point. Also, many of these concepts can be difficult to understand and explain, but he does it superbly.

If you're wanting to know about Buddhist philosophy, this is a fantastic book. There is a good flow of thought as you read, and hits the same themes in different ways so you can get a broader perspective and deeper understanding of the subject. The last chapter serves as a good summary of what you read, reinforcing these same ideas. Highly recommended.

[Zach Toad · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview and compelling argument for the autonomy and profundity of Buddhist ethics.