To many Westerners, the most appealing teachings of the Buddhist tradition pertain to ethics. Many readers have drawn inspiration from Buddhism's emphasis on compassion, nonviolence, and tolerance, its concern for animals, and its models of virtue and self-cultivation. There has been, however, controversy and confusion about which Western ethical theories resemble Buddhist views and in what respects. In this book, Charles Goodman illuminates the relations between Buddhist concepts and Western ethical theories. Every version of Buddhist ethics, says Goodman, takes the welfare of sentient beings to be the only source of moral obligations. Buddhist ethics can thus be said to be based on compassion in the sense of a motivation to pursue the welfare of others. On this interpretation, the fundamental basis of the various forms of Buddhist ethics is the same as that of the welfarist members of the family of ethical theories that analytic philosophers call 'consequentialism.' Goodman uses this hypothesis to illuminate a variety of questions. He examines the three types of compassion practiced in Buddhism and argues for their implications for important issues in applied ethics, especially the justification of punishment and the question of equality.
A really interesting examination of Buddhist ethics through the lens of contemporary analytic moral philosophy. At the center of Goodman's interpretation is the relation between the metaphysical doctrine of no-self and the moral call to universal compassion. If there's no such thing as the self, then obviously, pursuing my egoistic self-interest is not only irrational but positively deluded; there is no me whose interest it is! The upshot, in Goodman's view, is a kind of objective list consequentialism: Certain mental events are intrinsically good, and the right thing to do is to maximize those states impartially. Pairs well with Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons, which covers similar ground, but is a bit more rigorous in its treatment of the metaphysics of personal identity.
Буддизм перед викликами секуляризації, переосмислення позиції щодо прав людини і в пошуці власного місця під сонцем у світі, де інші правила, ніж у традиційних азійських суспільствах.
Цікава компаративна праця, де європейська етика знаходить спільні теми із буддійським вченням.
Можливі галузі: етика, прикладна етика, філософія права.
This book explores Buddhist ethics from a philosophical point of view, in particular, looking at how Western philosophical theories fit into the Buddhist worldview. I found it quite interesting, especially since I didn't know much about Buddhism before reading this, and (despite being a philosophy minor...) not much about ethical theory either. In any case, Goodman defends the view that Buddhism is a consequentialist philosophy, which I agree with on the whole, but I think putting a category like this onto is isn't entirely appropriate, which he does admit, so I don't blame him for it. My favourite part of the book was the chapter called "Transcending Ethics", which was about how advanced Mahayana Buddhism actually has the goal of transcending ethical boundaries, which I found really interesting, and inspirational for novels I write. There were also a lot of interesting quotes from Buddhist texts throughout the book. The main thing I didn't like about this book was the large amount of space taken for defending his view of Buddhism being consequentialism against other philosophers' ideas. Ok, so that was the point of the book too, but I found some of it too long. Some of the writing was also kind of dry. Fortunately for those less versed in Buddhism and ethics (i.e., me before reading the book), there are two chapters at the beginning on a summary of Buddhism and one on ethics, which was very helpful. Despite my apparent 3/5 rating, if Goodreads would take the noble path of allowing for 1/2 stars, I would give this a 3.5/5 rating.
As somebody who had never studied any ethical theory before, I got a lot out of this book. Goodman makes a convincing case for Buddhist ethics as rule-consequentialist (before Santideva) and act-consequentialist (after Santideva). Not only that, but he also effectively argues that Buddhist ethical theory is reasoned - that is that Buddhist ethical ideas can and should stand up to western ones in an analytical way. I also very much enjoyed his discussion of no-self and emptiness, which was very competently laid out and really supported his thesis. Recommended to anybody interested in ethics, Buddhism, both, or neither.