5

What problems does it face, either as a classification of Buddhism or as meta ethical theory in general?

Another approach [to how to classify Buddhist ethics] is aretaic consequentialism, an indirect form of consequentialism in which the primary objects of evaluation are character traits, not actions or rules. This theory tells us to develop in ourselves those states of character which are conducive to the happiness of sentient beings. (See Siderits 2007, 292–93) This elegant interpretation explains why Buddhist texts so often focus on character traits, but it also retains a hedonist view of well-being. It allows us to interpret instructions on moral discipline not as inflexible rules, but as advice about what traits of character to cultivate.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/

I think this classification suggests that at least conventionally speaking only our own virtue (unlike e.g. "character consequentialism", working for welfare - virtue and happiness - in general) is worked for, and this enables everyone's (our own included) happiness.

Bodhisattvas are typically versed in "merit transference", which may involve an impersonal virtue as its motor

Santideva is now depersonalizing not only his ends, but his own state of being. The transference of merit he envisions involves conceiving of his own virtue not as a state pertaining to him, but as a more general feature of the moral universe, and hence his own experience of himself, as of generosity, is transformed through the cultivation of engaged bodhicitta.

My point being that, while the absence of a substantial "self" does not mean we are not better placed to act for our own virtue and happiness, there's just no other reason to cultivate either for myself.

prudential concern is compatible with the doctrine of no self

,

Is it anti-Buddhist and egoistic, as some commentators suppose, to always cultivate our own virtue?

Depends on 'skilful means'.

I'm fairly sure that sometimes we should take actions that will make us unhappy, but I should never try to be vicious; I should always be virtuous.

Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.

If then (prudential) virtuous actions always make us more virtuous, we should always be making ourselves more virtuous (whether or not we can at times add more to the virtue of others than ourselves).

I do not know if "aretaic consequentialism" entails this.

  • Once you have your virtue, what will you do with it? – Scott Rowe Jan 30 '23 at 17:07
  • 1
    you cannot change the world, you can only change yourself. If you change yourself first by becoming ethical and virtuous, you will become happy and the world itself will change. Not sure how you derive either a hedonistic result from that, or how a hedonistic pursuit of happiness is either ethical or virtuous. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 31 '23 at 06:37
  • 1
    "your suffering has no greater significance than that of anyone else, but it also has no less. You are one of the many sentient beings whose welfare is to be promoted." @SwamiVishwananda happiness is a vague term –  Jan 31 '23 at 20:35
  • @ScottRowe brave people *act* with bravery –  Jan 31 '23 at 20:47
  • Ok. So, with helpful character traits, we are more likely to do helpful things. It seems like a smooth ramp, not two separate areas. I often feel that words and concepts can impede understanding, but it is hard to start off without them. – Scott Rowe Feb 01 '23 at 01:52
  • so you're in agreement @ScottRowe with Siderits' Buddhists? –  Feb 01 '23 at 02:28
  • I don't know enough about the Siderits reference to answer. I would say that in using a phrase like "only *my virtue*", you are talking about something that can't exist, because there cannot be an "only you". Buddhism explicitly states that there is no separate self. Perhaps you could take another run at the smooth ramp? – Scott Rowe Feb 01 '23 at 02:52
  • well i'm not saying other people's virtue cannot be evaluated but that we should "develop in ourselves those states of character" @ScottRowe depends on what he means by 'we'. i find your comment nihilistic, and while my reading of the article may be wrong i don't think it's wrong for that reason. anyway, and it's contrast with 'character consequentialism" - the pursuit of happiness and virtue in general –  Feb 01 '23 at 03:34
  • @ScottRowe the author of the SEP article thinks "'A practitioner of virtue ethics . . . takes her own virtue as her central ethical goal; she is to develop the skills, habits, and attitudes of mind necessary to be the best agent she can be', though Charles Fnk argues "The problem is that if I take my own virtue as my central ethical goal, I am not acting virtuously, at least not as this is understood in Buddhism.". i do not know what siderits thinks –  Feb 01 '23 at 03:44
  • @ScottRowe i am not saying that we cannot view "our own virtue" as impersonal, but the fact we can talk about "our own virtue", and it seems we can, means it is not a mistaken phrase, like attributing personhood to ourselves (svabhava to things) is: a "self" cannot even be found conventionally. if i am not the same me tomorrow, then i cannot *rationally* be an egoist, even though i am virtuous, just as i *can* cultivate a better day for "myself" tomorrow (it's just there's no reason besides ease to put that before any else's) –  Feb 01 '23 at 04:03
  • anyway @ScottRowe +1 for the spot, as it's a live issue - i think - in soi disant "buddist studies". i definitely side with me tho haha –  Feb 01 '23 at 04:44
  • 1
    I think you are on to something. I am not and never have been a nihilist. "*Be positionless with regard to issues.*" (said a non-dual teacher I met) – Scott Rowe Feb 01 '23 at 11:55
  • sarcasm usually involves a you vs me issue which i am not trying to create @ScottRowe my point was that there is a conventional "you"/"me" and anyone who says otherwise is just stealing your money –  Feb 01 '23 at 12:30
  • 1
    Ok. I was not actually trying for sarcasm in this thread, sorry if it came across that way. Yeah, we have to use those pronouns, but not let them hijack our awareness. Like all words and concepts. – Scott Rowe Feb 01 '23 at 14:34
  • 1
    ah cool, my sincere apologies then @ScottRowe :) –  Feb 01 '23 at 14:35
  • 1
    wasn't sure what you meant by "ramp" @ScottRowe but i added that "virtuous actions make us more virtuous". that seems fair to me –  Feb 01 '23 at 22:35
  • 1
    Ok. I was saying that traits leading to actions feels to me like one extended thing, not two separate things. The first gives rise to the second, but in practice we constantly develop and act. "*Sow a thought, and reap an act; sow an act, and reap a habit; sow a habit, and reap a character; sow a character, and reap a destiny.*" Emerson – Scott Rowe Feb 02 '23 at 01:21
  • "If you meet Buddha, kill Buddha - there is nothing" 'there is a conventional "you"/"me" and anyone who says otherwise is just stealing your money' - possible, but money is not 'your' – άνθρωπος Feb 02 '23 at 11:42

0 Answers0