Critical Abstract #13 PDF

Preview

Summary

Critical Abstract (required for finishing the class!)...

Description

PHI 208: Buddhist Philosophy Critical Abstract #13 3.21.16 Abstract: (407 words) This article introduces ethics, which is a complex and widely-debated topic in every sense of philosophy, religion, and society. It is somewhat commonly accepted as there are things you can do that are right, and things you do that are wrong. It is not always this simple, as it is taken into account who the person is committing the action, what the action is, and its consequences and how severe. We all have somewhat our own skeletal understanding of ethics. However, the Buddhists’ view on morals is slightly different, as instead of focusing on the agent or the action or who it affects, they focus on how the person and the action are placed in the interconnected web of dependent origination. Dependent origination is how every little thing affects the thing after it, and how that thing then goes on to affect many other things, into infinity. Who we are as people, where we are career-wise, the friends we have, how smart we are, how nice we are, are all things that arose from this complex web. Buddhists claim it is not rational to create such limiting definitions when it comes to developing a theory of morality, because there are so many dimensions to work in when considering it, that we need to reflect on every single phenomena that leads up to and results from that said action. We also need to look at the situation, what events led up to that person being in that place at that time, and the history of the agent themselves. Buddhists also believe it is the intentions behind those actions that truly speak, because even if we donate to the poor, which would on the outside be considered a good action, if we are doing it for publicity reasons because we are a presidential candidate or don’t truly care about the people being helped and only do it because of a court order, that should not be considered a good action. The same goes for a woman saving her child from a house fire over saving her dog, she may love that dog with all her heart but had to make that choice, we would never then blame her for being a dog murderer because her intentions were good to save her baby and had to make that sacrifice. This is where Buddhist karma plays in, as good karma arises from good intentions and bad karma arises from bad ones. Critical Question: (457 words) I really like this perspective as I have always thoroughly debated things on my own to decide whether things should be morally permissible or not, and this started when I was young and was introduced to the idea of the Christian religion and what they say is right and wrong, because unfortunately, although I come from a family that was not very religious, these beliefs were pretty strongly mixed in with our world and laws such as not allowing gay people to get married or a woman not being able to have an abortion. These are debated constantly, as some argue it matters how far along the baby is, what circumstances got the girl pregnant, and the girl’s health, while some argue that does not matter and abortion is flat-out wrong and can never be excused. I do not agree with that, but is there anything that can be so bad that no interconnected web of circumstances could ever excuse or provide us with a better understanding of it? How about, for example, a man runs over a family of four. In order to really take this apart in the proper Buddhist way, we have to look not only at the circumstances (was he drinking, was he distracted by his baby daughter in the passenger seat, did he drop his glasses, was he angry and getting revenge, etc.) but also the guy’s history as a person (is he a good man, is he a drunk that has done this before and also killed his dog once, etc.). There are so many layers in the webbing that the action alone, a person running over

people with their car, does not suggest blame anywhere specifically. This could mean that no one is ever blame-worthy in a way, which is a large leap to make, but where would that line be drawn? Is it morally wrong to kill someone? It is commonly understood that yes it is, but there are certain circumstances that excuse you a little such as self-defense or accidents, which are rooted in intention. But, what if the person that kills the other it is not done in self-defense nor by accident, but it is because that person suffers from a form of psychosis and was abused as a child and not cared for properly and was never taught compassion or shown it, should he be held equally responsible as someone sane who commits the same crime? I understand I am mixing up morals with praise/blame/responsibility/agency but they seem to have to coexist and depend on one another. This is why I believe the Buddhists are right in their stance that the dimensions are so infinite there can never be a clear-cut designation for right and wrong....