Abstract

of needs to be described because is usually understood to refer to thinking about not itself. distinction is important because Buddhist is based on this precise understanding of The of action may sound strange, because refers to the way we act. We do not usually imagine the need to define an ethics of reason I do, however, is because ethicists talk about two kinds of ethics: I call them ethics based on mind, which are founded upon idealistic criteria, and ethics based on the senses, which are founded upon materialistic criteria. I would like to say something about these two categories of before talking in more detail about what I call real ethics-the of Ethics based on mind, or idealistic ethics, are the kind of we are most familiar with and which are described by most religions. They are standards of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. They are always defined in some absolute sense, which we then try to follow as the goal of a religious life. Ethics based on the senses needs a little more explanation. Usually, the materialistic standpoint posits that what is comfortable is good and what is uncomfortable is bad. In other words, the materialist seeks for comfort and wants to escape discomfort. We would not normally refer to this as an ethical criterion, and indeed, materialist thinkers generally have strongly denied the value of ethical criteria and moral laws. But I believe that even the denial of ethical criteria is itself an ethical criterion, and so I think that there does exist a materialistic ethical criterion. In order to talk about a third category of ethics, the ethics of action, I would like first of all to explain the meaning of action. Most importantly, and perhaps most difficult to grasp in all its implications, is the fact that real action is completely different from the concept of Really acting is always different from our thoughts about acting. As a Buddhist monk I would like to describe what is in Buddhism by using a description found in a book of Buddhist philosophy called ShoboBuddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.4 on Thu, 08 Sep 2016 06:04:19 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.