Kamma, Ethics and Hume

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

I would like to start a discussion about ethics and Buddhadhamma.

In any discussion of Buddhist ethics (for this sake, Theravada) one inevitably finds a discussion of rebirth/kamma. To me this is the classic example of the "is-ought problem."

For example, if Kamma exists then it is simply a force of nature. It is a description of events. It is an observation that A causes B, such as lying causes bad kamma vipaka. That being said, it is then a leap of logic to claim that because lying causes bad kamma vipaka one ought not to lie.

No reason has been given to bridge the gap between an is (kamma and it's result) and an ought (a thou should not). How do we bridge this gap? Can it be bridged? Did Buddha try to close the gap?


Some quote from Hume:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;–ought_problem

Thoughts?

[mikenz66]

Hi Craig,

That being said, it is then a leap of logic to claim that because lying causes bad kamma vipaka one ought not to lie.

Bad kamma hinders liberation so it is helpful to avoid it. That seems to be a clear enough message. Where's the logical problem?


Mike

[Ceisiwr]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

[Mkoll]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

Why not? It's up to you. The point of the teaching on kamma is that gives you an idea of the results you'll get from that action. Knowing that, it's still up to you to make choices, just as it was before you knew.

edit for clarity

[Ceisiwr]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

Why not? It's up to you. The point of the teaching on kamma is that gives you an idea of the results you'll get from that action. Knowing that, it's still up to you to make choices, just as before you knew.

Well that's my question; what ethical reasoning do we use to choose one action over another, seeing as how Kamma can't provide us with moral guidance in of itself?

[mikenz66]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

My post?

What so difficulty about: "This action has a bad outcome, therefore I advise you to refrain from it"?

If I said: "This stove is hot and will injure your hand, therefore you shouldn't stick you hand on it...", would you be talking about leaps of logic?


Mike

[Mkoll]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

Why not? It's up to you. The point of the teaching on kamma is that gives you an idea of the results you'll get from that action. Knowing that, it's still up to you to make choices, just as before you knew.

Well that's my question; what ethical reasoning do we use to choose one action over another, seeing as how Kamma can't provide us with moral guidance in of itself?

Self-preservation.

[Ceisiwr]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

My post?

What so difficulty about: "This action has a bad outcome, therefore I advise you to refrain from it"?

If I said: "This stove is hot and will injure your hand, therefore you shouldn't stick you hand on it...", would you be talking about leaps of logic?


Mike

The difficulty is that you haven't given me a moral reason to refrain from action X. You have merely described nature.

For example, if killing = bad kamma, then, by your logic, I shouldn't kill a lion to save a toddler. That may be the start of moral reasoning, but of course that would mean that our moral outlook should be that of egoism, it seems?

[Ceisiwr]

Mkoll

Self-preservation.

Firstly, can't you see the contradiction when viewed in terms of anatta?

Secondly, does that mean that egoism is our moral guide?

[SarathW]

There are different level of lies give different level of results.
If you tell your child, that there is a Santa Clause, is that a lie?
If you lie to save someone, is that a lie?
If you lie to the court, what will be the outcome?
Not lying is an important factor when you need to attain Samadhi.

[SarathW]

Mkoll

Self-preservation.

Firstly, can't you see the contradiction when viewed in terms of anatta?

Secondly, does that mean that egoism is our moral guide?

Anatta is perfectly fit with the ethics.
There are causes and effects. Not persons.

[Mkoll]

Mkoll

Self-preservation.

Firstly, can't you see the contradiction when viewed in terms of anatta?

Secondly, does that mean that egoism is our moral guide?

1) No, because there isn't one.

2) Is it egoism when you don't eat spoiled food so you don't get sick?

[Ceisiwr]

[mkoll]

1) No, because there isn't one.

So shouldn't we act on pure altruism, instead of your suggestion of "self preservation"?

2) Is it egoism when you don't eat spoiled food so you don't get sick?

Yes lol

If our wellbeing is the foundation of our ethics, then we subscribe to egoism.

On that basis, if I am to be consistent, I shouldn't kill a lion if it captures a toddler. If I did then I would experience bad kamma, which would hurt me. Do you agree?

[Ceisiwr]

Mkoll

Self-preservation.

Firstly, can't you see the contradiction when viewed in terms of anatta?

Secondly, does that mean that egoism is our moral guide?

Anatta is perfectly fit with the ethics.
There are causes and effects. Not persons.

How can there be ethics if there are no beings to make choices? Effects and causes do not give us morality. By your world view there are just forces of nature knocking around.

[mikenz66]

Your post is too vague.

If I narrow it down; it is said that lying = bad kamma (or mixed). Why should I not lie?

My post?

What so difficulty about: "This action has a bad outcome, therefore I advise you to refrain from it"?

If I said: "This stove is hot and will injure your hand, therefore you shouldn't stick you hand on it...", would you be talking about leaps of logic?


Mike

The difficulty is that you haven't given me a moral reason to refrain from action X. You have merely described nature.

For example, if killing = bad kamma, then, by your logic, I shouldn't kill a lion to save a toddler. That may be the start of moral reasoning, but of course that would mean that our moral outlook should be that of egoism, it seems?

Sorry, I really don't understand where exactly you perceive the problem to be. Are we starting from the Buddha's teachings on cause and effect, or are you trying to logically derive an entire moral code? If the latter, good luck. If the former, then, of course, there will be complicated circumstances where any choice will have a downside.


Mike