Moral Realism
Re: Moral Realism
Wicked deeds (i.e. "karmas") produce demerit. This demerit has consequences. Thus, morality is as real as karma. The generation of "demerit" is deemed "unskillful" (akusala) because it is the opposite of skillfully navigating the path. Producing demerit is the opposite of being "skillful" in general.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Moral Realism
But the question is, what is wicked?Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:25 pm Wicked deeds (i.e. "karmas") produce demerit. This demerit has consequences. Thus, morality is as real as karma. The generation of "demerit" is deemed "unskillful" (akusala) because it is the opposite of skillfully navigating the path. Producing demerit is the opposite of being "skillful" in general.
Is killing others wicked? Is telling lies wicked? Is wishing ill upon your parents wicked?
When we say, for example, that killing brings much demerit, we're assuming that there is a moral law of cause and effect "woven into the fabric of the universe" and that kammic repercussions will follow regardless whether the killer believes that killing is wrong or not.
Some defenders of moral subjectivism seem to believe that an action will only have negative kammic consequences if one believes the action was wrong to do, but not otherwise.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: Moral Realism
I think the easy way to answer that is "does it produce demerit?" It is possible to intentionally murder without ill-will? Buddhism says "No."
Accidental murders do not produce demerit, because there was no underlying intention to perform the activity. It is the underlying intention to perform the activity that, when followed through, actually produces the demerit associated with the activity. There's a sutta for this, but you'll have to give me a while to find it.
Accidental murders do not produce demerit, because there was no underlying intention to perform the activity. It is the underlying intention to perform the activity that, when followed through, actually produces the demerit associated with the activity. There's a sutta for this, but you'll have to give me a while to find it.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Moral Realism
Unwholesome mind states do exist external to our minds no, just like how minds exist externally to us?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:51 pmI don't think that morality could possibly be "external", as in "independent of our mind". Because the intention behind our actions is a personal matter, as "internal" as a physical pain or a good mood. The intention is nothing if it is not ours, and the Buddha was interested in whether those intentions were rooted in defilements, or not. Apart from our intentions, the only "good things" out there are other good people, and recognising their goodness is entirely dependent upon our own personal goodness. It means nothing to one not good enough to see it.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Moral Realism
That might be taken as some kind of assumption, but the problem would be that we don't have any way of knowing whether those mind states are unwholesome. All we can be sure about is the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of our own intentions.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:04 pmUnwholesome mind states do exist external to our minds no, just like how minds exist externally to us?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:51 pmI don't think that morality could possibly be "external", as in "independent of our mind". Because the intention behind our actions is a personal matter, as "internal" as a physical pain or a good mood. The intention is nothing if it is not ours, and the Buddha was interested in whether those intentions were rooted in defilements, or not. Apart from our intentions, the only "good things" out there are other good people, and recognising their goodness is entirely dependent upon our own personal goodness. It means nothing to one not good enough to see it.
Re: Moral Realism
I think we can tell on occasions, but even if we can't if we accept the reality of other minds then we accept the reality of unwholesome and wholesome mind states. If unwholesome and wholesome mind-states are real, and kamma is real, then Buddhadhamma accepts moral realism.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:19 pmThat might be taken as some kind of assumption, but the problem would be that we don't have any way of knowing whether those mind states are unwholesome. All we can be sure about is the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of our own intentions.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:04 pmUnwholesome mind states do exist external to our minds no, just like how minds exist externally to us?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:51 pm
I don't think that morality could possibly be "external", as in "independent of our mind". Because the intention behind our actions is a personal matter, as "internal" as a physical pain or a good mood. The intention is nothing if it is not ours, and the Buddha was interested in whether those intentions were rooted in defilements, or not. Apart from our intentions, the only "good things" out there are other good people, and recognising their goodness is entirely dependent upon our own personal goodness. It means nothing to one not good enough to see it.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Moral Realism
There is no such thing as accidental murder.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:01 pm I think the easy way to answer that is "does it produce demerit?" It is possible to intentionally murder without ill-will? Buddhism says "No."
Accidental murders do not produce demerit, because there was no underlying intention to perform the activity. It is the underlying intention to perform the activity that, when followed through, actually produces the demerit associated with the activity. There's a sutta for this, but you'll have to give me a while to find it.
Murder is previously meditated upon then action taken.
Re: Moral Realism
Substitute "accidental killing" if the usage of "murder" in this very colloquial way confuses.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Moral Realism
What is wicked?Radix wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:50 pmBut the question is, what is wicked?Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:25 pm Wicked deeds (i.e. "karmas") produce demerit. This demerit has consequences. Thus, morality is as real as karma. The generation of "demerit" is deemed "unskillful" (akusala) because it is the opposite of skillfully navigating the path. Producing demerit is the opposite of being "skillful" in general.
Is killing others wicked? Is telling lies wicked? Is wishing ill upon your parents wicked?
When we say, for example, that killing brings much demerit, we're assuming that there is a moral law of cause and effect "woven into the fabric of the universe" and that kammic repercussions will follow regardless whether the killer believes that killing is wrong or not.
Some defenders of moral subjectivism seem to believe that an action will only have negative kammic consequences if one believes the action was wrong to do, but not otherwise.
When you meditate you will clearly see where your mind is stuck rolling in thought. If something is troubling you take action to mend that.
Re: Moral Realism
If I can't tell whether other minds have wholesome and unwholesome mental states, then I can't tell whether such things exist at all. If you mean that a doctrine claims that such things definitely exist, and you equate that doctrine with the Dhamma, then the Dhamma accepts moral realism.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:35 pmI think we can tell on occasions, but even if we can't if we accept the reality of other minds then we accept the reality of unwholesome and wholesome mind states. If unwholesome and wholesome mind-states are real, and kamma is real, then Buddhadhamma accepts moral realism.
Re: Moral Realism
Murder is one thing killing is another.
With this substitution in place, I will answer yes it is possible to intentionally kill without ill will.
I would look to native North American Indians as they hunt.
Nothing but love and total respect for both the physical and spiritual aspects of the animals taken.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Moral Realism
they’re not Buddhists
Re: Moral Realism
I do not think the teachings has any answers to these questions.
If you mean by objective that actions have consequences, then yes. If you mean by objective that they have independent existence, then no.
If you mean by reality that it cannot be disputed, then no. If you mean by reality that you cannot afford to deny it, then yes.
If you mean by matter the role of physical substance in determining "things", then yes. If you mean by matter the basis of materialism as to what is worth grasping, then no.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: Moral Realism
Are they immune to kamma?
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact: