Moral Realism

[Tl21G3lVl]

The wise will choose the more wholesome choice.

[mjaviem]

The Buddha didn’t care about right or wrong actions?

He taught non-killing, non-taking, non-cheating, etc. There are no dilemmas when following his teachings. You know exactly what to do.

[mjaviem]

The wise will choose the more wholesome choice.

This

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Is morality objective in the Dhamma? Is it an external reality? Does it matter?

Dhamma is not concerned with morality. The teaching is about not doing harm, not having unwholesome intentions. What should or shouldn't doesn't matter.

The Buddha didn’t care about right or wrong actions?

What makes them right or wrong is being kusala or akusala.

Metta,
Paul.

[Sam Vara]

Is morality objective in the Dhamma? Is it an external reality? Does it matter?

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.

[befriend]

Wether or not you have good or bad intentions isn't always a determining factor in kamma Vipaka. Buddha practiced self mortification starving the body trying to find liberation by denying the body its needs as a bodhisattva. good intention? yes. Is it moral no. For an action to be moral you need compassion and wisdom together what is praised by the wise.

[Sam Vara]

Wether or not you have good or bad intentions isn't always a determining factor in kamma Vipaka. Buddha practiced self mortification starving the body trying to find liberation by denying the body its needs as a bodhisattva. good intention? yes. Is it moral no. For an action to be moral you need compassion and wisdom together what is praised by the wise.

That may well be the case, but did the Buddha offer any sort of support for that?

It's worth noting that many might see the Buddha's self-mortification as simply unskillful, and therefore not a "good intention".

[Jack19990101]

Objective in Dhamma, is cessation of Dukkha.
Morality is not.

There is merit making in practicing Dhamma.
To make merit, we need to discern & make choice, which is the right view (with taints).
Merit making Right View, is tainted, is not yet noble, is not part of N8P.

[befriend]

So if you witness a robber steal someone's pocketbook and run away with it You can't critique that from the outside as being blameworthy, evil, unskillful unwholesome bad?

[Joe.c]

Objective in Dhamma, is cessation of Dukkha.
Morality is not.

There is merit making in practicing Dhamma.
To make merit, we need to discern & make choice, which is the right view (with taints).
Merit making Right View, is tainted, is not yet noble, is not part of N8P.

What? No morality in N8FP??? This statement is what I said wrong path of N8FP.

In fact the morality is part of N8FP.
Samma vaca
Samma kammanta
Samma ajiva

If someone say they can reach Samma ditthi without asava without the morality, i would say they are delusional indeed.

There is no way someone can reached samma ditthi without asava if they don’t reach and maintain the jhana (samma samadhi) in daily life.

Btw, Maintaining jhana (sati/samadhi) needs samma ditthi and perfecting morality (sila visuddhi) as foundation. Without these 2, there is no freaking way one can have the samma ditthi without asava ever.

Anyway, good luck. A long road indeed.

One more thing, Buddha taught morality not for making merit. Please check the sutta again especially SN 55.7 and many more

[Jack19990101]

U r equaling sila/precepts to morality.

There are a few differences & overlap between them.

If we wish to discuss sila/precepts, we have sutta as ground.
If we discuss morality, u have to first make precise definition of morality in ur view first.
Otherwise, we are talking without ground, a waste of time.

[Jack19990101]

So if you witness a robber steal someone's pocketbook and run away with it You can't critique that from the outside as being blameworthy, evil, unskillful unwholesome bad?

Dk what i gonna do at the situation, but I am certain sati/sila/right view will carry out proper course of action.

[Jack19990101]

I could not recollect clearly, but I remember there are a few school of thoughts on morality. Some of them r -

Totalitarian - greater good, team supervenes individual integrity.
Utilitarian - some life can be used as means to achieve a purpose. lab rats, meat farm.
Authorities - Solider is to follow command blindly.
so on. many more.

I think almost of morality thoughts, involves punishment, duty of clanship(i.e. citizenship), justified violence, justified lies, justified manipulation, so on.

[Radix]

Is morality objective in the Dhamma? Is it an external reality? Does it matter?

Bhikkhu Bodhi's take on this:

(1) The Philosophical Bridge

The first challenge I will discuss is primarily philosophical in scope, though with profound and far-reaching practical implications. This is the task of overcoming the fundamental dichotomy which scientific materialism has posited between the realm of "real fact," i.e., impersonal physical processes, and the realm of value.

By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, as I mentioned earlier, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality.
The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today.

To counter this tendency, I do not think mere moral exhortation is sufficient.

If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order.

Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ponse.html

(emphases mine)

[Radix]

Wether or not you have good or bad intentions isn't always a determining factor in kamma Vipaka.

Indeed. If the kammic result of one's actions depended solely on one's intentions, then one could do whatever one wanted, as long as one considered it good, and everything would be fine. For example, one could kill believing that it is a good thing, and this would bring about good results. But that's not Budhist doctrine, not even of those Buddhist schools that have devised ways to justify killing, stealing, lying, and other actions traditionally considered as immoral.

If the kammic result of one's actions depended solely on one's intentions, then there'd be no need for stating or keeping the precepts, and the whole Buddhist project would essentially be redundant.