Improving Buddhism/The Imperfect Buddha

[tiltbillings]

Does that break Buddhist moral code, or is the Buddhist moral code subjective/relative?

You tell me.

Is then murder justified in Buddhism, if it saves lives?

You tell me.

I was asking you ...

So, in other words, you have no idea.

[clw_uk]

So, in other words, you have no idea.

Once again, I was asking Your opinion

So it's not a case of if im guessing or not, since I haven't stated my position, not yet anyway, but have asked for yours. It's a case of you actually responding to a post, which once again your failing to do.


I dread to think how you would perform in an actual face to face debate :/

[tiltbillings]

So, in other words, you have no idea.

Once again, I was asking Your opinion

So it's not a case of if im guessing or not, since I haven't stated my position, not yet anyway, but have asked for yours. It's a case of you actually responding to a post, which once again your failing to do.


I dread to think how you would perform in an actual face to face debate :/

Better than you, no doubt. At this point in the discussion, you need to be stating what you think rather than asking others here to do the heavy lifting.

[clw_uk]

Better than you, no doubt. At this point in the discussion, you need to be stating what you think rather than asking others here to do the heavy lifting.

No dear, you need to answer my post first

Better than you, no doubt

I would be careful of inductive reasoning

[tiltbillings]

I would be careful of inductive reasoning

It is direct observation from the rebirth thread.

[clw_uk]

I would be careful of inductive reasoning

It is direct observation from the rebirth thread.

As I said, be careful of inductive reasoning dear


Just because the sun arose today, it doesn't mean it will tomorrow (which was the implication of your flimsy post)

[tiltbillings]

I would be careful of inductive reasoning

It is direct observation from the rebirth thread.

As I said, be careful of inductive reasoning dear


Just because the sun arose today, it doesn't mean it certainly will tomorrow (which was the implication of your flimsy post)

So, as you have consistently argued poorly in the past, I can safely assume that you are going to continue that trend, though I would have no problem with being shown to be wrong. Good luck with that.

[clw_uk]

Well if you dont answer me, then how can you see if I fail again or not, in your eyes

Yet atm I'm better off getting blood from a stone than getting a meaningful response from you


Though on a side note, your understanding of my recent posts in the rebirth thread has been, shall we say, poor at best.

[clw_uk]

I suppose its because he did not try to compose some unifying ethical theory.
There is a section in Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist ethics p49 on Comparisons with Western ethical systems.

Interesting point

Would you see western ethical theories as a failure as they try to reduce morality to one concept?

[Samma]

I don't know, what constitutes a failure, all the various well known theories tend to address and make good points right?

A key aspect of Western ethical systems is that moral prescriptions
should be universally applicable to all people who can understand them.
Buddhism, though, is generally gradualist in approach, so while it has
ethical norms which all should follow from a sense of sympathy with
fellow beings (such as not killing living beings), others only apply to those
who are ready for them, as their commitment to moral and spiritual
training deepens. (Harvey, p. 51)

Remembering what was said and done long ago ...chp 16 of idiots guide to ethics makes the points of mixing recipes, "Life is complicated, and no single theory can adequately handle all the myriad life-and-death dilemmas that crop up."
http://www.books.google.com/books?id=IN ... ing+Ethics

[DNS]

Interestingly I can't seem to define Buddhas ethics, be it deontological, consequentialist, natural ethics, sceptical or subjective etc.

Perhaps all of the above.

Much of the Vinaya --> deontological
Skillful means --> consequentialist
4NT, DO, kamma --> natural ethics
Investigation, energy vicaya, viriya --> skeptical
Vinaya changing over time and circumstances --> subjective

But mostly natural ethics. Living beings are naturally subject to pain and suffering and there is a way to the end of suffering. Kamma and DO are natural events that can be observed and experienced.

[retrofuturist]

Metta,
Retro.

[danieLion]

Hi clw_uk,

I would be careful of inductive reasoning

It is direct observation from the rebirth thread.

As I said, be careful of inductive reasoning dear


Just because the sun arose today, it doesn't mean it will tomorrow (which was the implication of your flimsy post)

Inductive reasoning is only a problem when we forget that it is about probability and not about a uniformity principle. In all likelihood, the sun will rise tomorrow. Likewise, Tilt merely proposed you're likely to behave like he's observed you behaving in the past. From what I know of Tilt, he has strong obersvational powers and a fairly accurate track-record. It is in your power and your power only to provide a counterinductive example via your behavior and perform well--by his standards--in debate.
Kindly,
dL

[danieLion]

Hi David, clw_uk,

Interestingly I can't seem to define Buddhas ethics, be it deontological, consequentialist, natural ethics, sceptical or subjective etc.

Perhaps all of the above.

Much of the Vinaya --> deontological
Skillful means --> consequentialist
4NT, DO, kamma --> natural ethics
Investigation, energy vicaya, viriya --> skeptical
Vinaya changing over time and circumstances --> subjective

But mostly natural ethics. Living beings are naturally subject to pain and suffering and there is a way to the end of suffering. Kamma and DO are natural events that can be observed and experienced.

Which is another way of saying that the closest thing Buddhist ethics comes to in Western philosophy is humanist and pragmatist ethics.
Kindly,
dL

[danieLion]

Hi clw-uk,

I suppose its because he did not try to compose some unifying ethical theory.
There is a section in Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist ethics p49 on Comparisons with Western ethical systems.

Interesting point

Would you see western ethical theories as a failure as they try to reduce morality to one concept?

There are several Western ethical theories that reject such reductionism. Again, humanism and pragmatism come to mind.
Kindly,
dL