Objective Morality

[fabianfred]

just been watching a video about Sam Harris and William Lane Craig giving their opinions about Objective morality.

They do, of course, represent the majority of Westerner's views which are that of Atheists or Theists. They both talk as if theirs are the only options and views possible, completely failing to conceive of a third view which is that of Buddhism, being non-theistic.

The Theists say everything comes from god, whilst the atheists say it is all scientific and random and generally favour the evolutionary theory. The theists can only conceive of the big-bang being kick-started by god when everything suddenly appeared out of nothing (in their opinion).

I would love to have been there to present a third stance.Not being Theistic Buddhism does not rely upon a god and we consider the basic five precepts as real objective morality which apply to all (sentient) beings in every realm, as do the laws of karma, whether they are understood, believed, known or not.

Harris seems to struggle with the concept of aiming for comfortable living as being the reason for morality, whilst the theist thinks that without a belief in god there is no basis for moral behaviour.

We know that the Buddha stressed suffering as the basic, unavoidable consequence of life (in the 31 realms of Samsara). So all beings are basically the same, trying to avoid suffering and find as much comfort or pleasure as possible.

Actions which we class as immoral are ones which break the first four precepts (the fifth is for our own protection), because they cause beings to suffer. If we do not want to suffer it is logical that avoiding causing suffering to other beings is a basic morality which applies to all beings, irrespective of their beliefs.

I would class this as Objective morality.

As far as the big-bang goes, some here know my belief in the Buddhist cosmology which leans toward the occillating universe theory....big bang>expansion>contraction>big crunch>new big-bang etc. So in this respect the big-bang didn't occur from nothing but from the energy and matter from the preceding big crunch.

[MrRealDeal]

The one thing in common Science and western Religion have is that they both say either matter or god has always existed, since you can't create something from nothing.

Their is no "big bang" theory that sugests that the big bang came from nothing. At least no Scientificly plausable one.

Edited December 22, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[huli]

I happened to read The Moral Landscape 2 weeks ago. I do not find that Harris's emphasis on morality being that which promotes human well-being to be different from the Buddhist Precepts which take the exact opposite tack, that which avoids human suffering. Both can be considered objective morality. I am impressed with Harris, and pleased to have him brought up in this Buddhist Forum.

[huli]

The one thing in common Science and western Religion have is that they both say either matter or god has always existed, since you can't create something from nothing.

Their is no "big bang" theory that sugests that the big bang came from nothing. At least no Scientificly plausable one.

True, Science has no plausible explanation for what the Big Bang came from. To admit this ignorance is not the same as "saying....matter.....has always existed." Scientists do not know.

Both Buddha and Science teach that everything has a cause. Both are silent when it come to explaining the cause of the universe. This is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.

[fabianfred]

The Buddha warned about trying spend time and effort upon subjects which could not be answered, like where mankind came from; whether Buddhas and Arahants who had passed to parinibbana existed or not; how the universe began; etc,

However the Cosmology of Buddhism and Hinduism suggest everything in nature moves in cycles and the cyclic renewal of Aeons being a part of their infinite past and infinite future idea is to me rather comforting.

An Aeon in time seems roughly equivalent to the time from one big-bang to the next.

[fabianfred]

This excerpt from the above talk is quite funny..

[rockyysdt]

Quote:

Not being Theistic, Buddhism does not rely upon a god and we consider the basic five precepts as real objective morality which apply to all (sentient) beings in every realm, as do the laws of karma, whether they are understood, believed, known or not.

Actions which we class as immoral are ones which break the first four precepts (the fifth is for our own protection), because they cause beings to suffer.

It's a pity that the fifith precept was so narrowly worded as to not include illicit drugs and tobacco.

These days drugs have even a greater scope for one breaking the first four precepts, but also can greatly diminish ones ability to be aware and/or affect ones mindfulness/awareness practice.

Nicotine (particularly inhaled in the form of tobacco), is a form of self harm taking place over time and perhaps would be considered as falling under the first precept of "taking life", be it ones own.

Having reviewed the five precepts:

1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life. Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given. Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

3. I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech. Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyām

5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness. Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

There seems to be one missing and perhaps it could read:

Refrain from harming others.

Does that make the pañca-sikkhāpada, or training rules, incomplete?

Edited December 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[SteeleJoe]

just been watching a video about Sam Harris and William Lane Craig giving their opinions about Objective morality.

They do, of course, represent the majority of Westerner's views which are that of Atheists or Theists. They both talk as if theirs are the only options and views possible, completely failing to conceive of a third view which is that of Buddhism, being non-theistic.

The Theists say everything comes from god, whilst the atheists say it is all scientific and random and generally favour the evolutionary theory. The theists can only conceive of the big-bang being kick-started by god when everything suddenly appeared out of nothing (in their opinion).

I would love to have been there to present a third stance.Not being Theistic Buddhism does not rely upon a god and we consider the basic five precepts as real objective morality which apply to all (sentient) beings in every realm, as do the laws of karma, whether they are understood, believed, known or not.

Harris seems to struggle with the concept of aiming for comfortable living as being the reason for morality, whilst the theist thinks that without a belief in god there is no basis for moral behaviour.

We know that the Buddha stressed suffering as the basic, unavoidable consequence of life (in the 31 realms of Samsara). So all beings are basically the same, trying to avoid suffering and find as much comfort or pleasure as possible.

Actions which we class as immoral are ones which break the first four precepts (the fifth is for our own protection), because they cause beings to suffer. If we do not want to suffer it is logical that avoiding causing suffering to other beings is a basic morality which applies to all beings, irrespective of their beliefs.

I would class this as Objective morality.

As far as the big-bang goes, some here know my belief in the Buddhist cosmology which leans toward the occillating universe theory....big bang>expansion>contraction>big crunch>new big-bang etc. So in this respect the big-bang didn't occur from nothing but from the energy and matter from the preceding big crunch.

I wonder if you haven't misinterpreted Sam Harris and/or misunderstood the context. Not only is he an extremely intelligent and informed individual, he spent 11 years in Asia studying Buddhist and Hindu meditation and other aspects of the cultures Aside from his PhD in neuroscience (in the study of belief and disbelief), he's got a BA in philosophy. He's also clearly gone to a great deal of effort and time to study virtually the whole range of theistic viewpoints (he even has some conditional regard for Jainism) and his main criticism is for the Abrahamic religions.

The whole non-theistic Buddhism thing is another topic (which I'm guessing has been discussed more than once in this forum) but I've heard Harris address that. By the way, he does not call himself an atheist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[fabianfred]

Rocky...

When I explain the precepts to my students I say this...

Although they like to call the first precept refrain from killing, it is actually about causing suffering. From Black to White are many shades of grey, so an action which causes harm still breaks this precept...its just that the most extreme form of harm is killing.

And the fifth precept is to avoid alcohol and other substances which lead to heedlessness...so that includes anything which causes loss of control.

I describe sexual misconduct as any kind of sexual activity which causes suffering to others.

Edited December 23, 2012 by fabianfred

[Xangsamhua]

I wonder if you haven't misinterpreted Sam Harris and/or misunderstood the context. Not only is he an extremely intelligent and informed individual, he spent 11 years in Asia studying Buddhist and Hindu meditation and other aspects of the cultures Aside from his PhD in neuroscience (in the study of belief and disbelief), he's got a BA in philosophy. He's also clearly gone to a great deal of effort and time to study virtually the whole range of theistic viewpoints (he even has some conditional regard for Jainism) and his main criticism is for the Abrahamic religions.

The whole non-theistic Buddhism thing is another topic (which I'm guessing has been discussed more than once in this forum) but I've heard Harris address that. By the way, he does not call himself an atheist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Fair comment, Steele Joe. I didn't hear William Lane Craig's contribution, but I did hear the 11 minute excerpt from Sam Harris, none of which had anything I would disagree with. Craig is an Evangelical Christian, not a fundamentalist, but something of a literalist who supports conservative views on the Bible. In criticizing Craig's views on the divine source of moral law, Harris is taking a swing at Abrahamic theology, sourced in Judaism and passed on to institutional (magisterial) Christianity and Islam (excepting Sufism).

Abrahamic theology is agentive. God is transcendent and intervenes in the natural order as he wills. He is not part of the natural order (though, curiously, Craig argues that since the creation, God has existed in time - necessarily, in order to be an agentive cause). The relationship between God as creator and agent is a vexing one for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Does God subscribe to eternally valid moral laws or has he created them arbitrarily? The Christian view of the Logos as the continuing agentive force in the Trinity is that the Logos is identical with Reason, and, hence, reasonable, rational moral law coincide with God's will. Of course, this suggests that there is a "God beyond/behind God", as Paul Tillich argued (in agreement with the early Gnostics), in much the same way as Vishnu, the ground of being, underpins Brahma, the creator. Abraham Heschel, the saintly 20th century Jewish theologian, could not really answer the conundrum of whether something was good because God decreed it or whether God decreed it because it was good. He proposed that what was objectively good was so both because God saw it was good and because he decreed it to be, but God was not subscribing thereby to any law higher than himself. The Muslim Enlightenment ended in the 12th century as the view that God is neither morally good nor bad became dogma. Whatever God does is "good" in so far as it is what God wills. God's will is subject to nothing beyond itself - neither natural law nor moral law. This in fact is logical if God is completely transcendent, as he is in Islam, but the seeping of this view through the ranks of the Ulama and the faithful has had a deleterious effect on science and philosophy in the Muslim world. Both have stagnated since the middle ages.

These are the kinds of problems that occur once lawyers and systematic theologians take control of a national or imperial religion. This is what happened in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, and a God that became increasingly distant, increasingly controlling (through the clergy), and increasingly punitive emerged. This is the kind of God that William Lane Craig appears to profess and the one that Sam Harris rejects so strongly. But it is a construction. A straw man.

Theism may be about belief in this kind of God, and Atheism a rejection of such belief, but there's a lot more to be said. There's polytheism, for a start, which Harris referred to as the popular belief of Hindus (though each Hindu god or goddess is a representation; they are images or ikons of something beyond, as are the ikons of Orthodox Christianity). There's also pantheism, as articulated by Baruch Spinoza in 17th century Amsterdam (Einstein was said to have believed in "Spinoza's God), and, thirdly, there is the panentheism of philosophical Hinduism and, interestingly, and increasingly, Liberal Christianity. These forms of theism are not addressed or attacked by Sam Harris in this talk. They are less vulnerable to his critique than the transcendental, eternally "other" theism of institutional and systematic Christianity.

Although the God of the panentheists is ultimately transcendent, this God is also fully present in every being, especially those most animate, with the human at the pinnacle of a "great chain of being". God's agency, therefore, is essentially our agency. God does not intervene from the outside. We become more god-like (or more "light-filled", enlightened) as we recognize and acknowledge the divine source and essence of ourselves and all beings. This has been called Christ-consciousness, Krishna-consciousness, Buddha-nature, and so on, but whatever you call it, or call it nothing at all, those who acknowledge it believe that with effort and enlightenment one can attain union with the ultimate Ground of Being, a state in which there is nothing more to be done, one is freed from attachment and ego, one exists in a state of absolute freedom and, I suppose, ecstasy. No one can really describe it. It's called heaven, paradise, moksha, nirvana/nibbana.

I sometimes think of the verbal fisticuffs between western theists and atheists as like a preliminary bout between junior boxers, perhaps boys or those who may be future champions. The main bout, and it would be a very amicable one, between those who, like many scientists, are in awe at the wonders of the cosmos, and those who, like the mystics of all religions, see beyond those wonders to a supreme source or a divine ground of consciousness, is still to come. And the outcome will be an increasing awareness that there is a unified field of consciousness that includes the material domain of cause and effect and the spiritual domain of cosmic consciousness that underpins it. If one chooses not to speak or think about "God", that's fine, too, but as Fabianfred has said, objectively, to live as though we and others have no souls, no higher selves, nothing that warrants respect and care, whatever we call it, then we can expect to reap what we sow, and it won't be good.

[rockyysdt]

to live as though we and others have no souls, no higher selves, nothing that warrants respect and care

Your words (entire post) could not be more eloquent X.

[weary]

This has been called Christ-consciousness, Krishna-consciousness, Buddha-nature, and so on, but whatever you call it, or call it nothing at all, those who acknowledge it believe that with effort and enlightenment one can attain union with the ultimate Ground of Being, a state in which there is nothing more to be done, one is freed from attachment and ego, one exists in a state of absolute freedom and, I suppose, ecstasy.

This is all speculation now, but I can't help but wonder: For an entity who has ceased to see itself as a self, and for whom happiness is above that of conditions, would ecstasy have any use over and above any other state?

Edited December 31, 2012 by weary

[Xangsamhua]

This has been called Christ-consciousness, Krishna-consciousness, Buddha-nature, and so on, but whatever you call it, or call it nothing at all, those who acknowledge it believe that with effort and enlightenment one can attain union with the ultimate Ground of Being, a state in which there is nothing more to be done, one is freed from attachment and ego, one exists in a state of absolute freedom and, I suppose, ecstasy.

This is all speculation now, but I can't help but wonder: For an entity who has ceased to see itself as a self, and for whom happiness is above that of conditions, would ecstasy have any use over and above any other state?

Good question.

I referred to freedom from attachment and ego, not cessation of self. Cessation, or non-existence, of "self" (anatta) is a more orthodox, Theravada view, based in the Pali Canon (e.g. Sutta Pitaka) I think an acknowledgement of something underpinning material and intellectual phenomena is allowable in some developed forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, but not Theravada.

However, "not-self" and "Self" (as in Brahman/Atman) are concepts that, though thought of as dualities, may in fact be identical. As you say, thinking about these things becomes highly speculative; hence, the Buddha did not encourage any focus on them (though the Canon has him teaching a highly reductive ontology himself).

It is difficult, I think, to deny the endurability of an essential entity at the core of any person and still aim for a state of enduring happiness (Nirvana/Nibbana: "the highest happiness", Dhammapada 204), when the mind has become unconditioned (free from volitional formations) (Wikipedia: Nirvana). Those who argue for an enduring self as subsisting in, but not constituting a higher (cosmic) Self regard the mind as a medium through which the self/Self interacts with the intellect, the body and the environment. Th higher, Cosmic Self may be that which in Mahayana is called Dharmakaya ("the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect of a Buddha out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution") (Wikipedia: Dharmakaya) The Dzogchen school holds that there is a "Supreme Source". The manifested self (Atman) at the core of any being, but most fully in a human being, is, in this view, an expression of the supreme source, or divine cosmic consciousness, perhaps what is known as Buddha-nature in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. As the indwelling Atman enables one to attain moksha (absolute realization and liberation over time), so Buddha-nature enables all of us to become Buddhas.

That is at least my understanding at present. It may be confused and is, I would expect, not acceptable to many members of this forum. As this is a Buddhist forum it's not my place to put forward views that are not Buddhist, so I won't. There are others who have a better grasp than I have and can answer your question more authoritatively.

[rockyysdt]

One teaching is that there is Non Self (not No Self), that nothing is permanent or enduring, and that everything that arises, passes away (Impermanence).

On the other hand "What or Who" obtains absolute realization and liberation?

Buddhagosa, not the Buddha penned:

Suffering alone exists, none who suffers;

The deed there is, but no doer thereof;

Nirvana is, but no one seeking it;

The Path there is, but none who travel it.

I am at a crossroad and open to both possibilities.

Either, rebirth is moment to moment, that we are all impermanent, and awakening is the supreme state a human can attain (freedom from greed, aversion & delusion) in this life, or

There is an enduring Self which can obtain absolute realization and liberation.

If there is, why do many of the Buddhas teachings appear to contradict it?

I referred to freedom from attachment and ego, not cessation of self. Cessation, or non-existence, of "self" (anatta) is a more orthodox, Theravada view, based in the Pali Canon (e.g. Sutta Pitaka) I think an acknowledgement of something underpinning material and intellectual phenomena is allowable in some developed forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, but not Theravada.

However, "not-self" and "Self" (as in Brahman/Atman) are concepts that, though thought of as dualities, may in fact be identical. As you say, thinking about these things becomes highly speculative; hence, the Buddha did not encourage any focus on them (though the Canon has him teaching a highly reductive ontology himself).

It is difficult, I think, to deny the endurability of an essential entity at the core of any person and still aim for a state of enduring happiness (Nirvana/Nibbana: "the highest happiness", Dhammapada 204), when the mind has become unconditioned (free from volitional formations) (Wikipedia: Nirvana). Those who argue for an enduring self as subsisting in, but not constituting a higher (cosmic) Self regard the mind as a medium through which the self/Self interacts with the intellect, the body and the environment. Th higher, Cosmic Self may be that which in Mahayana is called Dharmakaya ("the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect of a Buddha out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution") (Wikipedia: Dharmakaya) The Dzogchen school holds that there is a "Supreme Source". The manifested self (Atman) at the core of any being, but most fully in a human being, is, in this view, an expression of the supreme source, or divine cosmic consciousness, perhaps what is known as Buddha-nature in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. As the indwelling Atman enables one to attain moksha (absolute realization and liberation over time), so Buddha-nature enables all of us to become Buddhas.

That is at least my understanding at present. It may be confused and is, I would expect, not acceptable to many members of this forum. As this is a Buddhist forum it's not my place to put forward views that are not Buddhist, so I won't. There are others who have a better grasp than I have and can answer your question more authoritatively.

Edited December 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[weary]

Thank you for clarifying, guys. I can see now that my question is based mainly on ignorance. Buddhaghosa makes me no wiser in this instance, but hopefully the practice of trying to catch the Three Characteristics in experienced phenomena will increase clarity. Thanks again.