Faith

[5stringJeff]

The consequences to <i>this</i> human life in <i>this</i> world are the yardstick by which our morals, ethics, laws and actions are measured.

So does Buddhism then boil down to utilitarianism? Honest question, I'm not too smart on Buddhism except for the Eightfold Path.

 

[pllove]

The key word in this definition is "<i>belief</i>". Belief is a box that can trap us. It leads us to think we know all we need to know and need explore or question no further. It can lead us to a seemingly inescapable intellectual and epistemological dead-end.
<blockquote>Belief grips you...Faith frees you. - Roshi Phillip Kapleau</blockquote>

good words.

 

[no1tovote4]

So does Buddhism then boil down to utilitarianism? Honest question, I'm not too smart on Buddhism except for the Eightfold Path.

It does not.

There is far more to Buddhism than has been even touched on during this thread.

Here is a good site on Buddhism that I like to visit sometimes. They are one of the better web sites for a Buddhist Temple that I have found. There are good explanations of the basic beliefs and teachings of Buddhism.

http://www.budtempchi.org/

Check out the Twelve Pricipals of Buddhism

 

[no1tovote4]

I never posited an absolute. Bonnie first mentionend the term, not I. You jumped to a wrong conclusion. Were this, or any other ethic, raised to the status of an absolute it would be unobtainable by us mere mortals. As for harm, any actual, verifiable harm.

<blockquote>What if you buy coffee at the grocery store. During the picking of the coffee they used child labor, assume it is a family farm and not simply slave labor, one of the children is punished for not picking fast enough. Are you evil for supporting the people that would cause harm or is it your intent that matters? What if they actually do use child labor wage-slaves? Is that more evil?</blockquote>

If you know for a fact that slave labor was used, it behooves you to refrain from buying the product. Unfortunately, with slave labor and sweatshops being used to produce so many products imported from third world, and other, countries it can be difficult to know what was and was not produced in such a manner. It then falls upon us, then, to try to change the system so that people are no longer abused in such a manner.

<blockquote>What if you are driving down the road and somebody commits suicide by jumping in front of your car? Were they evil in harming themselves or are people allowed to commit suicide?</blockquote>

They brought harm to both themselves and to you. Were they evil? No, just misguided.

<blockquote>And what should we avoid harming? What about all the plants that we kill so that we can drive on nice roads to work every morning? Was it evil to do that? If so is it evil to travel to work on those roads?</blockquote>

The consequences to <i>this</i> human life in <i>this</i> world are the yardstick by which our morals, ethics, laws and actions are measured.

You were the one that posited that it was simple not Bonnie.

In short if what you do leads to the harm of yourself, others or both, it is not to be done. Where's the confusion?

She asked about absolutes you gave her this and then said it was simple.

I have since given many examples that under your simplistic definition would be evil, we have since found many grey areas and that it was not so simple as you wanted it to seem.

You then attempt to dodge your simplicity position by evading and pointing fingers at Bonnie.

I posit that no single system is "easy" or "simple" to follow. Even ones that are dogmatic and directly given. And found that most of my questions were not to be answered using your system at all. Since this simple definition didn't work in the above scenarios I give you the answer to your question, "Where is the confusion?"

 

[Bullypulpit]

So does Buddhism then boil down to utilitarianism? Honest question, I'm not too smart on Buddhism except for the Eightfold Path.

Consequentialism.

 

[no1tovote4]

Consequentialism.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, consequentialism and Utilitarianism are the same and neither is Buddhism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/


Consequentialism ignores circumstances, Buddhism does not.

I will give an example.

1st scenario:

A man attacks me and demands my wallet. I get angry and determine I will stop this man. I block his punch step in and twist his arm at the same time as giving a good backfist. In the process I break his arm and nose.


2nd scenario:
A man attacks me and demands my wallet. I determine that if I do not subdue him that he will attack other people as well. On that determination I work to subdue the man. I block his punch step in and twist his arm at the same time as giving a good backfist. In the process I break his arm and nose.


Consequentialism teaches that both would be equally moral acts since the result was the same the man was subdued and is no longer a threat to society, Buddhism does not. In only one scenario was there right action.

According to verses 3 through 5 of the Dhammapada, acting in revenge is not right action, therefore the result though having the same physical consequences was not moral when I acted in anger in scenario 1. Only acting without personal self-fulfillment is right action, when I acted in compassion for others and not for personal anger or self-fulfillment in scenario 2.


Link to Dhammapada:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp01.htm


3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.


4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.


5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.