{"title":"Buddhist Moral Teachings is not Virtue Ethics: A Critical Response to Damien Keown’s View","authors":"Ali Sharaf","doi":"10.1007/s40961-024-00325-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the Buddhist tradition, there is an expansive collection of texts that explore the topic of ethics, addressing moral questions concerning the right and wrong behaviors, virtues, vices, and so forth. However, when examining the main texts of this tradition, we find an absence of a structured moral philosophy that systematically and critically analyzes moral values and principles. Therefore, Buddhist scholars have responded in different ways to the perplexing situation in which Buddhism largely lacks an explicit theory in moral philosophy. Some scholars argue that we should read Buddhist moral teachings as one of the contemporary ethical theories, such as consequentialism or virtue ethics. Damien Keown is one of the scholars who claims that “virtue ethics” is the best way to understand Buddhist ethics. This paper analyzes and critiques Damien Kewon’s reading of Buddhist moral teachings as Virtue ethics. I argue that such interpretation poses problems, primarily because it may overlook key aspects of Buddhist beliefs deemed inconsequential to contemporary ethical debates, and secondly, it could result in the imposition of non-authentic Buddhist ideas on Buddhist ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":41227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-024-00325-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the Buddhist tradition, there is an expansive collection of texts that explore the topic of ethics, addressing moral questions concerning the right and wrong behaviors, virtues, vices, and so forth. However, when examining the main texts of this tradition, we find an absence of a structured moral philosophy that systematically and critically analyzes moral values and principles. Therefore, Buddhist scholars have responded in different ways to the perplexing situation in which Buddhism largely lacks an explicit theory in moral philosophy. Some scholars argue that we should read Buddhist moral teachings as one of the contemporary ethical theories, such as consequentialism or virtue ethics. Damien Keown is one of the scholars who claims that “virtue ethics” is the best way to understand Buddhist ethics. This paper analyzes and critiques Damien Kewon’s reading of Buddhist moral teachings as Virtue ethics. I argue that such interpretation poses problems, primarily because it may overlook key aspects of Buddhist beliefs deemed inconsequential to contemporary ethical debates, and secondly, it could result in the imposition of non-authentic Buddhist ideas on Buddhist ethics.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research encourages discussions and debates on the philosophical traditions of India and contemporary philosophy in India while simultaneously continuing its dialogue with the vast wealth of mainstream and alternative Anglo-American and Continental philosophies. Yet, the special place it reserves for philosophical expatiations emanating from the subcontinent happens to be its particular area of interest. Research and interpretations pertaining to pre-modern and modern Indian textual sources across the spectrum, viewed through an innovative lens, are highly welcome. The journal is committed to dissemination of valuable knowledge to discerning readership across the world.
JICPR uncompromisingly emphasises originality of thought and research in the varied philosophical traditions. It also welcomes interdisciplinary engagements with quintessential philosophical questions. From close examination of singular philosophical texts and philosophers through furnishing detailed annotated translations and/or re-readings of extant philosophical conundrums, the journal underscores comprehensiveness of argument and ingenuity of scholarship.