Buddhist ethics in the context of western normative ethical theories: Deontology

V. A. Volkova
{"title":"Buddhist ethics in the context of western normative ethical theories: Deontology","authors":"V. A. Volkova","doi":"10.18500/1819-7671-2023-23-1-4-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Сomparative studies conducted within the young discipline of Buddhist ethics have taken shape around the controversy between those researchers who see the consequentialist character of moral motivation in it and those who defend the similarity between Buddhist ethics and virtue ethics. Despite the fact that such major scholars as Damien Keown or Charles Goodman do not attach much importance to deontological features in Buddhist ethics, there is a small camp of researchers who defend the similarity between Buddhist teaching and deontology. Theoretical analysis. The purpose of this article is to critically examine the grounds on which it is possible to build a defense of comparing the ethics of Buddhism with Kant’s deontology. This analysis should answer the question why the deontological interpretation of Buddhist ethics currently has the least number of supporters. Conclusion. The conclusion is that Buddhist ethics proceeds from other metaphysical premises than Kant’s ethics, and by its nature does not accept the absolutization of moral rules, which is why it is problematic to consider it as a kind of deontological ethical theory. Nevertheless, such comparative studies contribute to a better understanding of both Buddhist teaching and, possibly, Kant’s ethical theory.","PeriodicalId":252065,"journal":{"name":"Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7671-2023-23-1-4-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. Сomparative studies conducted within the young discipline of Buddhist ethics have taken shape around the controversy between those researchers who see the consequentialist character of moral motivation in it and those who defend the similarity between Buddhist ethics and virtue ethics. Despite the fact that such major scholars as Damien Keown or Charles Goodman do not attach much importance to deontological features in Buddhist ethics, there is a small camp of researchers who defend the similarity between Buddhist teaching and deontology. Theoretical analysis. The purpose of this article is to critically examine the grounds on which it is possible to build a defense of comparing the ethics of Buddhism with Kant’s deontology. This analysis should answer the question why the deontological interpretation of Buddhist ethics currently has the least number of supporters. Conclusion. The conclusion is that Buddhist ethics proceeds from other metaphysical premises than Kant’s ethics, and by its nature does not accept the absolutization of moral rules, which is why it is problematic to consider it as a kind of deontological ethical theory. Nevertheless, such comparative studies contribute to a better understanding of both Buddhist teaching and, possibly, Kant’s ethical theory.
西方规范伦理理论背景下的佛教伦理学:义务论
介绍。Сomparative在佛教伦理学这一年轻学科中进行的研究,围绕着一些研究人员之间的争论而形成,这些研究人员认为道德动机具有结果主义特征,而另一些人则认为佛教伦理学与美德伦理学之间存在相似性。尽管达米安·基翁(Damien Keown)或查尔斯·古德曼(Charles Goodman)等主要学者并不重视佛教伦理学中的义务论特征,但仍有一小部分研究人员捍卫佛教教义与义务论之间的相似性。理论分析。本文的目的是批判性地审视将佛教伦理学与康德的义务论进行比较的理由。这个分析应该回答为什么目前佛教伦理的义务论解释的支持者人数最少的问题。结论。结论是,佛教伦理学是从康德伦理学的其他形而上学前提出发的,其本质上不接受道德规则的绝对化,这就是为什么将其视为一种义务论伦理理论是有问题的。然而,这样的比较研究有助于更好地理解佛教教义,可能还有康德的伦理理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信