Buddhist Ethics vs Virtue Ethics: Two Ethics of Character

Question

How do Buddhist ethics and virtue ethics compare? The two are the great ethics of character of the East and the West, and their comparison is the best introduction to the question of what the moral life is for.

Quick Answer

Buddhist ethics and virtue ethics are both ethics of character: both hold that the moral life is the transformation of the person, not merely the performance of the right action. But they differ in their foundations and their goals. Virtue ethics, in the tradition of Aristotle, grounds the moral life in the nature of the human being: the virtues are the characteristics that enable the human flourishing, and the good life is the life of the virtues — the practical wisdom, the justice, the courage, the temperance — lived in the community. Buddhist ethics grounds the moral life in the understanding of reality: the goal is not the flourishing of the self but the liberation from the suffering, and the virtues — the compassion, the loving-kindness, the mindfulness — are the characteristics that lead to the enlightenment, the awakening to the impermanence and the interdependence of all things. The two agree that the character is the center; they differ on what the character is for: the flourishing of the human being in this life, or the liberation from the suffering of all beings.

Historical Wisdom

The comparison of the two traditions is a recent but productive project. Aristotle's virtue ethics, developed in fourth-century Athens, made the character the center of the moral life: the person becomes virtuous by the practice of the virtues, and the good life is the life of the activity in accordance with the virtue. The Buddhist tradition, developing from the teaching of the Buddha in the sixth century BCE, made the transformation of the person the center of the path: the eightfold path — the right view, the right intention, the right speech, the right action, the right livelihood, the right effort, the right mindfulness, the right concentration — is the training of the whole person, and the virtues (the paramitas) are the perfections that the practitioner cultivates on the way to the enlightenment. The modern scholarship (Damien Keown, Charles Goodman) has shown the deep structural parallels: both traditions are eudaimonistic — both hold that the moral life is the path to the good life — and both make the character the center. The differences are the differences of the metaphysics and the goal.

Philosophical Perspectives

The comparison has three dimensions. First, the character: both traditions make the character the center — the virtues are the dispositions of the person, formed by the practice, and the moral life is the transformation of the person, not merely the conformity to the rule. Second, the virtues: the lists overlap — the wisdom, the compassion, the patience, the honesty, the generosity appear in both traditions — and the virtues are understood as the habits that enable the good life. Third, the goal: here the traditions differ. The Aristotelian goal is the flourishing (eudaimonia) of the human being — the life of the activity in accordance with the virtue, lived in the community, with the external goods that the flourishing requires. The Buddhist goal is the liberation (nirvana) from the suffering — the cessation of the craving and the ignorance, the awakening to the impermanence and the interdependence of all things. The difference of the goal changes the character of the virtues: the Aristotelian virtues are the means to the flourishing of the self in the community; the Buddhist virtues are the means to the liberation of the self from the suffering of the world.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Aristotle: the virtues are the habits that enable the flourishing — "we become just by doing just acts." From the Buddha: the path is the transformation — the right view, the right intention, the right action, the right mindfulness. And from the comparison: the two ethics of character agree that the person is the center; they differ on what the person is for — the flourishing in this life, or the liberation from the suffering of all beings.

Practical Application

The comparison has practical value. For the person who practices virtue ethics: the Buddhist tradition adds the depth of the inner life — the mindfulness, the compassion for all beings, the examination of the craving and the attachment that underlie the vices. For the person who practices the Buddhist path: the virtue ethics adds the social dimension — the flourishing of the character in the community, the practical wisdom of the concrete decision. For the integrated practice: the two traditions converge on the central insight — the moral life is the transformation of the person, and the transformation is the work of the daily practice: the habits of the virtues, formed by the repetition, until the good becomes the natural. The two ethics of character are the two paths to the same goal: the person of the good character, the life of the good.

Quotes

Aristotle states the formation: "We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts." The Buddha states the path: "Avoid all evil, cultivate the good, purify the mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas." And the comparison is summarized: "The two ethics of character agree that the person is the center; they differ on what the person is for — the flourishing in this life, or the liberation from the suffering of all beings."

Related Questions

• What Is Virtue Ethics? — the Western ethics of character.
• What Is Nirvana? — the Eastern goal of the path.
• What Is Compassion? — the virtue both traditions share.
• Buddhism and Stoicism on Inner Peace — another cross-tradition comparison.