The Principles of Non-Violence and Disengagement
B.Contestabile admin@socrethics.com Last version 2008
|
Table of Contents
2.1 Basics 2.2 The Eightfold Path 2.3 Hermitic Buddhism 2.4 Monastic Buddhism 2.5 Lay Buddhism 3.1 Definition 3.2 Skepticism 3.3 Epicureanism 3.4 Stoicism 4.1 Basics 4.2 Hermits 4.3 Monks 4.4 Laic Retreat 4.5 Non-Violent Politics 4.6 Armed Defense
|
|
Type of Problem The goal of this paper is to investigate the moral value of non-violence, political skepticism and (emotional) retreat. It concentrates on the following questions:
1) Individual level: Are the Buddhist and Hellenistic principles rational strategies to reduce individual suffering? 2) Society level: Is the principle of non-violence a rational strategy to improve justice?
Individual level Are the Buddhist and Hellenistic principles of disengagement rational strategies to reduce individual suffering? 1) The Buddhist model for a life in retreat is based on an implausible doctrine of reincarnation. 2) The Epicurean principles are rational for privileged persons in times of tyranny or political turmoil. 3) Stoicism encourages people to accept “life as it is” and to eliminate doubts and scruples (similarly to a religious belief). It is not rational insofar, as the suppression of fear serves risk-taking. This becomes evident in late Stoicism with its emphasis on duty in times of civil and imperialistic wars. 4) Skeptics also tend to accept things as they are, not in an affirmative sense as the Stoics, but out of incertitude about the desirable actions to be taken. As compared to Epicureans, they lack a clear strategy how to avoid suffering. Schools which support an excessive control of passions are confronted with an increased risk of mental illness (sado-masochism, depression, pathological narcissism).
Society level Is the principle of non-violence a rational strategy to improve justice? 1. Most likely the principle is not rational under all circumstances and in all historical situations. 2. The use of violence may be justified if the result (a decrease in suffering) is guaranteed. But the issue is highly controversial if probabilities are involved.
The strategies in detail: 1) The Hindu principle of non-violence (Ahimsa) is based on an implausible karmic law. 2) The radical political skepticism of hermits and monks has to be respected because of the complexity of the system. 3) The Epicurean strategy is tied to childlessness. Familial commitment asks for political commitment. 4) The non-violent promotion of ethical knowledge (and a corresponding political engagement) probably improves the state of affairs. 5) The Stoic concept of justice (a god given natural law) is not suited to improve the state of affairs. Stoics distrust the adequacy of suffering instead of denying the world, which causes suffering.
|
Starting point
1. Justice is tied to self-defense, law and order and the concept of the just war. Consequentially justice is tied to violence and moral dilemmas.
2. The principle of non-violence, on the other hand, is in conflict with the biological goal to survive and procreate.
Type of Problem
The goal of this paper is to investigate the moral value of non-violence, political skepticism and (emotional) retreat. It concentrates on the following questions:
1. Are the Buddhist and Hellenistic principles rational strategies to reduce individual suffering?
2. Is the principle of non-violence a rational strategy to improve justice?
2.1 Basics
Origin
Buddhist philosophy was partly a refinement of earlier Indian concepts, but focused on the idea that everything in the world changes, that nothing is permanent. In this condition, to desire anything will only lead to suffering (see Tibet, Bond University, Queensland, Australia).
1) Timeline of Buddhist History
2) Theravada Buddhism, the original version of Buddhism
3) Buddhism: History, Open Directory Project
The Dharma
The meaning of the term Dharma in Buddhism is different from the one in Hinduism. In Buddhism, it has two interpretations:
1. the constituent factors of the experienced world (the fundamental truth)
2. the teachings of the Buddha which lead to insight into the fundamental truth (enlightenment)
The fundamental truth
1. The fundamental truth of Buddhism is based on the idea that everything in the universe is causally linked; see Buddhism, Description. The way of thinking is accordingly rational and pragmatic. Suffering is regarded like an illness which has a specific cause and can be treated.
The Buddha is compared to an experienced and skilful doctor, and the Buddhist Dharma the proper medicine. However efficient the doctor or wonderful the medicine may be, the patients cannot be cured unless they take the medicine properly (Dharma, Wikipedia).
2. According to the scriptures, in his lifetime, the Buddha refused to answer several metaphysical questions. On issues such as whether the world is eternal or non-eternal, finite or infinite, unity or separation of the body and the self, complete inexistence of a person after nirvana and then death etc, the Buddha had remained silent. One explanation for this is that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightenment. Another is that such questions assume the reality of world/self/person.
In the Pali Canon and numerous Mahayana sutras and Tantras, the Buddha stresses that Dharma (Truth) cannot truly be understood with the ordinary rational mind or logic: Reality transcends all worldly concepts. The "prajna-paramita" sutras have this as one of their major themes. What is urged is study, mental and moral self-cultivation, faith in and veneration of the sutras, which are as fingers pointing to the moon of Truth, but then to let go of ratiocination and to experience direct entry into Liberation itself.
(Buddhism, Wikipedia)
Enlightentment
There are some common threads to almost all Buddhist branches:
1. All accept the Buddha as their teacher.
2. All accept the Middle Way, Dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, in theory, though in practice these have little or no importance in some traditions.
3. All accept that both the members of the laity and of the Sangha can pursue the path toward enlightenment (bodhi).
4. All consider Buddhahood to be the highest attainment (…). According to Theravada, a Buddha is someone that had discovered the path all by himself and taught it to others.
(Buddhism, Wikipedia)
The Noble Truths
Following a short description of the Four Noble Truths:
1) Diagnosis
a) The symptoms are described:
First Noble Truth: Life is inseparably tied to suffering
b) The underlying cause is analyzed
Second Noble Truth: The cause of suffering are attachments (desires, preferences) in a world where everything changes, nothing is permanent.
2) Therapy
a) The possibility of healing is assured
Third Noble Truth: Suffering can be terminated by ending human desire
b) The practical instruction for amelioration is presented
Forth Noble Truth: Human desire can be ended by following the Eightfold Path
Reincarnation
An early Indian concept which has been adopted by Buddhism is the concept of reincarnation. Buddhists believe that the Eightfold Path leads to a favorable reincarnation (with less suffering) and finally to redemption.
2.2 The Eightfold Path
Preference-elimination/ suppression
The term preference is used in the wider sense. For a definition see Preference-frustration and the Hedonistic Scale.
The peculiarity of Buddhism lies in the Forth Noble Truth (Eightfold Path), i.e. in
1) the weight given to preference-elimination/suppression relative to preference-satisfaction (middle way)
2) the specific method how to eliminate/suppress preferences.
The Eightfold Path is subdivided into three interdependent areas:
1. Ethical conduct (Sila)
2. Wisdom (Panna)
3. Meditation (Samadhi)
Ethical conduct
The Silas contain instructions about the right speech, action and livelihood. Depending on the rigor of ethical prescriptions, Buddhism can be divided into its monastic (and therefore celibate) community and its lay community. The Eightfold Path contains instructions for both of them. The precondition for meditation is a non-violent, low-risk life, a life without passionate attachments. Since Buddha was a pragmatic philosopher he learnt from experience, that extreme ascetism distracts the mind from meditation. The reason might be that passion is the root of all extremism.
Preference elimination should not cause the kind of suffering one tried to avoid in the first place. The optimum is a middle way between the frustrations caused by biological attachments and the frustrations caused by the disrespect of biological needs. It is characterized by the transformation of high-risk (volatile) biological preferences into virtue-type (durable) preferences, while tolerating and satisfying low-risk biological preferences. Since there is a risk of mental illness caused by excessive ethical demands, there are various implementations of the Eighttfold Path, depending on the constitution of the individual:
1) Hermitic Buddhism
2) Monastic Buddhism
3) Lay Buddhism
Wisdom
1. The right view is the cognitive approach to the phenomenon of suffering, the outer perspective, the science of suffering. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.
2. The right intention (right thought) is the commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement, similar to moral perfectionism.
Mental development
1) Right effort
Right effort is the will to control emotions and switch the energy from damaging to beneficial thoughts.
2) Right mindfulness
Right mindfulness is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. We conceptualize sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualization (The Noble Eightfold Path)
3) Right concentration:
The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation.
a) Meditation for feeling compassion
This kind of meditation is predominantly practiced in the Mahajana tradition. Based on the awareness of own suffering a Mahajana-Buddhist develops empathy for other beings and the desire, to redeem them from suffering. He/she attempts to expand this feeling in an impartial way until it reaches the depth of a mother’s love for her unique child (Mahajana, chapter 3: Motivation).
There are specific mantras to activate compassion like Om mani padme hum. The usage of mantras is typical for the Samatha tradition.
b) Meditation for getting on distance
The motivation for getting on distance to the material world comes out of suffering. Vipassana is the central form of meditation in the Theravada tradition. The goal of Vipassana is to become free from physical and mental attachments. Positive attachments induce suffering as well as negative ones because they create craving and the fear of loss. By the intense observation of all physical and mental processes it is possible to get on distance and de-identify with the ego. Spiritual happiness is characterized by the absence of desires. The expression “being perfectly happy” not only means “that there are no more open wishes” but also “that there can be happiness independent of wishes” or “that there is happiness because of the absence of wishes”.
The Samatha type (but not compassion-centered) meditation was used by Theravada Buddhists as a preparation to the cognition-oriented meditation. It calms down body and mind for the subsequent decomposition of the self; (see stages of Anapanasati). Conversely, a Mahajana Buddhist should know and practice the doctrine of Theravada as well. The capability to liberate oneself is a precondition for the capability to help the fellow human beings. A Buddha is capable of doing both, liberate him/herself and help the others. According to the Mahajana belief in the Buddha-nature, each human has the potential to reach this state.
2.3 Hermitic Buddhism
1. In some passages, nature around the hermitage (assama, aa"srama) is described as, and expressly called, lovely and beautiful (…). This kind of description of nature around the hermitage is obviously closely related to the romanticizing strand of nature description in secular poetry (…) There can be little doubt that it depicts nature mainly from a human aesthetic point of view (…). Hence, a positive evaluation of intact nature and biodiversity, but tacit omission of the violence and suffering involved in nature as it actually is (…). As for violence, the idea is rather that around the hermitage there is an exceptional situation in that violence has been neutralized or overcome by the (non-violent) spiritual power or irradiation of the hermit, especially by his practice of friendliness or loving kindness (mettaa). Not only in the sense that by practicing loving kindness the hermit protects himself from the aggressiveness of dangerous creatures, i.e., renders them non-aggressive towards himself. Rather, by his spiritual power and irradiation of friendliness or loving kindness the hermit affects, so to speak, the animals around him so that they abandon even their natural mutual enmities and to become friendly and non-aggressive even towards one another. Thus peace not only with nature but also within nature (The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ethics, by Lambert Schmithausen).
2. Many Korean monks have few personal possessions and sometimes cut off all relations with the outside world. Several are near mendicants traveling from temple to temple practicing meditation. The hermit-recluse life is prevalent among monks to whom meditation practice is considered of paramount importance (Zen, Wikipedia)
2.4 Monastic Buddhism
1) The order of Buddhist monks and nuns was founded by Gautama Buddha during his lifetime of over 2500 years ago. The Buddhist monastic lifestyle grew out of the lifestyle of earlier sects of wandering ascetics, some of whom the Buddha had studied under. It was not really isolationist or eremetic in nature as the sangha was dependent on the lay community for basic provisions of food and clothing, and in return the sangha members were to help guide the lay followers on the path of Dharma (…).
2) The disciplinary regulations for monks and nuns are intended to create a life that is simple and focused, rather than one of deprivation or severe asceticism. Celibacy is of primary importance in monastic discipline, seen as being the preeminent factor in separating the life of a monastic from that of a householder (…).
3) Unlike Christian monastics, Buddhist monastics are not required to live a life of obedience to a superior (…).The Buddha did not appoint a successor, nor did he specify rules mandating obedience in the monastic code. Individual groups of monastics are expected to make decisions collectively through regular gatherings of the community, at which decisions regarding violations of monastic rules and the dispositions of communal property are to be made. Individual relationships of teacher/student, senior/junior, and preceptor/trainee may be observed among groups of monastics, but there are no formal positions, nor is there any authority to give orders or commands invested in senior monks. An abbess or abbot, typically a senior monastic still young enough to be active, is usually responsible for the day-to-day administration of the monastery, and may appoint others to assist with the work. In some traditions, the abbess/abbot is chosen by a vote of the monastics. In other traditions (Thailand, for example), the abbot is chosen by the lay community (Buddhist monasticism, Wikipedia).
2.5 Lay Buddhism
Definition
In contemporary Buddhist communities, householder is often used synonymously with laity. The Buddhist notion of householder is contrasted with that of wandering ascetics and monastics, who would not live (for extended periods) in a normal house and who would pursue freedom from attachments to houses and families (Buddhist Householder, Wikipedia).
Non-violence
Non-violence is an important tenet of the religions that originated in ancient India (Hinduism, Buddhism and especially Jainism). It is closely connected with the notion that all kinds of violence entail negative karmic consequences. The extent to which the principle of non-violence can or should be applied to different life forms is controversial between various authorities, movements and currents within the three religions and has been a matter of debate for thousands of years.
Following a list of practical rules in the context of non-violence:
1. Buddhists have always condemned the killing of animals in ritual sacrifice.
2. In most Buddhist traditions vegetarianism is not mandatory. Monks and lay persons may eat meat and fish on condition that the animal was not killed specifically for them.
3. Since the beginnings of the Buddhist community, monks and nuns have had to commit themselves to the Ten Precepts of moral conduct. In ancient Buddhism lay persons were encouraged, but not obliged, to commit themselves to observe the Five Precepts of morality. In both codes the first rule is to abstain from taking the life of a sentient being.
4. Unlike the Vedic religion, ancient Buddhism had strong misgivings about violent ways of punishing criminals and about war. Both were not explicitly condemned but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged.
(Ahimsa, Wikipedia)
Theravada Buddhism
Through a close examination of three textual resources, we can see that a Buddhist cannot justify violence under any circumstance.
(Is Violence Justified in Theravada Buddhism?, Conclusion, by Deegalle Mahinda)
Theravada is the oldest tradition of Buddhism. Subsequent philosophers however came to different conclusions. The phenomenon of violence in the name of Buddhism is of special interest:
Mahjana Buddhism
The principle of non-violence is relativized in Mahajana texts as follows:
1) Lay followers of Buddha should use weapons and fight to defend the Buddhist religion and pure monks
2) The killing of persons who discard the Mahajana and who promulgate unwholesome doctrines is less grave than the killing of animals.
(Collective Violence and Religion)
Vajrayana Buddhism
Violence is also tolerated in Vajrayana Buddhism.
A discerning person can kill the following:
1. Those who hate the three jewels
2. Those who have a wrong attitude towards Buddha’s teaching
3. Those who disparage the Vajrayana masters
A Bodhisattva king led his army to conquer and annihilate the Muslim forces and to re-establish Buddhism
A Budhisattva can kill out of compassion to save someone from being murdered by a dacoit.
(Collective Violence and Religion)
Zen Buddhism
Complete quietude and rejection of the value of the world is tantamount to a rejection of life and a dismissal of the meaning of all our actions--and this can easily result in a real moral callousness. Buddhism itself, while preaching abstention and non-violence, passed into Chinese and Japanese traditions of Zen where the aesthetic affinities of the viewpoint were developed and much of the thrust of the doctrine was subtly altered. Thus Zen became the special branch of Buddhism for the samurai warrior class of Japan, where violence, far from being rejected, was exalted into art. Death and killing, indeed in this world of illusion, were of no significance if done with enlightened detachment (The Origin of Value in a Transcendent Function, Kelley A.Ross).
3.1 Definition
The word "Hellenism" is used in several distinct ways:
1. The principal meaning is the emanation outward of culture and ideas from classical Greece to the rest of the world, with classical Greek culture and ideas either replacing local culture and ideas, or amending local customs.
2. The second meaning of the word refers to the intensification of this process during the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) and its continuation as a cultural force up until about 400 A.D.
3. The third meaning is the general field of study of ancient Greek, which could include both processes just mentioned, plus scholarship since the time of the Greeks. It is also sometimes used as another word for Hellenic polytheism.
(Hellenism, Wikipedia)
The second of above meanings refers to the Hellenistic age or the Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek:
1. The period following Aristotle (384 B.C. – 322 B.C.) until the fall of the Western Roman Empire (about 400 A.D.) is called the Hellenistic Age, a term signifying the lasting influence of the Greeks, also known as the Hellenes. During the Hellenistic Age, people, both Greek and Roman, wanted ways to live a virtuous life in the face of rapidly changing social conditions (Greek and Hellenistic Philosophy, T.O’Connor).
2. The Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek history was the period between the death of Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome in 146 BC. Although the establishment of Roman rule did not break the continuity of Hellenistic society and culture, which remained essentially unchanged until the advent of Christianity (in the 5th century), it did mark the end of Greek political independence (Hellenistic Greece, Wikipedia).
The great centers of Hellenistic culture were Alexandria and Antioch, capitals of Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria respectively.
Hellenistic simply means Greek and Asian Culture together (Hellenistic Greece, Wikipedia).
3.2 Skepticism
Origin
Skepticism had its roots in Socrates' teachings: specifically, in Socrates' repeated claim that he did not know anything. It is based on the work of Pyrrho of Elis ca. 360-270 B.C. (Hellenistic Thought, Forrest Baird).
Definition
1. Pyrrho urged people to seek calmness of mind by suspending all judgment. This is called epoché. The Skeptic school asserted that, since knowledge of the truth cannot be attained by human beings, it is best to abstain from any form of judgment whatsoever (Axiology, a Theory of Value)
2. The wise person admits that they really don’t know. All people can do is render opinion, and for each opinion, there is an equally compelling case for the opposite opinion. Customs and laws provide the only reliable guides to action, and beyond this, there is only the sensation of probability that occurs inside of us like an instinct or intuition which guides us to behave morally. Skepticism is based on the method of doubt, of keeping an open mind, and never resorting to dogmatism or fanaticism. The lasting contributions of Skepticism are a respect for laws in different places and the method of doubt (Greek and Hellenistic Philosophy, T.O’Connor).
Comparison with Theravada Buddhism
Concerning any possible Buddhist influence on ethics and epistemology of some Greek-Hellenistic philosophical schools, we may contend that Pyrrho’s method of suspending judgment (epoché) exhibits an amazing congruity with the original Buddhist meditation system (dhyâna) [Vukomanovic, 164-165]
Comparison with Zen Buddhism
1. Zen asserts, as do other schools in Mahayana Buddhism, that all sentient beings possess a Buddha-nature, a nature of inherent wisdom and virtue, which lies hidden in the depths of their minds. Zen practitioners attempt to discover this Buddha-nature within themselves, through meditation and mindfulness of daily experiences. They believe that this provides new perspectives on their existence, which ultimately lead to enlightenment. Contrary to many other Buddhist sects, Zen deemphasizes religious texts and verbal discourse on metaphysical questions. Zen holds that these things lead the practitioner to seek external answers, rather than searching within their own minds, where Buddha-nature actually resides. In this sense Zen, as a means to deepen the practice and in contrast to many other religions, could be seen as fiercely anti-philosophical, anti-prescriptive and anti-theoretical (Zen, Wikipedia)
2. It is not only philosophical concepts that the Zen Buddhist wants to eliminate, and not only concepts of good and evil and the like; he wants to do away with all concepts. One of the most emphatic of the masters who expressed this idea was Huang-po. He said: Do not deceive yourselves with conceptual thinking, and do not look anywhere for the truth, for all that is needed is to refrain from allowing concepts to arise. "Right thinking," is not thinking in terms of good and evil, sorrow and joy, beginning and end, acceptance and rejection, likes and dislikes, aversion and love. More positively, he says: You should know that setting forth the principle of deliverance in its entirety amounts only to this--when things happen, make no response: keep your minds from dwelling on anything whatsoever: keep them forever still as the void and utterly pure (without stain): and thereby spontaneously attain deliverance (Skepticism, ordinary language and Zen Buddhism, Dick Garner).
3.3 Epicureanism
Origin
Another early Socratic school, the Cyrenaics, was founded by one of Socrates' associates and admirers, Aristippus of Cyrene, from Libya, North Africa. The Cyrenaics disparaged speculative philosophy and extolled the pleasure of the moment. But, following Aristippus, they maintained that the purest pleasure derives from self-mastery and the philosophic life. The Cyrenaic philosophy, with its understanding of the good life as enjoyment of stable pleasures, led to the development of the Epicurean school (Hellenistic Thought, Forrest Baird).
Definition
1) In contradistinction to the Stoic school, which advocated ascetism, the Epicurean school, which started with Epicurus (341-270 B. C.), advocated pleasure as the supreme good. Epicurus considered pleasure to be directly in accord with virtue. By pleasure he did not mean physical pleasure, but rather having no pain in one's body and giving calm and repose to one's soul. Epicurus called this peaceful state of mind ataraxia, or the state of separation from pain, and regarded it as the supreme state of being
(Axiology, a Theory of Value).
2) In order to achieve ataraxia, people must scale down their desires, overcome useless fears, and turn to seeking mental pleasures (which have the effect of calming the body; mental health brings about physical health; ideas have consequences). To scale down desires, the Epicureans advocated frugality, living within one’s financial means and needing little. To overcome fear, the Epicureans had two solutions:
a) Forget about God, as all that exists are an infinite number of atoms arranged without any purpose in the universe. One cannot get free from fear, as long as one doesn’t understand the world and gets worried by myths. It is not possible to become truly happy without knowing nature. (see Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura)
b) Two, seek out the company of pleasant, decent people like yourself and arrange a social contract to work towards the establishment of just laws that deter those who would harm you and your kind. This idea of a social contract is the first known conception of social contract, an agreement between individuals, or between individuals and a government, to give up some liberties in return for the guarantee of more freedom, personal safety, and a well-ordered society. The invention of social contract thinking on the part of the Epicureans represents one of their greatest contributions to ethical theory.
(Greek and Hellenistic Philosophy, T.O’Connor)
Comparison with Buddhism
1) The two most influential proponents of hedonism, Buddha and Epicurus made a remarkable claim. They promised that if we adopt the values of the hedonist, and follow certain practical advice, we can achieve an invulnerable form of happiness. We can become happy regardless of our circumstances, and remain happy no matter what happens to us. A promise like that is worth taking seriously!
2) Buddha and Epicurus develop an approach to happiness that is largely overlooked in the contemporary Western world. Roughly speaking, our approach is to take our desires for granted, and strive to accumulate the power and knowledge necessary to shape the world as we want it to be. In pursuing this strategy, we become hostages to fate, for all too often the world refuses to give way to our demands. The alternative approach, pursued by Epicureans and Buddhists, is to work in the other direction: instead of conforming the world to our desires, we could conform our desires—and our conception of happiness itself—to the world. Epicureans and Buddhists equate living well with happiness, but characterize happiness in a negative way. That is, they portray it in terms of what it excludes, rather than in terms of what it includes: essentially, it is the absence of suffering, the absence of any form of mental turmoil.
(Hedonism: Is the Pleasant Life the Best Life?)
3) The similarity of the two concepts can be summarized by the following citations:
a) Suffering can be terminated by ending human desire (Siddharta Gautama, 490-410 B.C.)
b) If you want to make a man happy, add not to his riches but take away his desires (Epicurus of Samos, 341 - 270 B.C.)
3.4 Stoicism
Origin
1. The founder of the Stoic school was Zeno of Citium ca. 334-263 B. C. He taught in the famous Stoa Poikile (the painted porch) in Athens from which his philosophy got its name.
2. Various philosophers, such as the Pythagoreans, had advocated simple living in the centuries preceding the Cynics (…). Perhaps of importance were tales of Indian philosophers, known to later Greeks as the Gymnosophists, who had adopted a strict asceticism together with disrespect for established laws and customs. However, the most immediate influence for the Cynic school was Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Although he was not an ascetic, he did profess a love of virtue and an indifference to wealth, together with a disdain for general opinion (…) The story of Cynicism traditionally begins with Antisthenes, (445-365) who was an older contemporary of Plato and a pupil of Socrates (…) Diogenes of Sinope (412-323 B.C.) adopted Antisthenes teachings and embraced the ascetic way of life, adopting a lifestyle of self-sufficiency (autarkeia), austerity (askēsis), and shamelessness (anaideia). He became known as "the Dog" which is the likeliest derivation of the word "Cynic." (Cynic, Wikipedia)
3. Zenon combined the cynical doctrine with concepts of Heraklit and Aristoteles. Because of this historical development there are many relations between Stoicism and Nicomachean ethics.
Early Stoicism (ca. 340-180 B.C.)
1) Stoicism was generally seen as a back-to-nature movement critical of superstitions and taboos. The philosophical detachment also encompassed pain and misfortune, good or bad experiences, as well as life or death. Zeno often challenged prohibitions, traditions and customs. Another tenet was the emphasis placed on love for all other beings (…). The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration. (Stoicism, Wikipedia)
2) According to Stoicism, Logos (law, reason) dwells in all things in the universe, and the universe moves in an orderly fashion according to laws. Likewise, Logos dwells in people as well. Therefore, we can know the law of the universe through our reason, and should "live according to nature." That was the basic position of the Stoic school. The Stoics held that people feel pain because they have passions. To solve this, people should rid themselves of passions and reach the state of apathy (the absence of passion) or the perfectly peaceful state of a mind that will not be tempted in any way. Thus, the Stoic school advocated an asceticism in which the supreme virtue was apathy (Axiology, a Theory of Value).
3) Stoics focus their passion on virtue, right living in harmony with the highest potentials of humanity --- and so they are and should be utterly indifferent in the face of most day-to-day distractions. Strong feelings are simply inappropriate reactions to irrelevant happenstance. The Stoics held that an emotion requires a prior judgment. For example, you cannot feel anger unless you think someone has harmed you, and that this matters to you in some significant respect. Some texts indicate that the Stoics thought that the judgment and the emotion are one and the same thing: that is, your thinking about something in a certain way -- making the judgment -- happens automatically with a specific affect, the emotion. In particular, the Stoic thinks that all judgments that give rise to emotions are false. The Stoic does not so much repress emotions as simply stop making false judgments. The Stoic does not accept that someone insulting them (for example) constitutes a real harm, and so will not be angry (apathy, Zhurnal Wiki).
Late Stoicism (ca. 27 B.C.-180 A.D.)
1) It is likely that the Romans first came in contact with Greek civilization through the Greek city-states in southern Italy and in Sicily (both of which formed Magna Graecia — "Greater Greece"). These colonies had been established as a result of Greek expansion that took place in these two areas beginning in the 8th century BC. (Roman Republic, Wikipedia)
2) Late Stoicism is characterized by the influence of the Romans, starting with the rise of the Roman empire about 27 B.C. The Roman influence can be described as follows (Stoiker und Epikureer, Peter Möller):
a) New customs and a new tradition were established. The duty to the partner (marriage), the family (children) and the state became of prime importance:
Second-century Stoicism set the standards for acceptable behavior and provided justification not only for traditional Roman mores, but for Roman rule. This represents a drastic change from the values of the Early Stoa: although Roman Stoicism preached "restraint and conformity," the original Stoa four centuries earlier was a center of "dissident asceticism and social radicalism" (Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World, James A.Francis).
b) The idea of cosmopolitanism became the predominant social vision:
All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, where of the city political is only a copy." This sentiment echoes that of Socrates, who said "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."
They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings (Stoicism, Wikipedia)
The term “natural equality”, however, did not imply equality of opportunity. It only meant that each individual has an equal potential to liberate him-/herself from passion, the slave as well as the emperor.
Stoicism held that external circumstances (such as being enslaved) did not truly impede a person from practicing the Stoic ideal of inner self-mastery (Slavery in antiquity)
a position which contributed to the acceptance of slavery.
3) The main exponents of late Stoicism were Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius. The manual of Epictetus is representative for the late Stoicism.
4) Apatheia does not involve the sage in being insensitive to pleasure and pain. He feels them but overcomes them, recognizing that pain is not to be feared and that pleasure is not a true good. The wise man’s life is consequently smooth-flowing not as a result of external fortune but through his own settled disposition. The state of rational joy experienced by the sage is based on living in accordance with (in harmony with) Nature. What does this involve? First and foremost it is the consistent acceptance of all that befalls him, stemming from a fixed disposition and an understanding of the ways of Nature (…) This is a complete rejection of the pleasure principle. Only virtue is good and is to be chosen for its own sake (…). The wise man, says Seneca, is like Stilbo who, ‘when his home town was captured, his children lost, his wife lost, was questioned whether he had lost anything he replied, ‘I have all my valuables with me.’(…). The teaching of the Stoa in this respect is essentially that of every religious tradition: that there exists some thing, in this life or another, the value of which is so great that we must be ready to give up all else for its sake (…) [Roots]
5) The sage is also to take part in political life, according to his station. He might be a slave, a laborer, a craftsman, a senator or an emperor. ‘Virtue you will find in the temple, in the forum, in the senate house - you will find her standing in front of the city walls dirty and stained, and with calloused hands.’ The choice of part is not the sage’s to make; nor are success or failure within his control. All that is within his power is to perform the part well (…) The Stoic recommendation of suicide is not directed to those who are conquered by life but to those who have conquered life, are able both to live and to die and can choose freely between them.’ [Roots]
6) The early Stoics believed that the universe is informed and governed by divine Providence. While we must accept that all things are fated, we can also know that everything is for the good. Although this remained orthodox Stoic teaching and is still to be found in the later writings, we also become aware of an increasing note of hesitancy in the late Stoa (…) Seneca’s nephew, the Stoic poet Lucan, rejected altogether the idea of Fate as benevolent. Fate, or Fortune, is a callous master that destined Romans to lose their freedom in the civil war. (…) There is still in the late Stoic ideal the threefold identification of virtue, freedom and happiness. However, the virtue has become focused on courage and on ‘stoicism’ in the modern sense of self-control and indifference to adversity. ‘If a man can look at flashing swords with eyes unswerving, if he knows that it is of no moment to him whether his soul departs through mouth or throat, call him happy. Call him happy if, when physical torture is decreed for him . . . with mind unperturbed he hears of chains and exile and the empty terrors of mankind.’[Roots]
7) In A.D. the Stoic Marcus Aurelius became emperor of Rome. One might expect that this would have been as portentous for Stoicism as the later ascension to the throne of Constantine was for Christianity. In fact, by the year 200 Stoicism was in sharp decline as a separate school of philosophy. Why? To answer this we must return to the question of what is the essence of Stoicism (…) Let us begin by stripping down Stoic anthropology to its barest bones, excluding all elements within it, which were not agreed by both early and late Stoics in the classical period. I think that we are left with the following elements of thought, a tension between
a) man as a rational part of the Universal Nature, a part of the continuum rather than a separate ‘self’; and
b) man’s essential aloneness as an individual.
Both elements existed in Stoic thought throughout the classical period but the early Stoa emphasized the former element, the late Stoa emphasized the latter. I believe it was the shift from (a) to (b) that resulted in the decline of Stoicism. Closely linked to this, and partly causing it, was the move from the thoroughgoing cosmological optimism of the early Stoa to the cosmological agnosticism of the late Stoa. The thought of the Stoa was moving towards a complete focus on the ethics, in particular on the ability to stand strong no matter what [Roots]
Comparison with Buddhism
History
1. Stoicism was influenced by Buddhist and Jain thoughts (see Le bonheur-liberté, Buddhism profond et modernité, Serge-Chrisoph Kolm, Presses universitaires de France, Kolm, 1982).
2. Apatheia is awareness not-caring about things that are unworthy of concern. Stoic sages (theoretical ideals) practice apatheia when they avoid emotional reactions to mundane events. The concept is close to the Daoist wu wei and the Zen mu.
3. Unlike Stoicism, though, Buddhism recommends that the meaning of life consists not in restricting desires so as to achieve happiness in this life; rather, the Buddhist claims that life has meaning only if it is understood as a mere stepping stone to an enlightenment in which the self escapes from worldly concerns. Buddhism does not suggest that the answer to possessive individualism lies in restructuring our secular economic systems. Rather, it interprets the concentration on economic matters simply as yet another distraction from the real task at hand, namely, the need to stop wanting or desiring property (individual or communal) altogether (Stoicism, Buddhism and the Meaning of Life, Stephen H.Daniel).
4. Stoicism attempts to eliminate irrational preferences as well as Buddhism. Similarly to Buddhism the elimination should be reached by insight and not by prohibition. But in contrast to Buddhism transient preferences are accepted as long as the transience is a consciously calculated risk. The goal is a realistic estimation of risk and not the avoidance of risk. However, the exposure to risk changed from the early to the late Stoa. Late Stoicism with its emphasis on duty to the family and the state enhanced the realm of risks to be managed. The risks of a retreat-oriented Greek community are hardly comparable with the ones of a Roman troop of soldiers. Emotional sacrifices only make sense, if they are imbedded into an optimistic worldview. The loss of optimism, induced by Roman civil wars led to the decline of the Stoa:
The Crisis of the Third Century is a commonly applied name for the crumbling and near collapse of the Roman Empire between 235 and 284. It is also called the period of the "military anarchy".
5. The elimination of passion eliminates the risk of disrespecting duty, but it also serves risk-taking in the name of duty. Stoicism, which started as a back-to-nature philosophy, became a cornerstone of Roman militarism. The dissident philosophy of the cynic mentors with its affinity to Buddhism was transformed into a tool for imperialistic expansion.
4.1 Basics
Definition
1) Risk ethics investigates the general question under which conditions a person is permitted to expose him/herself or others to a risk [Philosophisches Seminar, 4].
2) Risk-averse ethics is characterized by sacrificing chances (respectively efficiency) in order to avoid risks.
For a more detailed definition see Hostility and the Minimization of Suffering.
Rationality
Risk ethics is a means to valuate the rationality of behavior. Examples:
1. Meditation
In Buddhism meditation is an approximation to the perfect state. But meditation can also be seen as a rational adaptation to the fact, that death is inevitable.
2. The modest life (Eightfold Path)
In Buddhism the modest life sets the preconditions for meditation. But the modest life can also be seen as an adaptation to a (possible) scarce environment, i.e. as a strategy which makes the individual less dependent from the environment. Because of the omnipresence of contingency [Hampe], it has a rational aspect.
3. Monasticism
Monastic Buddhism sacrifices intense (but volatile) biological happiness in order to avoid suffering. This strategy can be called risk-averse but not irrational.
Commitment-related risk
The original versions of Buddhist and Hellenistic schools developed a strategy to reduce individual risk by reducing emotional and social commitment. The reduction of risk has to be paid by a reduction of emotional intensity and the challenge is to find a kind of happiness which compensates this loss, see On the Buddhist Truths and the Paradoxes in Population Ethics.
If the Hellenistic and Buddhist schools are ordered according to their social commitments then we get the following table:
|
Risk Category |
School |
Commitment |
|
hermits |
Buddhist hermits, skeptics |
very low |
|
monks |
Buddhist monks |
low |
|
laic retreat |
Epicureans |
medium |
|
non-violent politics |
high |
|
|
armed defense |
Stoics, Lay Buddhists |
very high |
The increasing social commitment in this table corresponds to increasing risks. Only those risk profiles are documented, which represent a clearly distinct category.
1. Skeptics cultivate relations but don’t commit themselves in whatever they do. In contrast to Stoics they are in a passive mode and do not pursue social or political goals.
2. The category armed defense represents those people who have something to loose: material or cultural goods, families or social positions.
Do the Buddhist and Hellenistic schools live up to their promises?
In the following chapters we look at the different schools in detail and try to separate the consequentialist arguments from irrational beliefs. The following strategies are investigated:
1) Individual level: The reduction of risk by reducing commitments
2) Society level:
a) The reduction of risk within the family/community by reducing passions
b) The reduction of risk by the monopoly of power of the state combined with armed defense against foreign aggressors.
4.2 Hermits
Individual level
A hermit avoids the attachments to material goods. If he has nothing to loose and nothing to defend the risk to be attacked decreases significantly. He will therefore escape most situations, which require violence. In addition a hermit avoids the commitment to the rules of a monastery and the emotional attachment to friends. On the other hand he exposes himself to the risk of being physically attacked. For women a life in retreat (similar to the life of anchoresses in the Middle Age) was practically impossible in the Indian society.
The risk of a loner is not only a physical but also a psychological one. The disrespect of the biological nature is tied to an increased risk of mental illness. Buddha, by challenging the power of the Hindu gods, also challenged the power of the biological forces within the human psyche. The Hindu equilibrium (between biological and ethical goals) was abandoned in favor of a clear ethical dominance. It is documented, that the founder of Buddhism was a pragmatic thinker (like Epicurus) and not a dogmatic philosopher. How was it possible to associate the Middle way with the life of a hermit?
The reason for the radical Buddhist abandonment of attachments is the belief in a specific kind of reincarnation which postulates, that the more attachments can be eliminated in the present life, the more favorable reincarnation will be, i.e. the less suffering will have to be experienced in the next life.
Specialization is a strategy of survival. People who survive because they specialize on arms and fighting techniques will suffer from the techniques they invented. In Hinduism the children of warriors became warriors. An education which favors violence and suffering leads to an environment with a higher degree of violence and suffering. As far as children reincarnate the genes of their parents, the karmic law has a pragmatic background. Nevertheless, from a scientific point of view the reincarnation of individual souls is implausible. A possible alternative to the systematic reduction of the desire to survive is therefore to simply wait until age and illness lead to a weakening of this paramount preference.
The Eightfold Path would probably look different, if Buddha could have known the modern (genetic) concept of reincarnation. There is no guarantee to be spared from suffering by restricting risk. And there is no certitude to reach a durable level of happiness by pursuing contemplative happiness instead of biological happiness. The desirable degree of disengagement is the solution to the following optimization problem:
The elimination of attachments and desires avoids suffering but, (because it frustrates the desire to survive) produces suffering as well. At a certain point the process of preference-elimination becomes counterproductive, i.e. it produces more suffering than it eliminates (e.g. depression).
Society level
A householder who decides to become a hermit reduces his commitment-related risk, but at the same time increases the risk of the other family members. Moral dilemmas are among the reasons for a negative valuation of life and social commitment is inevitably tied to such dilemmas
(Example: The affirmation of torture to one person in order to prevent many persons from torture).
At the times of Buddha the cruelties of war were already inexpressible. In the actual world where weapons for mass destruction (atomic, biological and chemical) protect wives and children the skeptic view seems to be justified more than ever. It is not sufficient to deny military service and let other people do the dirty job. To have a family within a political system is morally tied to the protecting power of this system. A pacifist may be ready to sacrifice his life to he principle of non-violence but he cannot make such a decision for his children.
Disengagement allows avoiding moral dilemmas but it also leads to moral dilemmas (in cases where a Buddhist could help and remains passive). A profound skepticism disburdens a Buddhist from the latter argument. The principle of disengagement is based on the thesis that all kinds of activities (by means of long term counterproductive mechanisms) lead to an increase in suffering.
a) Example of life-friendly activities: Medical progress reduced suffering but also lead to overpopulation and subsequent increased suffering. From this point of view altruistic activities can be considered as friendly masks which conceal the cruel face of life and mislead people about its true nature.
b) Example of hostile activities: Euthanasia and birth control seem to be hostile, but in a long term view improve the chances to survive by avoiding overpopulation.
With respect to the complexity of the system in consideration, we have to admit that the long term consequences (the Indians call it karmic consequences) of our actions are largely unknown. It is however unreasonable to claim, that every action increases suffering. The belief in the reincarnation of individual souls as a means to establish justice is clearly inappropriate.
Conclusion:
1. Even the best concept of justice cannot remove the moral dilemmas. A retreat-oriented life is morally defensible.
2. Complete passivity is hardly the best strategy to improve justice.
4.3 Monks
Individual level
1. People who have nothing to loose, who don’t make claims and live apart from the centers of power are relatively uninteresting to be attacked. Their security can even be increased, if they offer services to the power holders. Buddhist monks e.g. made themselves useful by giving spiritual advice and by passing knowledge from one generation to the other.
2. Insofar as a Buddhist monk abstains from politics he can avoid the struggle for power and corresponding violence. But his political passivity lacks a strategy of escape. Friendship and protection within the monastery make it difficult to change the domicile. In contrast a Buddhist hermit is able to change his domicile at any time.
3. Monks share with hermits an increased risk of mental illness by the rigorous control of passions.
Society level
1) The byelaws of a Buddhist monastery conform well to democratic principles (see chapter 2.4). Monasteries are the earliest known models of a social contract. In a monastery all inmates control their passions and abstain from violence on a volunteer basis. But whereas a single individual may protect itself by retreating to a forest or a mountain, a Buddhist community needs a protecting power.
2) Even if the majority of society votes for a non-violent way of living, a minority can destroy them. It is impossible to construct a constitution on the basis of non-violence.
3) For justice outside the monastery the same consideration applies as for hermits.
a) Even the best concept of justice cannot remove the moral dilemmas. A retreat-oriented life is morally defensible.
b) Complete passivity is hardly the best strategy to improve justice.
4.4 Laic Retreat
Individual level
1. Epicurus is (in analogy to Buddha) a father of enlightenment by freeing humans from the belief in revengeful gods. But the turning away from revengeful gods doesn’t remove suffering in the world; it just eliminates a specific interpretation of suffering. This (Buddhist) insight was lost in the Epicurean Enlightenment as well as in the 18th century Enlightenment.
2. Insofar as an Epicurean abstains from politics he can avoid the struggle for power and corresponding violence. But his political passivity lacks a strategy of escape. The network of friends replaces the protecting wall of a monastery but makes it difficult to change the domicile. In contrast a Buddhist hermit is able to change his domicile at any time.
Society level
The rules within an Epicurean community conform well to democratic principles. All members of an Epicurean community control their passions and abstain from violence on a volunteer basis. Epicurean communities are among the earliest known models of a social contract (see chapter 3.3).
The Epicurean strategy of retreat has to be understood as a reaction to erratic political systems and cannot be the basis for general political skepticism. Within the Athenian democracy there were few arguments to renounce political engagement:
In the Greek city states until about a century before the birth of Epicurus, securing the obedience of the poor had not been a serious problem (…). Then a combination of commercial progress and the disruptions of the war between Athens and Sparta created a steadily widening gulf between rich and poor. There was also a growing problem of how to maintain large by unknown numbers of slaves in peaceful subjection. The result was a class war that destabilized every Greek state. The sort of democracy seen in Athens could survive in a society where citizens were broadly equal (Epicurus, Father of the Enlightenment by Gabb Sean)
1. Epicurus dismissed the Plato’s belief in reincarnation and the corresponding charge by previous lives’ errors but thereby he also dismissed the concept of justice which is implied in reincarnation. According to Epicurus there is no absolute justice. With respect to a small community justice has the same meaning for everybody but not for other countries and different conditions (Focus, Online). Basically he advised to retreat in small communities with specific rules (social contracts), a strategy which suits privileged (protected) persons who don’t have to fight for basic rights. For justice outside the Epicurean community the same consideration applies as for hermits.
2. It is inconsequent to justify political passivity by skepticism (e.g. moral dilemmas) and then create a family and expose it to risk. Epicurus escaped this criticism because he didn’t get married and didn’t have children (as far as known). But householders have to remind Plato’s vote for political engagement:
To philosophize and concern oneself with politics is one and the same thing, and to wrestle with the sophist means at the same time to defend the city against tyranny (A. Koyré, Discovering Plato, New York, 1945, p.108.)
4.5 Non-Violent Politics
Individual level
The more a missionary operates in the territory of a conflicting worldview, the more he is exposed to risk, no matter if his mission is a non-violent one. The Buddhist propagation of ethical knowledge is an altruistic strategy and can only increase the happiness of the missionary if he has a corresponding altruistic character.
Society level
1) A bodhisattva is by definition a person who gets involved on the society level but without commitments on the group level (family or monastery).If a householder becomes a bodhisattva he improves the situation on the society level but possibly increases the risks of his own family.
2) The thesis that evolution does not lead to a reduction of suffering is implied in the First Noble Truth. Buddha was conscious that the violent propagation of his ethical concept and the implied struggle for power is a logical contradiction. A Buddhist is neither a winner nor can he be defeated. According to Buddha suffering can be reduced by the power of insight, but not by the power of weapons. Survival is rather seen as a punishment than as a victory. The attempt to seize political power is therefore fundamentally anti-Buddhist.
3) Nevertheless the extent to which the principle of disengagement should be practiced was the subject of a controversial discussion between the Theravada and Mahajana theoreticians of Buddhism. Theravada Buddhists maintained that individual redemption leads to the best state of affairs, whereas Mahajana Buddhists thought that the active propagation of the Buddhist philosophy is the better strategy. The principle of non-violent engagement is best represented by the Bodhisattva, the moral ideal of the Mahajana tradition. A Bodhisattva is anyone who is motivated by compassion and seeks enlightenment not only for him/herself but also for everyone.
A contemporary version of the Bodhisattva strategy would be to actively (but non-violently) promote ethical knowledge. In practice this would mean to be politically active but refute military service. Is this a rational strategy?
1) It is inconsequent to commit to a family and then refuse an armed defense of the children. The Bodhisattva escapes this moral dilemma due to his celibacy.
2) The karmic law (and the corresponding claim that in no case violence can be justified) is implausible.
4.6 Armed Defence
Individual level
Even for hermits and monks it is only possible to reduce the probability of an attack. The right to use violence in order to defend one’s own physical integrity is hard to deny. But usually armed defense is required for people who have something to loose: material goods, families or social positions. In this case numerous complex moral questions arise. Can it ever be morally right
1. to advocate the armed defense of one’s own basic rights and then refuse military service (e.g. in a militia)?
2. to defend privileges by arms?
3. to let others do the dirty job of defending privileges?
4. to justify non-violence by skepticism and then create a family and expose it to risk?
Individual suffering may be reduced by direct or indirect armed defense. But the moral legitimation can only be given by a concept of justice.
Society level
1. Stoics and lay Buddhists are characterized by their mastering of passions. The control of anger (outrage) in particular reduces the risk of violent conflicts within the family or community. On the other hand, as the Buddhist samurai (chapter 2.5) and the Stoic warriors have demonstrated, it facilitates emotionless killing in the name of the Dharma respectively in the name of the universal Stoic law.
2. Given a modern theory of karma the principle of disengagment is open to falsification. Negative utilitarians like David Pierce postulate that cultural evolution cannot be slowed down and active intervention leads to a better result than disengagement. But is this also true for violent interventions? The fact that Epicurean and Buddhist communities need a protecting power leads to a key question:
Is violence justified if it prevents the destruction of ethical knowledge?
Example:
1. Consequentialist thinking suggests that the killing of a tyrant who eradicates Buddhism is the better strategy than disengagement.
2. A Buddhist skeptic maintains that it is only possible to kill the tyrant but not the law that produced him. In much the same way the tyrant can only kill the Buddhist but not the law that produced him. The truth cannot be destroyed and therefore doesn’t have to be defended. The truth will emanate from experience and reflection again and again. Buddha was convinced that individual liberation is possible for most people. Insofar he was an optimist. But he never raised a claim that the truth will conquer the world (in the sense of a collective redemption). Killing in the name of Buddhism is clearly an aberration with regard to the original doctrine.
3. In contrast, killing in the name of the Stoic law is consistent with the original doctrine. If we consider e.g. Rawls Theory of Justice to be the contemporary Stoic law (founded by reason), then violence would be permitted to defend this concept. A Hindu, who adopts Rawls theory as the contemporary Dharma, would defend it as well, but, in contrast to the Stoic, he/she is convinced to live in a world of illusions (Maja).
Above question concerning the destruction of ethical knowledge is just a special case within the following general question:
Is violence justified if the suffering caused by violence is smaller than the suffering prevented?
As far as the karmic law (and the corresponding principle of non-violence) is tied to the reincarnation of individual souls, it is implausible. A strategy which consists in the non-violent promotion of ethical knowledge is not necessarily the best solution. The use of violence to control violence (the monopoly of power of the state) is e.g. hard to refute in democratic societies. Also the killing of a tyrant in order to install democracy seems to be justifiable. But in many cases the complexity and non-predictability of the system doesn’t allow to check the moral preconditions for the use of violence: Experience has shown that a war, once initiated, starts to develop a momentum of its own and spreads into unforeseen directions (so that it is impossible to know if the suffering caused is smaller than the suffering prevented).
Even liberation movements, after an initial phase of perfect moral legitimation, often degenerate and adopt the brutality of the oppressors:
1. Strict hierarchies and zero tolerance
2. Internal power struggles inclusive murder
3. Terror against people who don’t want to collaborate
4. Assassination of dissidents
5. Torture of secret agents
6. Suicide bombing
7. Kidnapping of civilians
8. Organized crime (extortion, drug-trafficking) in order to get funds
9. Cruel moral ideals like self-immolation by burning
10. Infant soldiers
etc.
It is dangerous to make general statements about situations which justify violence. Most cases require a separate and detailed analysis. Examples:
1) The Risk and Deficiencies of Unsanctioned Humanitarian Intervention, Jim Whitman
2) The Politics of Impartial Activism, Bronwyn Leebaw
Individual level
Are the Buddhist and Hellenistic principles of disengagement rational strategies to reduce individual suffering?
1) The Buddhist model for a life in retreat is based on an implausible doctrine of reincarnation.
2) The Epicurean principles are rational for privileged persons in times of tyranny or political turmoil.
3) Stoicism encourages people to accept “life as it is” and to eliminate doubts and scruples (similarly to a religious belief). It is not rational insofar, as the suppression of fear serves risk-taking: This becomes evident in late Stoicism with its emphasis on duty in times of civil and imperialistic wars.
4) Skeptics also tend to accept things as they are, not in an affirmative sense as the Stoics, but out of incertitude about the desirable actions to be taken. As compared to Epicureans, they lack a clear strategy how to avoid suffering.
Schools which support an excessive control of passions are confronted with an increased risk of mental illness (sado-masochism, depression, pathological narcissism).
Society level
Is the principle of non-violence a rational strategy to improve justice (of the Rawls type)?
1) Most likely the principle is not rational under all circumstances and in all historical situations.
2) The use of violence may be justified if the result (a decrease in suffering) is guaranteed. But the issue is highly controversial if probabilities are involved.
The strategies in detail:
1) The Hindu principle of non-violence (Ahimsa) is based on an implausible karmic law.
2) The radical political skepticism of hermits and monks has to be respected because of the complexity of the system.
3) The Epicurean strategy is tied to childlessness. Familial commitment asks for political commitment.
4) The non-violent promotion of ethical knowledge (and a corresponding political engagement) probably improves the state of affairs.
5) The Stoic concept of justice (a god given natural law) is not suited to improve the state of affairs. Stoics distrust the adequacy of suffering instead of denying the world, which causes suffering.
|
1) Hampe Michael (2006), Die Macht des Zufalls, Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag, Berlin 2) Philosophisches Seminar der Universität Zürich (Wintersemester 2005/2006), Elemente der Risikoethik 3) Vukomanovic Milan, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, Assessing the Buddhist Influences
|
|
Further Reading
Buddhism 1. Buddhism, Description, Open Directory Project (2 pages) 2. Buddhism, by thebigview.com (10 small chapters) 3. What is Buddhism?, Open Directory Project 4. Access to Insight, Readings in Theravada Buddhism 5. Against Buddhism, Essay on Modern Buddhism 6. Brain and Mind, Mahajana Buddhist arguments against Materialism 7. Chinese Cultural Studies, In Defense of Buddhism 8. Dillon Matthey, Dialogues with Death, The Last Days of Socrates and the Buddha 9. Ellis Robert, How Buddhist was Plato?
Epicureanism 1. Amore Khan, Epicurus 2. Cook Vincent, Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy 3. Wikipedia, Epicurus
Hinduism Ross, Kelly M., The Caste System in Hinduism
Hellenistic Ethics 1. Hellenism, Wikipedia 2. Nussbaum Martha, The Therapy of Desire, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994
Risk Ethics 1. Ericson Richard V. and Doyle Aaron, eds. (2003), Risk and Morality, Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2. Margalit Avishai (2010), On Compromise and Rotten Compromises, Princeton University Press
Stoicism 2. Garret Jan, Introduction to Stoic Ethics 3. Miller Jon, Stoics and Spinoza on Suicide 4. Stoicism, Wikipedia.
|