I needed to mirror a bit extra on my debate with Charles Goodman at Princeton this November. (Should you haven’t seen it but, right here’s the video of the debate and our handouts.) I don’t suppose both of us would think about the controversy conclusive. Certainly, following the controversy, our conversations that afternoon indicated that the problems we had been actually involved about lay elsewhere.
A quick abstract of the place the controversy itself went: the Charles calls Śāntideva a utilitarian as a result of Śāntideva is a universalist consequentialist; meaning that he’s involved with bringing about one of the best general penalties for all beings. I dispute that “utilitarian” is the best time period as a result of I believe it has deceptive connotations: Charles agreed within the debate that his equation of Śāntideva and Peter Singer doesn’t work, and I believe that calling Śāntideva “utilitarian” results in related misinterpretations, although (as Charles famous) analytic philosophers typically deploy the time period in that method.
As for eudaimonism: Charles repeatedly defines eudaimonism as asserting “a really shut connection between virtuous actions and the agent’s personal well-being”, or one thing much like that. I believe it’s inarguable that there is such a detailed connection for Śāntideva in apply: virtuous actions at all times, or a minimum of practically at all times, do in truth enhance the agent’s well-being. Charles clarified in the course of the debate, although, that he didn’t imply a detailed connection in apply however a detailed conceptual connection: that’s, on his account of eudaimonism, virtuous actions are outlined in phrases of the agent’s well-being, as they’re for Aristotle and will not be for Śāntideva. I agreed that by that customary Śāntideva wouldn’t be a eudaimonist.
There may be most likely extra that could possibly be mentioned on the usage of each these phrases at difficulty, utilitarianism and eudaimonism. However Charles and I agreed that there’s not that a lot worth in making an attempt to say it. He and I agree on numerous issues; we picked the subject of utilitarianism and eudaimonism as a degree of disagreement in our interpretations of Śāntideva. However the useful factor we noticed within the debate was that our greater disagreement runs in a extra attention-grabbing and essential path – a constructive path. That’s: we truly disagree little or no, if in any respect, about what Śāntideva thinks. We disagree on the phrases we use to characterize him, however far more importantly, we disagree on whether or not he’s proper, about one explicit difficulty.
That difficulty is an argument that Charles refers to because the Ownerless Struggling Argument. The Ownerless Struggling Argument might be Śāntideva’s most well-known argument, the one excerpted in introductory ethics texts: in a nutshell, Śāntideva argues that as a result of the self is unreal, it is not sensible for us to deal with ourselves, or these expensive to us, higher than some other sentient beings in our actions. In Charles’s phrases, the view that Śāntideva argues for is agent-neutral: all individuals, all ethical brokers, ought to have the very same purpose as all the opposite ethical brokers, specifically the well-being of all sentient beings. We shouldn’t be a fan of our associates or households or neighbours, not to mention ourselves.
I agree with Charles that Śāntideva holds this view. Contra Charles, I additionally consider that Śāntideva is mistaken. I don’t suppose this argument works.
And when the disagreement strikes to this terrain, we’re now not coping with small questions of terminology. At difficulty now, amongst many different issues, is what sort of Buddhists we every are. Charles, I believe, is dedicated to Śāntideva’s Mahāyāna as interpreted by the Tibetans. However whereas I’ve drawn extra from Śāntideva than from some other Buddhist creator, and still pray to Mañjuśrī, I learned my own Buddhism in a Theravāda place, and at coronary heart I’m nonetheless a Theravādin. I take very severely the Dhammapāda’s advice that one shouldn’t neglect one’s personal welfare for the sake of one other.
Now I’ve also noted that Śāntideva’s view shouldn’t be essentially as removed from the Dhammapāda’s as it’d look. And Śāntideva makes a wholly completely different argument for altruism, one which I largely settle for. That is that beautiful paradox in Bodhicaryāvatāra VIII.129: “All these on this planet who’re struggling are so due to a need for their very own happiness. All these on this planet who’re blissful are so due to a need for the happiness of others.” Egocentrism, in apply, is self-defeating: cultivating other-regarding virtues of generosity and gentleness and honesty improves one’s personal well-being.
I believe that, general, Charles and I are prone to agree on Śāntideva’s paradox too. in the debate (simply after the one-hour mark), on one side of the query of whether or not egocentrism harms one’s well-being, he mentioned “I believe that is perhaps true, I believe there is perhaps some proof for that, however that’s an empirical query for the psychologists to speak about.” That quote might establish one other supply of disagreement between us, a methodological one: with John Doris, I refuse to establish philosophy as an a priori discipline of inquiry; I believe any philosophy that refuses to speak about empirical questions isn’t worthy of the identify philosophy. Aristotle was mistaken about an amazing many empirical questions, in fact, however he would by no means have dreamed of excluding such questions from his purview. There may be no room for NOMA in my philosophy: lots of crucial philosophical claims are topic to empirical affirmation or refutation, together with this one. Having mentioned that, I believe Charles and I (and Śāntideva!) would seemingly agree that the load of proof does level to egocentrism harming the agent’s well-being, in order that in itself shouldn’t be the place our nice disagreement lies.
Nevertheless, essential substantive disagreement stays. When one’s focus is turned to the best way other-regarding advantage helps one’s personal flourishing, it seemingly results in partiality: one pays extra concern to at least one’s family and friends and neighbours and colleagues than to strangers one doesn’t know. That partial view, which I settle for, shouldn’t be agent-neutral. An agent-neutral view like Śāntideva’s regards everyone equally, which is without doubt one of the causes he praises the monk’s life so extremely: it’s tough if not not possible to stay an agent-neutral life when one runs a household family.
It’s on that time of agent-neutrality the place there is settlement between Śāntideva and the in any other case very completely different thinker Peter Singer. Charles famous in our followup dialog that he agrees with Singer’s claim that “whether it is in our energy to stop one thing dangerous from occurring, with out thereby sacrificing something of comparable ethical significance, we ought, morally, to do it.” It appears to me that Singer’s philosophy and life are a reductio advert absurdum of this assertion: by Singer’s personal customary, Singer himself is a assassin. For Śāntideva, in contrast to for Singer, that form of common altruism is not an obligation – however it’s nonetheless one of the best plan of action to take. One must be giving cash to ravenous kids midway around the globe, not shopping for toys for one’s personal kids. For Śāntideva the monk, it will not be so arduous to stay as much as that philosophy; for a father like Charles, I believe, it’s a greater problem. (It’s related right here that the Buddha named his son with the word for “fetter”.)
You might have seen – I’m positive Charles has – that I’ve not truly refuted the Ownerless Struggling Argument itself right here (as, say, Paul Williams attempts to do). That’s by design: this publish shouldn’t be supposed to ascertain my view towards Charles’s. For one different level of settlement that he and I reached in our post-debate discussions was that we should always have a followup debate on this very subject. The place and when are to be decided – however I hope this publish units the context.
Cross-posted at the Indian Philosophy Blog.
