Dialogues Flashcards
What does it mean to describe a belief as “reasonable”?
based on reason and/or consistent with reason
What does it mean to describe beliefs as ‘coherent’?
Clear, logical, and consistent
What does it mean to say that beliefs within a belief-system are “consistent”?
They do not contradict the other beliefs within the system; they form a unified whole
Why may philosophical enquiry be seen as relevant to religious faith?
Faith may be strengthened by philosophical argument (e.g. Hick) / believers may use philosophy to show others that their religion is reasonable (e.g. Paley)
Why may philosophical enquiry be seen as irrelevant to religious faith?
Faith by definition does not rely on reason, and religious practice (e.g. worship) is more important believers than using reason / People of faith have ‘belief-in’, which has more of an emotional dimension than philosophy
What is ‘belief-that’?
Propositional belief: belief that a particular statement is true e.g. Belief that ‘Amitabha’s Pure Land exists’. Generally a more cold/logical approach to belief.
What is ‘belief-in’?
Evaluative belief: belief which involves an emotional attitude to the object of belief. e.g. Belief in Amitabha. Generally the kind of belief felt by people of faith - more resistant to reason.
What is the debate about the nature of faith as ‘belief-in’ or ‘belief-that’?
1) whether ‘belief-in’ is just a form of ‘belief-that’ - e.g. is ‘belief in Buddha’ logically equivalent to ‘belief that Buddha exists and is supremely good’, or do the sentences have different meanings?
2) whether religious belief should be engaged with as a propositional/logical belief ‘that’ or an emotional/evaluative belief ‘in’
Who first came up with the distinction between ‘belief-in’ and ‘belief-that’?
H.H. Price
In Ethics dialogues, who may be mentioned as a deontological thinker?
Kant
In Ethics dialogues, who may be mentioned as a teleological and consequentialist thinker?
Bentham
In Ethics dialogues, who may be mentioned as a character-based thinker?
Aristotle
Which Buddhist teachings could be used to support the idea that Buddhism is deontological?
Five Precepts (absolute rules) / Ahimsa / Bodhisattva Vow (duty) / Vinaya code / kusala acts / Right Action
Which Buddhist teachings could be used to support the idea that Buddhism is teleological/consequentialist?
Upaya (skilful means) / karma / kusala acts
Which Buddhist teachings could be used to support the idea that Buddhism is character-based?
Buddha-nature / Six Perfections (similar to virtues) / Arhat/Bodhisattva ideals
How would Buddhists respond to issues of human life and death?
Embryo research/cloning/designer babies: depending on how far ahimsa rule is taken (ref. back to Good Moral Conduct deck). Ref. to Dalai Lama views on genetic engineering.
Abortion: depending on how far ahimsa rule is taken (ref. back to Good Moral Conduct deck). Remember Japanese Buddhist specific ritual on abortion.
Voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide: against killing but could make an exception if already terminally ill - quicker end to suffering. Depends whether the person has achieved enlightenment or is still working towards it.
Capital punishment: generally opposed as they believe in rehabilitation. Example of Angulimala - even the worst criminals can be reformed.
How would Buddhists respond to issues of animal life and death?
Intensive farming: ref. back to views on animals in ahimsa topic. Example of Cruel Butcher - most Buddhists vegetarian.
Blood sports: Violates ahimsa but also dangerous to humans - cultivation of Three Poisons.
Cloning/experimentation: could be justified in some cases as Upaya - humans prioritised as closer to enlightenment - but should be avoided where possible.
Use of animal organs for transplant: as above may prioritise human life, however would opt instead for human organ donation as there is no need to kill to procure the organs.
How do ethical theories respond to issues around wealth?
Virtue Ethics: several virtues concern responsible use of wealth e.g. liberality, munificence (munificence concerns use of large amounts of wealth - tastefulness in public spending). Wealth fine if used virtuously.
NML: difference between natural wealth (enough for basic needs) and artificial wealth (more destructive). Aquinas was a mendicant - lived a life of poverty.
Situation Ethics: does not address wealth directly but relativism would suggest no objective ‘always’ or ‘never’ around wealth. Putting materialism before love would violate personalism (people > things).
Kant: pursuing wealth does not violate the Categorical Imperative, however meanness (not giving to others) would be contradiction in will - we would not want to live in a world where this was universalised. Should not exploit others to generate wealth (means to end)
Bentham: wealth should not be hoarded as this violates Principle of Utility, but no issue with materialism if this brings pleasure.
How do ethical theories respond to issues around tolerance and freedom of religious expression?
Virtue Ethics: Greek polis very diverse as there were many resident foreigners. Aristotle would emphasise the importance of virtuous behaviour regardless of religion (e.g. not being boastful about religion but respecting others) and using intellectual virtue to build dialogue between religion.
NML: Worship God is a primary precept and may require public worship/converting others - so sometimes in line with human reason to openly express religious belief. Recognised that other religions may use reason to discover the truth but lack the full insight of Christian revelation.
Situation Ethics: agape - love more important than sticking to strict religious rules so should be tolerant of others. Positivism - faith is not rational and therefore cannot be forced on others.
Kant: if we want our own views to be tolerated we should tolerate those of others (universalisation). Needlessly restricting religion does not show respect for human autonomy.
Bentham: religious expression is fine if it brings pleasure as long as it does not require changes to the law or action on the state level.
What is the Buddhist understanding of conscience?
Hiri (self-respect) and Ottapa (fear of consequences) - the two ‘superheroes’ which regulate our behaviour. Mahayana Buddhists would also suggest Buddhanature itself is conscience and often experienced as an inner voice.
Why do some Buddhists value conscience?
Enlightened beings can trust their gut feeling if they are not suffering from delusion or hindrances of the mind. Dalai Lama suggests that we should listen to our feelings of revulsion (e.g. towards reproductive cloning) as these come from our deepest humanity.
Why do some Buddhists give conscience less value?
If we are not enlightened our conscience may be askew e.g. tainted by Three Poisons. Buddha gave a number of moral rules (e.g. Five Precepts) so these should be our focus.
What is meant by the word ‘compatible’ in a dialogues question?
The Buddhist views and those of the named philosopher/theory do not contradict each other and it is possible to hold both at the same time.
What are the Buddhist sources of authority?
The life and example of the Buddha / the Pali Canon / Mahayana scriptures / religious leaders e.g. Supreme Patriarch, Dalai Lama
How do ethical theories respond to issues around gender and sexuality?
Virtue Ethics: Marriage may be encouraged if it is used as a way to develop the virtues. A very old theory so does not directly address homosexuality and transgender from a modern perspective. May recognise that living authentically is a brave decision and therefore an expression of courage.
NML: Belief that gender and sexuality are part of human nature as designed by God to fulfil a specific purpose. Marriage is the correct environment for sex though celibacy may be recognised as a higher ideal (Aquinas himself was celibate). Homosexuality and transgender identity both go against natural purpose so discouraged.
Situation Ethics: Human beings unlikely to be able to change their sexuality so the most loving decision must be made within each case e.g. if divorce or transition would make a person happier in the long run Fletcher would allow these. If marriage isn’t working is there any point? (Pragmatism)
Kant: Marriage is not an ethical requirement but once undertaking is binding (universalisation - do not break promises). Homosexuality disapproved of as “mass suicide”.
Bentham: No reason to prefer marriage to cohabitation since entirely secular. One of the earliest campaigners for homosexual law reform - if two people experiencing pleasure and no one is being harmed we cannot say the action is wrong. May take a similar attitude to transgender.
