Religious Ethics in Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam Compared

Introduction: Comparing Three Religious Traditions

Though the three religions reviewed and critiqued in this paper — Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — have very different histories and quite original approaches to ethics, there are also a number of striking similarities when comparing them. One can easily find the differences, and this paper does indeed point to them. And yet, when it comes to the philosophical ingredients that go into each of the three traditions and the values that each presents as important, a tapestry of shared goodness and ethical belief also emerges.

Buddhist Ethics: Background and the Five Precepts

It should be understood at the outset of any discussion of Buddhism that there are many approaches to practicing it. Philosophy Professor Michael G. Barnhart points out that there are "deep similarities" between various approaches to Buddhism — for example, Buddhists universally share a "reverence for the personal history of the Buddha" — but there are obvious contrasts as well (Barnhart, 2012, 18). The "Hau-yen" Buddhist tradition focuses on issues apart from what the Buddha said or did, Barnhart explains. In fact, Hau-yen believers — using the texts of their "Pali canon" — take the position that at the time of his death Buddha "urged his followers to figure things out for themselves" and not to rely solely on his words and deeds (Barnhart, 18).

That said, nearly all who follow Buddhism in any context believe in the Four Noble Truths, and nearly all Buddhist traditions focus on "existential suffering," even though a clear understanding of what suffering is is not the same in every approach to Buddhism (Barnhart, 18). Suffering ("dukkha") is distinguished from pain in the early Buddhist texts, but newer approaches to Buddhism (such as "Engaged Buddhism") view both suffering and pain in the same way, Barnhart continues (18).

More to the point of this research, Barnhart notes that very few scholars have argued that Buddhism expects followers to be obligated or duty-bound in any strict sense. Unlike Catholicism, for example, which places a number of obligations on practitioners, Buddhism does not list duties that believers must adhere to unfailingly (Barnhart, 19). When it comes to ethics and values, Buddhism does make clear the "normative force of principles" through the Five Precepts — which bear some resemblance to the Ten Commandments in Christianity — yet nowhere does Buddhism offer an "overall principle that provides structure and definition to moral deliberation," Barnhart asserts (19).

The point made by Barnhart is that through an observance of the Five Precepts there is an imprecise sense of obligation and duty. The reason many Buddhist followers observe the Five Precepts "stems more from philosophical anthropology and psychological insight" than from any "systematic appraisal of normative judgment" (Barnhart, 19). In other words, Barnhart and other scholars believe that in Buddhism there are no powerful deontological ethical standards that must be believed and obeyed.

A deontological ethic is one that is "morally required, forbidden, or permitted," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Moreover, deontology is based on moral theories that "guide and assess our choices" of what we should and should not be doing. An example of how some approaches to Buddhism skirt deontological demands is found in the fourth of the Five Precepts. "Avoiding false speech" — or always being truthful — is clear and easy to grasp. "Truthfulness is therefore essential in an ethical life" (The Buddhist Centre).

According to Buddhist precepts, people who follow the Buddha should always tell the truth, but if telling the truth contradicts other obligations or betrays a "trust," the truth can perhaps be postponed or deferred (Barnhart, 20). In the process of moral reasoning — Buddhist style — there is a kind of "reconciling of duty with reality," Barnhart explains, which is linked to Buddhism's tendency to "modify its initial list of duties and obligations" in order to fit well within certain changing circumstances (20). In other words, one should not lie, but falsehoods that help others can "escape the stain of lying" — which is a way of saying the Fourth Precept is to be followed unless telling the truth will bring harm to another person (Barnhart, 20).

Buddhist Religious Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Barnhart reviews the emphasis that Buddhism places on nirvana (freedom from suffering) and suggests that nirvana is reached through "the dissolution, perhaps deconstruction, of selfhood" (30). The way one dissolves selfhood — or removes oneself from one's own consciousness and self-image — is through wisdom and compassion, which in turn come intellectually and through the "practical transcendence of grasping" (30). That said, Barnhart wonders, "Where is the ethics in all this?"

The ethical question most pertinent to understanding Buddhism, as far as Barnhart is concerned, is not "What should I specifically do?" but rather "What should I care about?" (30). If that seems somewhat vague, it is because the author believes there are no "specific rules [or] principles, exactly" in Buddhist ethics. Instead of rules to govern how Buddhist followers should behave, Buddha offers "a case-based approach"; ethical reasoning is found in the cases presented by the Buddha because Buddhism is "simply blind to moral considerations generally" (Barnhart, 30). Saying that Buddhism is "blind to moral considerations" is not the same as saying it has no morality.

Rather, the emphasis in Buddhism is on "achieving a state of enlightenment," which has little if anything to do with "moral or ethical conduct in itself," Barnhart continues (30). Enlightenment has to do with relieving "existential suffering" — i.e., suffering that is the consequence of one's behavior — but not because relieving suffering is necessarily the right thing to do, Barnhart asserts (30). Relieving suffering in Buddhism is about achieving a desirable state of mind. Barnhart spends a considerable portion of his narrative trying to pin down specific ethical ideas within Buddhist ideology and ends up suggesting that there are no principles to which Buddhism "unequivocally subscribes," and hence Buddhism should be viewed as a "moral phenomenon" (30). Buddhism is not deontological, it is not "consequentialism," and it has no "overriding commitment to the general welfare" either (Barnhart, 31).

Since Buddhism says little or nothing about human obligations, the consequences of human actions, or the actual meaning of life, Barnhart wonders what it does say. Despite its precepts and case samples of how people behaved in certain situations, Barnhart asserts that Buddhism "appears unprincipled" — and this raises the question of whether or not "principles are necessary to successful moral deliberation" (31). On the subject of morality and principles, the author quotes scholar Jonathan Dancy from his book Ethics Without Principles:

"There is no reason whatever to suppose that morality stands or falls with a supply of principles capable of doing the job required of them. I suggest that morality can get along perfectly well without principles, and that the imposition of principles on an area that doesn't need them is likely to lead to some sort of distortion" (Barnhart, 31).

Not all members of any denomination are always able to stand up for what is ethical and right when money is on the line. Indeed, Thai Buddhists have been known to violate the Five Precepts, according to a peer-reviewed article in The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The research was based on the fact that "large amounts of money are capable of motivating people to commit unethical behavior," and with that in mind, questions were posed to eight hundred Thai Buddhists revolving around large sums of money (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2007). One study referenced by Ariyabuddhiphongs found that men are far more likely to engage in unethical behaviors for "a million dollars" (39). Another result showed that 76% of males and 58% of females would "have one-time sexual relations with a stranger" (39). This research indicates that males more than females are willing to break the Ten Commandments and the Five Precepts for money and pleasure. Twenty-one percent of men and just 10% of women "would steal something," and 22% of men and 10% of women would "tell a lie about a business associate" (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 39).

With that data as background, Ariyabuddhiphongs discusses the Thai Buddhists who were apparently willing to be unethical — and to abandon their Buddhist beliefs — for large sums of money. This is not to say that Buddhists in Asia are alone in abandoning their faith for cash, but it is interesting and worthy of mention in a paper about religion and ethics.

Each of the 800 members of Buddhist congregations in Thailand was given a 14-page questionnaire that presented the following question (followed by five scenarios, each of which violated one of the Five Precepts): "If someone gave you a million baht and asked you to perform the following jobs, would you accept them?"

For the first Precept ("Would you work for a year as a chicken slaughterer in a slaughterhouse?"), men were "more likely" than women to take that job. For the second Precept ("Would you sell an employer's secret to a competing company?"), both men and women indicated they would take the money. Both also said they would violate the third Precept ("Would you leave your girlfriend/boyfriend or separate from your spouse?") and the fourth Precept ("Would you falsify a report saying a client was a good risk when he wasn't?"). Men were more likely to agree with the fifth Precept ("Would you drink a bottle of whiskey every day for a year?"). If a similar study of Christians or Muslims were available, one could fairly compare those two denominations with this Buddhist investigation, but no such studies were available.