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.

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).

Buddhist Ethics: Background and the Five Precepts

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).

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.

Buddhist Religious Ethics and Moral Reasoning

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.

Buddhism puts forward Five Precepts as ways that bring help rather than harm or suffering. There is no "single course of action that will be right in all circumstances," The Buddhist Centre explains. With that in mind, the Five Precepts do not speak of right or wrong but rather of being "skillful" (kusala) or "unskillful" (akusala).

Buddhist Precept #1 ("Not killing or causing harm to other living beings") is the closest thing to a fundamental ethical principle in Buddhism, according to The Buddhist Centre. This is why many Buddhists are vegetarians — because they do not wish to eat animals that have been killed. Taken further, it could also mean not mistreating a neighbor's animals or using pesticides like DDT, because these bring harm to wildlife.

Christian Commandment VI ("Thou shalt not kill") is abrupt and straightforward, and does not identify what should or should not be killed. Christians who eat animal meat clearly do not believe "Thou shalt not kill" refers to animals.

Buddhist Precept #2 ("Not taking the not-given") is about stealing and why it causes harm to others. The Buddhist Centre explains that this precept also refers to not taking advantage of others or manipulating them — in other words, taking the not-given is taking advantage of others, because no one has been given the right to exploit others.

Christian Commandment VIII ("Thou shalt not steal") is again very simple and direct, and offers nothing explicit about manipulating or taking advantage of others, though this is implied, since stealing is in effect a form of exploitation.

Buddhist Precept #3 ("Avoiding sexual misconduct") basically refers to not causing harm to another person through a sexual activity of some kind. This precept also alludes to not "breaking commitments in the area of sexual relations," which dovetails with the Seventh Commandment.

Christian Commandment VII ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") is direct and unequivocal. It is the closest match to Buddhist Precept #3, although it does not frame the prohibition in terms of causing harm; it simply states that a married person should not engage in sexual activity outside marriage, nor should an unmarried person engage in sexual activity with a married person.

Buddhist Precept #4 ("Avoiding false speech") is equivalent to saying "Do not lie" and comes close to matching the Ninth Commandment in the Christian Bible. The Buddhist Centre notes that language is "a slippery medium" and people can easily "deceive" themselves and others without knowing they are being deceptive. Those Buddhists who profess to desire an "ethical life" should therefore be truthful — which stands in some tension with Barnhart's earlier observation that if telling the truth contradicts other obligations or betrays a "trust," the truth may perhaps be postponed or deferred.

Christian Commandment IX ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") certainly suggests that God does not want humanity to lie, but it is not a generalized assertion that truth is always better than falsehood. It asks humans to avoid false speech because false witness implies statements that are untrue and unethical — linked to Buddhist Precept #4 — not only against neighbors but, by implication, against anyone.

Comparing the Five Precepts and the Ten Commandments

Buddhist Precept #5 ("Abstaining from drink and drugs that cloud the mind") does not necessarily command that Buddhists live a clean, drug-free life for health reasons alone, but clouding the mind with substances impedes the ability to achieve enlightenment. Buddhists are urged to seek nirvana, or freedom, and anything that gets in the way of that is considered unskillful.

Christian Commandment I ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me") is very different from anything in Buddhism, because the Buddha is not God and does not claim to be God. Buddhism is not based on a powerful deity, but rather on those values and ethics that reduce pain and lead to contentment and enlightenment.

Christian Commandment II ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth") forbids the worship of false idols wherever they may be found.

Christian Commandment III ("Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain") is very far afield from the ethical standards that the Buddha asks of his followers. Clearly God in the Christian tradition is a God who demands obedience to His rules, whereas Buddha only suggests ways of living to reduce pain and seek enlightenment.

Christian Commandment IV ("Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy") is yet another Christian rule that has less to do with interpersonal ethics per se than with a direct demand by God to observe the day of worship properly. The implication, however, is that an ethical Christian will observe the Sabbath as God intended.

Christian Commandment V ("Honor thy father and mother") is God's way of seeking to keep families together and of conveying to Christians that respect for one's parents is vital.

Christian Commandment X ("Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's, including the neighbor's wife and servants and cattle") has no direct parallel in Buddhist ethical values, although it might be considered similar to Precept #2 — "not taking the not-given" — because desiring to take what belongs to another could be construed as coveting that thing.

In Deuteronomy 6:2–4, the subject of "fear" of God arises, as it does in many places in the Holy Bible. The idea that Christians should be afraid of the Lord stands in stark contrast to what Buddhists are asked to do, and this contrast helps illustrate how differently values and ethics are framed in the two traditions:

"So that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God so long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you" (Bible Gateway).

And in Matthew 19:17, Jesus was asked what is good and what is bad. He responded (according to the New International Version): "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

In the Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, essayist Max L. Stackhouse explains that "all religions" share a "sense of being under a moral law that is not constructed by human will" (Stackhouse, 2007, p. 548). Religions also "share similar sensibilities about what is right and wrong" and have what Stackhouse calls "an overlapping awareness" of the kinds of human "practices" and "institutions" required for lives to be sustainable (548). Stackhouse selects Hinduism and Confucianism as the "most enduring 'high' philosophical and ethical religions," which have formed the "moral character of millions" of people for centuries (549).

But Buddhism and Islam also have strong ethical foundations, Stackhouse continues. The Buddhist concept of nirvana and the Islamic "hope for 'paradise'" offer a sense of "ultimate destiny" based on "decidedly transformed ethical states of affairs," albeit the two faiths are in philosophical opposition to one another (Stackhouse, 549). Both have "ethical propensities" that influence their associated cultures and reflect a "meritorious morality" that stands in juxtaposition to the way the world operates today (549).

As noted earlier, Buddhism calls for its followers to eschew thoughts of God or soul and instead to show compassion for others and to withdraw from personal desires. Islam, on the other hand, is more like Christianity in that it insists on "a radical obedience to the commands of Allah" — in the same sense that the Ten Commandments and other Biblical passages insist that Christians must be obedient to God (Stackhouse, 553). Christianity, according to Stackhouse, contains three "decisive elements of ethics" and "moral logic": a) a "universally valid moral law"; b) an awareness of "the sustaining of life in even the sinful contexts of nature and history"; and c) a "promise of blessings and woes" (554). These three tenets are conveyed through the Sermon on the Mount. Christ's death on the cross offered an ethical way out of humanity's "sinful states of existence" through the "spiritual, mental, moral, and social" dominions that God intended His son to represent (Stackhouse, 555).

Reverend Florea Stefan writes in the peer-reviewed HEC Forum that Christian ethics has "always had a man at its center" and that the way Christians approach their ethics is based on the "care and responsibility of this man," Jesus Christ (Stefan, 2008, p. 62). The road that Christians travel while fulfilling their spiritual lives passes "unmistakably through the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption" (Stefan, 62). Christian ethics cannot be understood as having been launched through the goal of mankind to achieve perfection, but rather it is based on the fact that God "was made man" and became the "perfect" model for humans in every epoch and every place (Stefan, 62).

Stefan presents the case that Christian ethics is not about a philosophical idea or trend; instead it should be viewed as an attitude one must adopt in order to embrace humanism. Christian humanism is about responding to the world by "assuming, encompassing, and showing that all which is truly beautiful, clever, and bountiful" in the world is "neither foreign to nor incompatible with Christianity" (Stefan, 62). The center of this humanistic characteristic is not philosophies or theories about mankind, but rather "the historical man, real and down to earth" (Stefan, 63). Baptism symbolizes Christ's death and resurrection, and it is this Christian virtue that leads to an ethical life, the author explains.

Stefan critiques humans caught in the modern world as having either forgotten God or as being in the process of "chasing God away from history, hoping to affirm absolute freedom" for themselves (64). Mankind is presently in the grip of a "whirlwind of this society wherein each and every product is but an object to sell for pleasure," and when objects do not offer "immediate and immanent satisfaction" they are discarded and seen as "ugly" (Stefan, 65). The author goes so far as to assert that because of mankind's "lack of balance" and "instability," he is led down a path of "psychological fragmentation" (65).

Stefan — who is on the faculty of the college of Orthodox Theology in Romania — posits that the way the Bible characterizes mankind is very different from how people believe and behave today. "Man distinguishes himself as the sole interrogative and meditative being," he continues, and because people tend to see the world as theirs to shape and mold, they are engaged in a life of "futility like a dead star which offers neither light nor health" (67). All the negative signs the pastor identifies are wrapped up in what he calls "post-modern ethics," which stands in the way of "Traditional Christian ethics" (70). He therefore sees an "utter urgency to promote Christian ethics," which is the path to "true meaning in life" because it provides "solutions to the countless daily problems" (71). Christian ethics contributes to what Stefan calls the "civilization of love"; being involved in the ethics of Christianity is a means of "extinguishing the ever-growing impact of darkness" (Stefan, 71).

"Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: they are the ones to attain felicity…" (Qur'an).