Morality - What is it? Where does it come from?

[Guy Craft]

Dear Bhante Brahmali,

Where does morality come from? And what exactly is morality, anyway?

It should be obvious, that true moral principles cannot be derived from authority. Authority is completely arbitrary and different "authorities" disagree with each other on an infinite number of points.

It also should be obvious that "God" is not a satisfactory answer for moral questions, as it is authoritarian in nature. Same applies to government.

Further, morality does not come from faith. However, if we put our faith in a person who is moral, and follow their instructions, we will no doubt become like them.

Which is all very interesting and good, but the question remains...What is morality and where does it come from?

Thanks and Metta,

Guy

[Ajahn Brahmali]

Dear Guy,

This is an important question.

The Buddhist answer is very pragmatic: an act is moral if it leads to happiness (in the broadest sense of the term) for oneself and for others, and immoral if it leads to suffering. This is a standard explanation for morality in the suttas, see e.g. AN3:54 (scroll down to the third sutta).

Since actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion ripen suffering for oneself, they are immoral. Since actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion tend to harm others, again, they are immoral.

The exception to this is when we act from the purest of intentions but it still leads to someone else's harm. In these cases it is the intention that matters, not the outcome.

With metta.

[Guy Craft]

Dear Bhante Brahmali,

Thank you for your quick response and Merry Buddhamas!

I certainly agree that it is an important question, yet I lack certainty in defining exactly what it is and where to even start (...though I have a rough idea of what it "feels" like...which seems to be what you are hinting at as being of primary concern in the realm of morality, if I understand correctly).

So...from a Buddhist point of view, if a moral act is defined as that which leads to happiness, then could we say that morality is a vehicle to happiness? "Moral-yana"? Therefore, an act of body, speech or mind is considered "moral" based upon the fruits (in the mind) which it produces. That makes a lot of sense from an experiential point of view - and it is logical - but is it true?

Can we shape our lives based upon "what is going to make us happy" and necessarily declare that all our actions will be inherently moral? Or is the problem that sometimes what we think will make us happy leaves us with an unpleasant feeling once the pleasant feeling has worn off and, therefore, we have been mistaken about what actually makes us happy in the long-term and, therefore, we have been mistaken about what is moral?

It does appear to be true, in my experience, when you say that greed, hatred and delusion ripen in suffering for myself and others - we do seem to be hard-wired to get on with each other - but what about sociopaths?

Sociopaths lack empathy and therefore can only have an "intellectual" form of morality (at best) and never actually "feel" it. A conscience pains most "normal" people when they have done something wrong. A sociopath may fear getting caught, but they do not feel remorse due to a lack of empathy.

While I certainly agree with you that when it comes to "normal" people (who aren't sociopaths), the happy ones appear to be the pure ones. But with sociopaths, that all changes; they are not burdened with a conscience or complex emotions.

Bhante, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks + Metta,

Guy

[Ajahn Brahmali]

Dear Guy,

Can we shape our lives based upon "what is going to make us happy" and necessarily declare that all our actions will be inherently moral?

Yes, it can be tricky to apply the criterion of happiness as a guide to morality. The easier criterion is to consider the purity of one's intentions. If your intentions are pure, you are acting for your own welfare and generally also for that of others. But even with this criterion there is a gradual process of purification whereby one's acts get purer as one's practice progresses.

As for the sociopaths, they too can be judged on their intentions. Although they may not be "burdened with a conscience", I suspect their lives are not very fulfilling. They are missing some basic emotions that make one complete as a human. I am convinced that not having a conscience is far worse than having one. In any case, eventually their conscience will return (whether in this life or a subsequent one) and then they will be terribly burdened by what they have done. You cannot escape the law of kamma by (temporarily) eliminating your conscience.

With special Christmas metta.

[Guy Craft]

Thank you, Bhante.

[Eamonn McGrath]

I certainly agree that it is an important question, yet I lack certainty in defining exactly what it is and where to even start (...though I have a rough idea of what it "feels" like...which seems to be what you are hinting at as being of primary concern in the realm of morality, if I understand correctly).

Hi Guy and Ajahn Brahmali,

If I could add a little here please, it appears to me Guy from your above quote that you do in fact know what morality is very well. Your difficulty is putting your feelings and understandings of morality into the confines of words and language. So why worry about this....there only words after all?

With Metta and stay cool in this heat Ajahn B.
Eamonn

[Guy Craft]

Hi Eamonn,

Your difficulty is putting your feelings and understandings of morality into the confines of words and language. So why worry about this....there only words after all?

“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”

― George Orwell

Metta,

Guy

[Eamonn McGrath]

Hi Guy,

Was George Orwell an Awakened and Liberated being?

Thanks
Eamonn

[Stefan Van Cappellen]

hm 'others' huh? well how about a twist in thinking like this then:
would an ant question the morality of -for example- killing a microbe?

[Ajahn Brahmali]

Dear Guy and Eamonn,

I think there is something to be said for both perspectives. It is true that we often know intuitively what is moral and what is not. Much of the time we can simply follow our intuition and we will be perfectly all right.

However, there are times when our moral compass is off, especially if we are strongly affected by defilements. In these cases, it can be handy to have a set of rules to follow, such as the five precepts, or simply checking if we are acting from impure motives. Also, now and then we face moral dilemmas - euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research - and in these situations it is often very useful to have some clear underlying principles to guide us.

With metta.

[Guy Craft]

Thanks Bhante

[Artur Ivan]

Dear Guy,

This is an important question.

The Buddhist answer is very pragmatic: an act is moral if it leads to happiness (in the broadest sense of the term) for oneself and for others, and immoral if it leads to suffering. This is a standard explanation for morality in the suttas, see e.g. AN3:54 (scroll down to the third sutta).

Since actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion ripen suffering for oneself, they are immoral. Since actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion tend to harm others, again, they are immoral.

The exception to this is when we act from the purest of intentions but it still leads to someone else's harm. In these cases it is the intention that matters, not the outcome.

With metta.

Dear Bhante,

How do you mean it ? How are the morality and kamma connected ? I mean not every greedy actions are part of 10 ways of unskillful actions,so why is it immoral.... I think in Christianity the morality means one thing,in Buddhism an other ...but I think the system of morality in Buddhism something not so common in other religions.

With Metta!

[Ajahn Brahmali]

Dear Artur,

Greed normally harms, because it is by its nature a manifestation of self-interest. When you are biased towards the fulfillment of your own desires, you will not be able to properly judge the harm done to others, and you may not even care. It is this lack of care towards others, this lack of compassion, that is one of the factors of wrong intention on the eightfold path (vihiṁsā sankappa). If the other person for some reason does not get hurt by your act, it is still immoral. For example, if you rob a house, but it turns out nobody actually owned the things you steal, it is still bad kamma and immoral.

Does this help?

With metta.

[Artur Ivan]

Dear Ajahn Brahmali,

1.As you mentioned that you consider enjoying sensual pleasures as mixed kamma but I can't understand what is the benefical (bright) side of that habit in Buddhism. So greed can be partially good but what is the benefit in it? and why it is still immoral in your classification...
,,
“And what, Puṇṇa, is dark-and-bright action with dark-and-bright result? Here someone generates a bodily formation that is both afflictive and unafflictive, a verbal formation that is both afflictive and unafflictive, a mental formation that is both afflictive and unafflictive. Having generated a bodily formation, a verbal formation, a mental formation that is both afflictive and unafflictive, he reappears in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. ''

2.My capacity to understand this category of dark-and-bright kamma is very limited. Do you think it is common ?I think it would great to have the Buddha near us to explain!

[Ajahn Brahmali]

Dear Artur,

When you think of kamma always think in terms of intention, for this is what it is all about. How do you enjoy sensual pleasures? Sometimes it is purely selfish, and you may even hurt others in the process of your enjoyment. In these case the kamma is dark. At other times you may be enjoying sensual pleasures, not affecting anyone in a bad way, and perhaps even sharing with someone else. In this case the kamma is both dark and bright.

Always look to the motivation and intention and you should be able to figure out how this works. And of course you can understand it! Just give these ideas a bit of time to mature.

With metta.