Complementing recent studies by Keown, Whitehill, and Hallisey that associate Buddhist ethics with the virtue tradition, the author proposes that Buddhist virtue requires both overcoming attachment to self and compassionate regard for others. Within a broader framework of comparative religious ethics, such a claim is not extraordinary; overcoming prudentialist self-interest, cultivating sympathy, and acting on others' behalf are ethical values highly praised by most religious traditions, including Buddhism. Nevertheless, this proposal runs counter to those who hold Theravāda Buddhism to be (...) dominated by the world-renouncing values of the monk antithetical to a social ethic. It also differs from the view that monastic and lay ethics, while not in opposition, are merely complementary. The author contends that the moral value of voluntary poverty, ordinarily labeled a monastic virtue, can be seen as the foundation for other-regarding virtues such as compassion and benevolence. (shrink)

This study of the ethics of Bhikkhu Buddhadāsa, Thailand's foremost interpreter of Theravāda Buddhism, exemplifies the position that (1) religious ethics is to be studied as an aspect of an organically integrated religious system or tradition, and that (2) the field of religious ethics should be conceived primarily as a subset of the field of religious studies or the history of religions, broadly conceived, rather than a subset of such disciplines as philosophy and/or sociology. Descriptively, the article first sets out (...) the broad parameters of Buddhadāsa's worldview; second, analyses three ethical dimensions of this worldview; third, correlates the particular ethical system of Buddhadāsa with a more generalized schematization of Theravāda ethics; and, in conclusion, briefly contrasts this (holistic) approach with those of Max Weber, Winston King, David Little and SumnerTwiss. (shrink)

Careful examination of the facts of record shows that the JRE has been as successful as its competitors in expanding the cultural range and scope of inquiry in religious ethics. Yet it should be noted that the debate between cultural particularists and philosophical ethicists, a debate that has shaped the actual practices of the field of comparative religious studies, has not been vigorously pursued in these pages. Likewise, the JRE has not yet realized its potential to foster collaborative work among (...) scholars working in different religious traditions, to encourage attention to neglected topics, or to enlarge, through fuller attention to diverse religious traditions, the range of ethical and metaethical interests that dominate inquiry in religious ethics. (shrink)