Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Do the world’s ethical traditions really agree about how to live, or does it only look that way from far off?

Kenneth Leung Chi-ho Fellow
· 6 replies · 184 views
Moral theoriesBuddhistGreek & RomanIslamicAristotelianismConfucianismAristotleConfuciusMiskawayh#comparative-ethics#cultivation#habit#practical-convergence
Follow

There is a claim one often meets in comparative philosophy courses: traditions that disagree completely about metaphysics agree substantially about how to live. Aristotelian virtue, Confucian self-cultivation, Buddhist training and Islamic adab all say character is shaped by repeated action, habit makes you who you are, and a good life is a skilled life rather than a rule-following one.

There are two ways to read that pattern. Either ethics is more robust than metaphysics, emerging from human life lived in broadly similar conditions, so that it survives disagreement about foundations. Or the agreement is produced by summarising: describe any two ways of life vaguely enough and they will sound alike, and once you look closely the resemblance falls apart.

My own work is on false friends between Yogācāra and Husserl, so my instinct is the second reading. But I have been unsettled lately by how often students from different backgrounds recognise each other's practical advice immediately, even when they find each other's metaphysics bizarre.

I would like to test the claim with specific cases rather than slogans. Where, in detail, do the practical teachings of your tradition and another genuinely agree, and where does a closer look show the agreement was only verbal?

LikeReply
Follow6 replies

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

6 replies

  1. Ayya Kusalañāṇī

    Fellow

    A case where the agreement dissolves: Aristotle's great-souled man, who rightly thinks himself worthy of great things and claims the honour due to him, is a model of virtue. In Buddhist analysis, conceit, the measuring of oneself against others, as better, equal or worse, is one of the fetters that remains until the very last stage of awakening. So both traditions talk about cultivating character by habit, but the character they aim at differs at a crucial point. Self-regard is a virtue for one and a fetter for the other.

    Helpful · 1
  2. Imam Bilal Hussain

    Fellow

    A case where the agreement is real but not independent. Miskawayh's Refinement of Character, one of the classic works of Islamic ethics, draws openly on Aristotle and on Greek moral philosophy as it reached the Arabic world. So when Islamic adab and Aristotle agree, part of the reason is influence, not convergence. A good test of the convergence thesis would need to compare traditions that had no contact, which narrows the cases quite a lot.

    Helpful · 2
  3. Miriam Adler

    Fellow

    Maimonides is another case of influence: his doctrine of the middle way is Aristotle's mean, consciously adopted. But he then breaks with it for pride and anger, where he says one should go to the far extreme of humility and avoid anger almost entirely. That is exactly the sort of detail that shows how adopting the same framework can carry different values inside it, which supports Kenneth's suspicion.

    Helpful · 3
  4. Kwame Asante

    Fellow

    For a cleaner test, take traditions with no contact: Akan ethics and Confucianism. Both put great weight on respect for elders, the cultivation of good character through upbringing, and the community as the setting in which a person matures. Neither borrowed from the other. That seems to me real convergence, and it suggests the first reading is right for the broad shape, even if Ayya is right that the details differ.

  5. Meera Kulkarni

    Fellow

    Perhaps both readings are true at different levels. Convergence on practices (train habits, honour elders, restrain anger) and divergence on what the practices are for (flourishing, liberation, closeness to God, harmony of the community). For an Indian example, a Mīmāṃsaka and a Buddhist would both tell you to restrain your senses, but one so that you can perform your ritual duties correctly and the other so that you can stop performing anything out of craving.

    Helpful · 1
  6. Kenneth Leung Chi-ho

    Fellow

    This is the kind of detail I was hoping for. Meera's two levels seem right: practices converge, purposes diverge. And Imam Bilal's point about influence is one I should have anticipated, since it is a false-friend problem in reverse: things that look independently similar sometimes share an ancestor. I will revise my view: the convergence is real but thinner than the textbooks claim, and where it is thickest there is often a historical explanation.

    Helpful · 2