I wish to add that ideas of Buddhist ethics have been introduced into concerns about the future, such as in EF Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'. This is a critique of values. The idea of economic growth is open to question, especially in relation to consumer materialism.

One important aspect of Buddhist ethics may be seen as a breakaway from the authoritarian ethics of many forms of religious thinking. It is not necessarily a secular form of materialism but about the scope of widest thinking. I am not trying to suggest that Buddhism is the one and only way of thinking, but looking to see it, and its metaphysical foundation. It is in that context that I am asking about the idea of the 'middle way' and to what extent is it useful in thinking about ethics?

Since a middle way assumes a middle path or placement between extremes which are otherwise accessible, when applied to ethics (i.e., the study of good and thereby right and bad/evil and thereby wrong), it leads toward a logical contradiction:

The ethical middle way shall be in-between being or acting in manners which are “most good” and “most bad/evil” - and shall furthermore value itself as the middle way as that which is “most good”. Thereby resulting in the following contradictory proposition: The greatest good in being or else acting is to avoid being or else acting in manners that are the greatest good. This such that in the same way and at the same time a) one ought not be or else do that which is the greatest good and thereby right and b) one ought to be or else do that which is the greatest good and thereby right.

(The terms “best” and “worst” would be better fit grammatically in the above, but they do not clearly specify ethical notions of good and bad/evil.)

Otherwise reasoned, if balance between good and bad/evil is of itself good, then an infinite regress into bad/evil will result in which that which is good can never be obtained. For one will always need to be in-between that which is good and that which is bad in order to be or do that which is good.

-----

I haven’t yet come across any Buddhist doctrine that recommends as favorable a middle way between that which is ethically good and that which is ethically bad. For example, in Buddhism's endorsement of compassion, I've yet to hear that "its best to not be very compassionate but instead to also be somewhat callous". If you have, however, can you provide links or references?

Thanks for your reply and it does seem to involve the ambiguity over ideas of good and evil. Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. However, compassion is not merely abstract, detached from moral feeling and issues of practical ethics.

Thanks for your reply — Jack Cummins

Glad to see you're in no way peeved by it. :grin: Cheers.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. — Jack Cummins

In which way do you find that compassion is a distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas?

To re-frame the issue into Western lingo, some in the west have upheld that love is the greatest good. Compassion is certainly inherent in, if not equivalent to, love - from self-love, to romantic love, to all other (some might say less selfish) forms of love.

In Western terminology, this can be stated as God/G-d is equivalent to absolute love which is equivalent to absolute good. So that wherever love occurs so does God/G-d in due measure. This train of thought is often enough expressed by mystics, such as the Sufi as one well enough known branch. But it is at the very least also echoed in JC's teachings as Christian doctrine: e.g. both "love thine neighbor" and "love thine enemy". There's also the Corinthians' "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

At any rate, I don't yet understand how compassion is to be construed as a distancing from the moral absolute of the Good.

The concept of compassion may not be straightforward. That is because it involves moral feelings as well as ethical ideals. Part of the dilemma may involve aspects of moral judgmentalness. It involves the distinction between the act and the person committing a moral action. It comes down to the dichotomy of ends, or consequence of actions, as opposed to motivation and intentionality.

With compassion, it may go beyond rationality, to empathy. The idea of 'love your neighbour as yourself' may involve this. Part of the problem may be that each person has so many neighbours, which may bring the question back to Kant's categorical abstract.

However, that is still abstract and it may be queried whether compassion may override this. There are universal principles of rationality. Nevertheless, the existential aspects of embodied existence may make the idea of compassion go beyond the mere principles of reason alone.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection. — Jack Cummins

I can very much respect this. As to "endeavors towards wholeness", I tend to find wholeness in this context and wholesomeness to be virtually indistinguishable. None of us are such or can obtain anything near this state of being in this lifetime. But does not the endeavoring toward this end of wholeness in itself speak of an ideal wherein wholeness awaits to become perfected?

The reason why I am writing this thread is because I do appreciate the idea of 'the middle way' in Buddhism — Jack Cummins

So what (do you say) is the middle way in Buddhism?

Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open. — Jack Cummins

Of course the person known as Buddha did not write and never directly contributed anything to what we know today as Buddhism. The writings came centuries after he died. Oral accounts did until then. How do we even know what Buddha may or may not have really said?