A counter-example to my claim that there are no distinctively useful Buddhist ethical teachings, by @loveofallwisdom http://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2015/10/the-rejection-of-righteous-anger/ …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I think the strongest thing@loveofallwisdom shows is that righteous anger is *unskillful*, which isn't? an ethical objection.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness@loveofallwisdom "It's better not to do a thing than to do it unskillfully" *has* ethical implications, but is it "Buddhist"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness@loveofallwisdom Along those lines it'd be interesting to see when "Buddhist ethics" asserts you have a duty to do *anything*.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@joXn@loveofallwisdom Vinaya has lots (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/cv/cv.08x.than.html …). “Buddhist ethics”… maybe not! Other than to be vaguely nice at all times1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Hmm, not sure I'm convinced. The basis of those duties is "because you took a vow"; so they're not "ethical" duties?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Agreed! (Both you did write it, and it isn't ethics.)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness All we need to do is get Consensus Buddhists to make people take a vow to be vaguely nice, in order to stamp it out forever.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.