Eastern traditions and the moral-practical unity
In a friends-only post (which he’s given me permission to quote here), Joe Duarte wrote:
…I’ve always been struck by similarities between the Objectivist approach to ethics and politics, and the sage wisdom of Eastern traditions like Buddhism and possibly Confucianism. Particularly when I think about the issue of moral-practical unity — it seems to get at some underlying feature of reality, a unity or synchrony in how to think about issues. This principle biases us against any claim that some coercive policy is necessary or useful, because we understand that reality will not accommodate it — in the end, there is always a price to pay for force. It might not be a price we ourselves have to bear, politically-speaking. It may not be immediate, or readily apparent. Yet reality will demand payment nonetheless, given certain facts of human nature and how those facts play out in a large-scale society (e.g. government force never “works”, economically speaking, when all effects are accounted for system-wide). Something about the way this and and other principles are discovered and applied feels very compatible with how I think certain Eastern practitioners think.
I’d love to see someone develop those connections. I know Zader has attempted to integrate Buddhist practices into a life guided by Objectivist principles. His is more of an inward project. I’d be very excited if he ever decided to make it a philosophical one.
I responded:
Couldn’t agree with you more that certain Buddhist principles (especially the first and second of the Five Precepts) are completely compatible with a politics of non-coercion. I’ve even met a few Buddhists who are libertarians of one stripe or another.
The problem is that, when it comes to abstract philosophical principles, Buddhism is an absolute mess. So for every premise that is compatible with a philosophy of freedom, there are five or six that undermine reason or objectivity or even reality as such.
So I’ve never been that interested in the intellectual chores to be done. To me the much more valuable contribution that the Buddhists have made is in their practices for cultivating greater happiness and contentment.
As you may have heard me say, I see Buddhism as a set of practices in search of coherent philosophy, much as Objectivism is a philosophy in search of a set of practices for actually achieving the goals (happiness, productivity, integrity, etc.) that it sets out to promote.
I welcome others’ thoughts on the topic Joe raises.
