Abstract
In the Indian context, the idea of society or community is extended to the entire living world. Moral relationships are thoughtfully extended to animals and plants by virtue of the benefits received from them and the services rendered by them. This chapter attempts to show that there are well-established ethical theories which explain meaningful co-variance between the naturalistic and the normative perspectives. For instance, Sāmkhya and Buddhist theories of ethics take nature to be the point of departure for their highly persuasive and plausible deliberations on morality and end up with a systematic formulation of moral codes and theories of moral conduct and moral ideals, even while scrupulously avoiding the domains of belief in God or self or soul. Like the other Indian philosophical schools, the Sāmkhya school considers the existence of suffering to be a great moral evil. However, complete freedom from it can be acquired when one attains liberation. Attachment to worldly things and worldliness is the cause of suffering or bondage. The way to attain freedom is to get rid of the attachment to worldly things. In this sense, early Buddhism is similar to Sāmkhya. The summum bonum in Sāmkhya, Buddhism, and Jainism is conceived as a total turning away from life which is conceived as full of suffering. All three deny the existence of God and the authority of Vedic texts. –We can see a clear similarity between the Sāmkhya notion of suffering and the notion of ‘Dukha’ in Buddhism and Jainism as pivotal for deliberations to work out a theory of liberation. In all the three systems, liberation can be attained by morally elevated persons.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bhattacharya, K. C. (1983). Studies in philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Chattopadhyaya, D., Sr. (Ed.). (1990). Cārvakā/lokayata: An anthology of source materials and some recent studies. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Chattopadhyaya, D. P. (2002). Science, society, value and civilizational dialogue (p. 120). Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies.
Murti, T. R. V. (1980). The central philosophy of Buddhism (pp. 293–301). London: Unwin.
Nakamura, H. (1996). Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Pande, G. C. (1995). Foundations of Indian culture (Vol. I, p. 77). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Pande, G. C. (1999). Studies in the origins of Buddhism (p. 460). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Prasad, R. (2008). Conceptual analytic study of classical Indian philosophy of morals (Vol. XII, Part I, p. 6). Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (2014). Naturalism in Indian Ethics: Sāmkhya, Jainism and Buddhism . In: Fløistad, G. (eds) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6895-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6895-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6894-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6895-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)