Is karma a virtue ethics?

Question

Is karma a virtue ethics? I know that some people link the path to virtues such as wisdom or charity, but what about the theory of karma in general? I am asking because I wondered whether unvirtuous actions that are not easily explained in terms of violations of the precepts (e.g.) are bad karma.

e.g. the virtue of good will and benevolence is often said to be "wholesome" in intent; I definitely don't think it's for monastics only, but that wholesomeness means good (karma)

In the Pāli Canon, the term metta appears in many texts such as the Kakacupama Sutta and Karaniya Metta Sutta. Other canonical materials, such as in the Paṭisambhidāmagga, elaborate on it as a practice. Yet other canonical sources, such as the Abhidhamma, underline the key role of benevolence in the development of wholesome karma for better rebirths

likewise, the converse

Greed (lobha) is a root of unwholesome karma; Hatred (dosa) is a root of unwholesome karma; Delusion (moha) is a root of unwholesome karma

There is a difference between non attachment or elimination of the poisons, and not being ruled by them; isn't that difference that of religion and virtue?

Answer 1

Karma is not a virtue ethics in itself, but it can be related to virtue ethics in certain ways.

Key differences are as follows:

1. Metaphysical Aspect: Karma involves a metaphysical belief in the cosmic law of cause and effect that transcends individual lifetimes. Virtue ethics is more focused on this-life practical moral development without necessarily invoking metaphysical beliefs.

2. Ultimate Goals: The ultimate goals differ: virtue ethics aims at achieving eudaimonia (flourishing or well-being) through the cultivation of virtues. Karma is often connected to spiritual liberation or moksha, which involves breaking free from the cycle of rebirth.

3. Cultural Context: Karma is deeply embedded in specific religious and cultural contexts of Indian traditions. Virtue ethics, particularly in its Aristotelian form, arises from Western philosophical traditions.

Similarities are as follows :

1. Focus on Moral Character: Both emphasize the importance of moral character and the cultivation of good traits. In virtue ethics, becoming a virtuous person is the goal. In karma, performing good actions and developing good intentions is essential for positive outcomes.

2. Consequences of Actions: Both systems recognize that actions have consequences. Virtue ethics considers how actions reflect and shape one's character, while karma directly links actions to future consequences.

3. Moral Development: Both encourage moral development and self-improvement. Virtue ethics focuses on developing virtues through practice and habituation. Karma emphasizes performing good deeds and cultivating a moral life to achieve favorable outcomes.

Despite the differences and similarities, Buddha did not recognise karma or virtue ethics as self.

Answer 2

The short answer is that it depends on who you ask.

The long answer… Philosophically speaking, the principle of karma is not directly associated with virtue. It's merely a metaphysical principle of cause and effect suggesting that human actions have consequences that can echo across time and return back to the actor. In the original Hindu sense one's actions in life set up the conditions for rebirth in the next life, and while there's a general sense that more virtuous behavior creates more auspicious conditions, karma is not taken to be a judgement: neither a reward nor a retribution. It's just the way things are.

Of course many, many people use karma in a decidedly non-philosophical sense. Unpleasant people will suffer karma in the future, or karmically deserve the bad things that happen to them; diligent people try to build 'good' karma (blessings, merits) and explain away bad happenings as 'bad' karma burning off. It's an understandable misunderstanding…

Virtue ethics generally means that ethics arises from developing personal attributes or characteristics. It's an analog to athletics: athletes develop their physical forms to perfect their actions on the field, while ethicists (ethetes?) develop mental forms to perfect their (social) actions in life. There's a sense of the development of personal virtues in karmic understanding, but it isn't as direct and specific as we generally see in virtue ethics. And when we get to the Buddhist use of karma, where the goal is to nullify mental forms, well… I'm entirely comfortable with the amount we have to stretch the concept 'virtue ethics' to make it fit.

Answer 3

Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising is the basic law of nature. Which is also the case and effect.

The word karma is used to describe the case and effect generated by a thought. Nothing special about karma, but just how the strength (intention) of a thought (or a collection of thoughts) yields it's effect.

No one controls the strength (intention) of a thought other than the same consciousness. Internally, the yields/output is determined by the same consciousness at the same time strength (intention) gets built.