Do you believe in right and wrong or just skillful and unskillful?

tmottes

This is from another thread...

I don't believe in right and wrong. Just skillful and unskillful toward liberation

Well I think the vast majority of the world disagrees with you. Killing someone is wrong as well as being unskillful. In the same way, acting like an ass and belittling people and attacking them on a forum is not only unskillful, it's wrong, and there's no defending it.

There is no such thing as right and wrong, since everything is conditioned. To say that things can be right and wrong morally (not something being a fact or a lie) would have to mean there are absolute truths: but I'm pretty sure Buddha taught against there being absolute moral truths - only skillful and unskillful actions.

There is no such thing as right and wrong, since everything is conditioned. To say that things can be right and wrong morally (not something being a fact or a lie) would have to mean there are absolute truths: but I'm pretty sure Buddha taught against there being absolute moral truths - only skillful and unskillful actions.

Well, I don't agree. I could think of situations where you could justify some "bad" things (such as killing someone). But I couldn't think of a justification for rape...as one example.

tmottes

@vinlyn Here is some hypothetical mumbo-jumbo:

You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?

zidangus

At the end of the day they are just labels that we give to actions. The true judge of everything is our own kamma.

vinlyn

@vinlyn Here is some hypothetical mumbo-jumbo:

You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?

That's too way out for me to contemplate.

I_AM_THAT

Here is a quote I read today:

Ignorance;

Do not be ignorant about who or what is right or wrong -
Blame the ignorance, not the ignorant!

Cloud

Both. Right and Wrong are moralistic concepts, Skillful and Unskillful are relative to something (in Buddhism, actions that lead to liberation). The last two could also be Wholesome and Unwholesome, which lean more toward actions which have results of one kind or another. Same thing.

We have to walk the line where mundane and supramundane, conceptual and ultimate, merge.

YoungBuddhist

I think it all just comes down to the intention. If someone has a good intention when doing something, it is skillful. If they have bad intention, it is unskillful. Right and wrong are labels we invent all on our own, so im not entirely sure if right and wrong even exist other than in our own projections of how we think the world 'should' be.

Jeffrey

wrong and right is the same thing as skillful or unskillful. this can include moral dimension. but remember all notions and ideas are stamped with the three marks. Impermanent, merely labled, and in a context (non-self...no isolated essence to right or wrong eg god oneness etc)

Dazzle

There's a talk "I'm right. you're wrong" from Ajahn Sumedho of the Theravada Forest Tradition, if anyone's interested in listening to it.

http://www.dharmaseed.org/talks/audio_player/10/3683.html

.

Mountains

If someone isn't a Buddhist and has never heard of the terms "skillful" and "unskillful" and those words mean nothing to them, can they do nothing right or wrong?

seeker242

I believe they mean the same thing, just different words.

Jason

Interesting topic. It reminds me of something I wrote a while ago about moral absolutism in general:

Personally, I'm not absolutely sure one way or the other, but I think that social consciousness changes and evolves. There was a time not too long ago, for example, when things like genocide and rape were justified (and in some cases, it appears they still are). Just look at the Bible and the accounts of what ancient Israelites did to other tribes in the name of their god, acts which they where able to justify then but aren't so justifiable today (e.g., Deut 20:16-18, where God ordered the death of every man, woman and child in Canaan). And I'm not trying to pick on the Bible; every culture has its own examples.

I don't like killing. I don't even like the thought of it. But that doesn't mean there's some cosmic dictate that states it's evil and wrong under any circumstance. And even if there was, what about people like Hitler? If you say that things like murder and genocide are always wrong, but people like Hitler are evil and must be stopped at any cost, does that mean it's OK to murder and entire group of people if they're all like Hitler?

If the answer's yes, then it'd appear that such moral 'absolutes' aren't very absolute, and if the answer's no, then evil has a natural advantage over good in that it's protected by these absolutes even as it transgresses them with wild abandon.

Objectively speaking, I can't say that anything is right or wrong, but I have no trouble doing so subjectively. I don't like the thought of killing or being killed, and it's easy for me to see how other people tend to feel the same way; therefore, I can at least see how such actions are relatively right or wrong based upon this point of reference. But I don't believe the universe is designed in such a way as to make any specific action done by human beings absolutely right or wrong (remember, we're not the only animals who kill, etc.).

The way I see it, we simply experience the results of our actions in ways that are interpreted to be right or wrong based upon a myriad of factors, some of which may be unique to our species. The main reason I take this relativistic position is the fact that I've yet to discover an immutable source or basis for such absolutes besides the fact that I find them repugnant.

If I knew without a doubt that there was such a basis, then my position would certainly change, but I'm currently unconvinced of its existence. I can see how these actions are morally right and wrong from a human-centric point of view, but I fail to see an objective seat from which they can be judged one or the other in any absolute sense.

When it comes to Buddhist morality specifically, I tend to agree with @Cloud that skillfulness and unskillfulness are relative to something (i.e., how they're experienced). For example, actions (kamma) are deemed 'wrong' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, and 'right' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).

In the context of actions, the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.

So when looking at the question of right and wrong from this perspective, it can certainly be said to exist in a subjective sense, and I'd say they're appropriate descriptors for qualities that most people would generally agree to be good/bad, positive/negative, desirable/undesirable, etc. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism refrains from presenting right and wrong as something which exists independently of us, something 'out there' as it were.

Jason

It should be noted, however, that the commentarial tradition of Theravada presents a more absolutist view. For example, the intention to kill is said to be inherently unskillful regardless of the motivation as it's always rooted in an unskillful state of mind such as ill-will or delusion, and ultimately leads to unpleasant results in the form of mental suffering (e.g., as a result of remorse, legal punishment, a bad destination after death for those who believe in such things, etc.). The Abhidhammattha-Sangaha, for example, states that:

According to Abhidhamma killing is invariably done with ill-will or aversion. Prompted by whatever motive, one, as a rule, kills with a thought of ill-will. Where there is ill-will (patigha) there is displeasure (domanassa). Where there is displeasure there is ill-will in a subtle or gross way.

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but it's something to think about.

tmottes

@vinlyn Here is some hypothetical mumbo-jumbo:

You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?

That's too way out for me to contemplate.

I was just providing you with a situation where you could conceivably justify rape. Knowing what I do about psychopaths, this sadly isn't that far out there.

tmottes

Right and wrong seem to be relative based on the context. Skillful and unskillful are relative based on an end goal. Selfish and non-selfish... perhaps we are making some ground there.

@Jeffrey This comes the closest to my thoughts on the matter; however, it implies that buddhism is right . haha

@Mountains Just because somebody is ignorant of something, doesn't mean it doesn't effect them. People are ignorant of the effects of their actions all the time, but it doesn't change the outcome. Likewise, just because we think something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it ultimately is. Our notions of right and wrong are a long standing social tradition, not a moral absolute.

To me it seems that right, wrong, skillful, or non-skillful are all judgements. With skillful and non-skillful we are judging actions based against a set of guidelines laid out in buddhism. With right and wrong we are judging actions against social norms mixed with a person set of ethics. Seems to me, that means that neither set absolutely exists nor absolutely describes actions in our reality. Implying that just like everything else in our reality, right and wrong are merely co-arising and therefore empty?

I really wish I could remember the sutta where the buddha says that being moral only makes the ground more fertile for liberation (and of course higher births), but once we achieve it, those morals cease to come into play. Anybody? DD?

Prometheus

Right and wrong, and skilful and unskilful, are the same thing, in my view.

I believe in objective morality based on happiness and suffering (what else could it possibly be about?). If there are objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering, then we have objective morality that is independent of subjective choice (i.e., not even a masochist can subjectively choose to be made happy by forced torture, by definition of the word 'forced'). Even within different specific contexts, there will be objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering (regardless of whether or not we know what they are).

Sure, we describe all this in words, but I do not believe they are 'just' words, as some here have suggested. Some say happiness itself is too ill-defined and subjective, but I disagree. I might be made happy by going to a concert and someone else by going to a movie, but neither of us are made happy by being shot in the face against our will. Happiness is simply not THAT subjective.

@tmottes

"You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?"

I don't understand this at all. The fact that we might be forced at gunpoint to commit an immoral act does make the act moral. It just means that moral responsibility for the act is on the person with the gun, instead of on you.

Jeffrey

objective and subjective are mental lables which we add to direct experience.

Mountains

Is it just me, or does this whole question (no offense intended) seem really irrelevant? If anyone were striving to do wrong or act unskillfully, it'd be one thing. But I don't think, or at least I hope, no one is trying to do that. Does it matter what we call it, as long as it's good?

Prometheus

objective and subjective are mental lables which we add to direct experience.

We could say this about every label, but that doesn't mean the label doesn't refer to something real.

tmottes

Right and wrong, and skilful and unskilful, are the same thing, in my view.

I believe in objective morality based on happiness and suffering (what else could it possibly be about?). If there are objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering, then we have objective morality that is independent of subjective choice (i.e., not even a masochist can subjectively choose to be made happy by forced torture, by definition of the word 'forced'). Even within different specific contexts, there will be objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering (regardless of whether or not we know what they are).

Sure, we describe all this in words, but I do not believe they are 'just' words, as some here have suggested. Some say happiness itself is too ill-defined and subjective, but I disagree. I might be made happy by going to a concert and someone else by going to a movie, but neither of us are made happy by being shot in the face against our will. Happiness is simply not THAT subjective.

@tmottes

"You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?"

I don't understand this at all. The fact that we might be forced at gunpoint to commit an immoral act does make the act moral. It just means that moral responsibility for the act is on the person with the gun, instead of on you.

The aversion to suffering and the inclination to happiness are conditioned behaviours and don't really mean much except as a motivation to find freedom from suffering or simply a distraction from it in the mean time. "Wrong" acts still lead to liberation, albeit not in a direct route.

I have framed that situation as you rape the person or that person dies, so although it doesn't make the action moral or not, does it make it your action right because you saved the person's life? Also, there is nothing that says you shouldn't ignore the ultimatum and chose another option (I didn't think about this when I originally wrote that). When we stop seeing the world as our or others' conception of it, we see other more skillful courses of action. Just because somebody else is performing the "evil" action, doesn't mean that we can just sit by and allow it to happen without consequence of our own.

tmottes

objective and subjective are mental lables which we add to direct experience.

We could say this about every label, but that doesn't mean the label doesn't refer to something real.

What makes you think that it does refer to something "real"?

Jeffrey

They are sankhara, not real.

If they were real then the mental fermations, kleshas, would be real and thus the third noble truth would fall flat on its face. Because the kleshas are essenceless we can realize perfect buddhahood.

heart sutra

vinlyn

Is it just me, or does this whole question (no offense intended) seem really irrelevant? If anyone were striving to do wrong or act unskillfully, it'd be one thing. But I don't think, or at least I hope, no one is trying to do that. Does it matter what we call it, as long as it's good?

I wouldn't quite say irrelevant, because it's a somewhat interesting discussion. But I also can't say that the difference between the two sets of terms is...hmmmm...significantly different. One set sounds a little less stark, but from a world perspective I think they are nearly synonyms.

tmottes

This came up because I said in another thread that I didn't believe in right and wrong and it was met with resistance. I just wanted to hear how others perceived the concepts of right/wrong, bad/good, skillful/unskillful, etc.

Prometheus

Right and wrong, and skilful and unskilful, are the same thing, in my view.

I believe in objective morality based on happiness and suffering (what else could it possibly be about?). If there are objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering, then we have objective morality that is independent of subjective choice (i.e., not even a masochist can subjectively choose to be made happy by forced torture, by definition of the word 'forced'). Even within different specific contexts, there will be objectively better and worse ways to increase happiness and decrease suffering (regardless of whether or not we know what they are).

Sure, we describe all this in words, but I do not believe they are 'just' words, as some here have suggested. Some say happiness itself is too ill-defined and subjective, but I disagree. I might be made happy by going to a concert and someone else by going to a movie, but neither of us are made happy by being shot in the face against our will. Happiness is simply not THAT subjective.

@tmottes

"You and another person were held hostage by some very deluded individual. Your captor says, rape the other person or I will kill them. Is that rape justified?"

I don't understand this at all. The fact that we might be forced at gunpoint to commit an immoral act does make the act moral. It just means that moral responsibility for the act is on the person with the gun, instead of on you.

The aversion to suffering and the inclination to happiness are conditioned behaviours and don't really mean much except as a motivation to find freedom from suffering or simply a distraction from it in the mean time. "Wrong" acts still lead to liberation, albeit not in a direct route.

I have framed that situation as you rape the person or that person dies, so although it doesn't make the action moral or not, does it make it your action right because you saved the person's life? Also, there is nothing that says you shouldn't ignore the ultimatum and chose another option (I didn't think about this when I originally wrote that). When we stop seeing the world as our or others' conception of it, we see other more skillful courses of action. Just because somebody else is performing the "evil" action, doesn't mean that we can just sit by and allow it to happen without consequence of our own.

I simply cannot believe that wanting happiness and not wanting suffering are 'conditioned behaviors', as though it were possible for us to have been 'conditioned' any alternative way. I think wanting happiness and not wanting suffering is inherent. Show me a culture where people are 'conditioned' to be ecstatic at the thought of being raped, tortured, and flayed alive against their will, and cannot stand the idea of being given food when they are starving, and I will be quiet. Needless to say, I find this notion self-evidently false.

On your hypothetical, certainly if there's a harmless third option open to you, then you should take it. But even if there's no third option, whether your action is moral or immoral will depend on whether the victim prefers to be raped rather than die, or to die rather than be raped. Does this make all morality subjective? I submit that it doesn't, because that choice is still independent of you, and therefore objective to you.

Prometheus

They are sankhara, not real.

If they were real then the mental fermations, kleshas, would be real and thus the third noble truth would fall flat on its face. Because the kleshas are essenceless we can realize perfect buddhahood.

heart sutra

I said the labels 'refer' to something real, not that they are real in and of themselves. I don't even know what that would mean.

Prometheus

objective and subjective are mental lables which we add to direct experience.

We could say this about every label, but that doesn't mean the label doesn't refer to something real.

What makes you think that it does refer to something "real"?

Because we can test for what is real. For example, if thermodynamics wasn't real, then cars wouldn't work. If quantum mechanics wasn't real, computers wouldn't work. And so forth.

Prometheus

I don't understand this at all. The fact that we might be forced at gunpoint to commit an immoral act does make the act moral. It just means that moral responsibility for the act is on the person with the gun, instead of on you.

Apologies all, this was meant to say "the fact that we might be forced at gunpoint to commit an immoral act does *not* make the act moral".

tmottes

@Prometheus we are discussing things on two very different levels. From an everyday, mundane (if I can use that word here) level I would say you are correct, seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain is at the very basis of our evolutionary existence. However, on deeper inspection of these traits, they are simply conditioned, whether it be through social or biological means. I believe that any behaviour you perceive in this world is conditioned.

While I agree we can't discount the other person's wants, wants are hardly a good basis for judging right and wrong. Many people want to die and as a result commit suicide. Does this mean that they are right, because it is what they want? Especially when presented with horrific situations like the one presented.

In regards to what is real and what isn't... well, that is something that you must explore for yourself. If we take the senses to be real, then our world is real. But why simply accept what we have been conditioned to believe? What really are your senses? What is sense data? Don't we use our mind to process all sense data, including the existence of our senses?

Prometheus

@Prometheus we are discussing things on two very different levels. From an everyday, mundane (if I can use that word here) level I would say you are correct, seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain is at the very basis of our evolutionary existence. However, on deeper inspection of these traits, they are simply conditioned, whether it be through social or biological means. I believe that any behaviour you perceive in this world is conditioned.

While I agree we can't discount the other person's wants, wants are hardly a good basis for judging right and wrong. Many people want to die and as a result commit suicide. Does this mean that they are right, because it is what they want? Especially when presented with horrific situations like the one presented.

In regards to what is real and what isn't... well, that is something that you must explore for yourself. If we take the senses to be real, then our world is real. But why simply accept what we have been conditioned to believe? What really are your senses? What is sense data? Don't we use our mind to process all sense data, including the existence of our senses?

I'm not sure evolution could select for us to be any other way, so even here I might say that wanting happiness and not wanting suffering is necessary rather than conditioned. But even if biologically conditioned, they are inherent to human nature, and I don't think this would mean they 'don't really mean much'.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up suicide. But I don't actually think anyone 'wants' suicide. They commit suicide only because they have been tragically thwarted in their want for happiness.

In terms of what is real, surely the fact that aeroplanes fly proves the science behind aerodynamics to be 'real'. Yes we perceive such flights through our senses, but it seems far more likely that our senses perceive them to be flying because they really are flying, than that we are deceived about them flying without any effect to our mortality. Call this an 'assumption' if you will, but it is by far the assumption that assumes less.

tmottes

@Prometheus Things are real in the same way that mathematics is real. We are able to use it to describe what we perceive in our reality, but when you try to pin down what numbers really are, there is nothing there, but relationships.

Prometheus

@tmottes Yes I already noted in response to Jeffrey that labels aren't 'real' in themselves, I just think they refer to real things. Same can be said of numbers.

tmottes

@Prometheus So what do you think is behind the labels which we give numbers? I have thought about this a decent amount and haven't really come up with anything.

Jeffrey

Lables refer to emergent experience. It doesn't matter if we call such emergent experience real or unreal. That too is a mental lable.

I'll grant you that we use language to designate what happened in a dream and fantasy etc.. But the point is that all through buddhism the teaching is that we over concretize and grasp.

Prometheus

@tmottes Gotta call them something. What does that matter?

@Jeffrey I can only refer you to what I've already said to tmottes about why I think we can say certain things are real.

tmottes

@Prometheus I am not arguing the name. I am asking what is at the essence of numbers? What does one or two represent? What does addition represent? What is it that is real that you are pointing to with these labels?

Prometheus

They point to entities, objects, units. One could represent one table. Two could represent two tables. One table plus two tables would add up to three tables. I'm sorry, but I think you're making one helluva mystery where there is none...

Dakini

I have a question, getting back to the OP topic of right and wrong.
The Bodhisattva Vows say it's ok to kill if it serves a higher good (see Berzin archives, "Secondary Bodhisattva Vows"), and the Dalai Lama illustrates this by saying that if he had run into Hitler somehow, back in the day, he would have killed him, because it would have saved thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives. Let's leave out of the discussion for now, whether killing him would have changed anything, other than bringing Goebbels or Mengele or some other monster to the top, to replace Hitler.

My question is: at what point does exercising one's Bodhisattva Vows descend into vigilantism? In a Buddhist society, could taking the law into one's own hands be justified by saying the killing served a higher good? It got a rapist or child molester or serial murderer off the street. But isn't that why we have police and a justice system?

I think to some extent MindGate and tmottes are right; on the Bodhisattva level, there is no right and wrong, there is only skillful and unskillful, or: actions that serve the most good. "The Nature of Buddhist Ethics: Only the end justifies the means, nothing else. ... As more and more emphasis is placed upon the welfare of others as the sole end, the means employed to achieve it are questioned less and less." (Berzin archives)

tmottes

The talk that @Dazzle posted earlier was rather insightful and interesting. Anybody interested in this topic should listen to it. The first 10 minutes or so is chanting and then the talk starts. He basically says that by feeling we are right, not only do we encourage ourselves to cling to the concept of I, but we also encourage vengeance on some level (even very subtle). This made me wonder if killing Hitler might actually not necessarily be a good thing, because we are more or less lowering ourselves to an unskillful level due to somebody else's actions. We become/are attached to the idea of justice when we think in those terms.

I am not sure I agree with the idea that the means justify the ends.

Spaceless

In the ultimate reality, it is absoluteness. As for Hitler, Hitler was not reborned entirely as an irrepentable person. Unfortunately, the mundane education there did not equip him adequately to face the society at that period of time. The fortunate reality is that, Hitler has the opportunity in subsequent lifespans under the law of nature, either be your wife, your husband, your kid or your buddha

MindGate

I've changed my opinion. There is no such thing as right or wrong or skillful or unskillful - except when a perceiver perceives the action in that way. Things just "are." No right, no wrong, no positive, no negative. Everything just "is."

tmottes

I've changed my opinion. There is no such thing as right or wrong or skillful or unskillful - except when a perceiver perceives the action in that way. Things just "are." No right, no wrong, no positive, no negative. Everything just "is."

@MindGate I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, where does that leave suffering? If suffering isn't negative, then why follow a path that leads to the end of suffering? Or is that path simply an awareness of it, but not a perception and thus ceases to be suffering?

Prometheus

It's not about 'I' being right or wrong, it's about an action being right or wrong. Can anyone here honestly say they would not feel that serial rape and murder of children is wrong? Honestly, it would make me feel sick to my stomach to hear people say that 'right' and 'wrong' don't really exist, except that I don't actually believe any of you. I don't believe you are all sociopaths. I believe you are all confused. At least, I sincerely hope you are all just confused.

I don't think I'm going to reply to this thread anymore. I'm getting depressed, and since I've now said what I've needed to say, it is now simply becoming 'unskilful'.

tmottes

@Prometheus An action being right and wrong is dependent on an "i" judgement. Without an "I" there is no judgement, and thus no right or wrong. I am sorry you find it depressing, that is certainly not where I am coming from. I live based on a principle of non-harm. Sometimes I may harm, but this is why I meditate for clarity. I am trying to reach something beyond right and wrong. I would dare say that a great number of buddhists are aiming for this as well.

Don't get stuck in a nihilist view.

Cloud

It's difficult to get that center view. On one hand we think right and wrong is based on a cosmic system of judgement, on God or karma. On another hand we think there's no such thing as right and wrong.

The middle ground is that our karma/actions does lead to results, and we label these skillful/wholesome and unskillful/unwholesome based on whether they are beneficial or harmful to life. It's not a system of punishment or judgment from a cosmic source, but a causal relationship. We simply apply that relationship to human existence.

vinlyn

It's not about 'I' being right or wrong, it's about an action being right or wrong. Can anyone here honestly say they would not feel that serial rape and murder of children is wrong? Honestly, it would make me feel sick to my stomach to hear people say that 'right' and 'wrong' don't really exist, except that I don't actually believe any of you. I don't believe you are all sociopaths. I believe you are all confused. At least, I sincerely hope you are all just confused.

I don't think I'm going to reply to this thread anymore. I'm getting depressed, and since I've now said what I've needed to say, it is now simply becoming 'unskilful'.

I very much agree with all aspects of this post.

tmottes

Perhaps we are speaking on different levels. Hows this... the only right and wrong we can deal with, is simply a view/perception/judgement. Whether there is an absolute right or wrong, I don't know, and I don't think I will know in this existence. So for me, i chose to try to not cling to the idea that an action is right or wrong. This helps keep the "I" out of situations.

I_AM_THAT

Who is to say what is right or what is wrong? Society? Individual? Just asking...

Still_Waters

A great many years ago, I caught a debate on TV between a Christian fundamentalist minister and an atheist. The minister argued that without a God to reward or punish us for being evil, there would be no reason for us to refrain from doing things like robbing banks, committing rape, and other evil acts. Atheism was therefore a path to moral depravity.

The notion that the only justification for being good is the inherently selfish one of avoiding punishment at the hands of a vengeful God bothered me. One of the things that originally attracted me to Buddhism is that Buddhism, for me, provides a basis for morality that is rooted in human experience, rather than dependent on the whims of an all-powerful deity. We do good and avoid evil to avoid harming others, to alleviate suffering, and to promote the general welfare of all beings. Or as it is expressed in Metta Bhavana (Lovingkindness Meditation):

May all beings be happy.
May all beings be well.
May all beings be safe.
May all beings be peaceful and at ease.

I am not an intellectual. My head spins when I read arguments for the Yogacara and the Madhyamaka schools of Buddhist philosophy. Much of Zen philosophy, such as the finer points of emptiness and the true meaning of many zen paradoxes, are beyond me. The Dhammapada is more my speed. "Do good, avoid evil, and purify the mind" is clear to me and feels right. Doing good and avoiding evil is fundamental to me. So is purifying the mind of defilements and cultivating positive states of mind such as the four Brahmaviharas (Heavenly Abodes).

Regarding the OP's original question, my suspicion is that the problem that many have with right/wrong and good/evil is the common association of those terms with dogmatic worship-centered religions. Personally, I'm fine with right/wrong, good/evil, skillful/unskillful, or any other terms that convey the idea that there are some actions with undesirable consequences that should be avoided and there are other actions with desirable consequences that should be embraced.

I think it all just comes down to the intention. If someone has a good intention when doing something, it is skillful. If they have bad intention, it is unskillful.

I disagree with this. Intention is important, but if your good intentions translate into actions that lead to harm or suffering, then your actions were unskillful. It's not enough to have good intentions, we have to be perceptive enough to accurately gauge the consequences of our actions. "Idiot compassion" is an example that comes to mind.

When it comes to Buddhist morality specifically, I tend to agree with @Cloud that skillfulness and unskillfulness are relative to something (i.e., how they're experienced). For example, actions (kamma) are deemed 'wrong' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, and 'right' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).

In the context of actions, the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.

So when looking at the question of right and wrong from this perspective, it can certainly be said to exist in a subjective sense, and I'd say they're appropriate descriptors for qualities that most people would generally agree to be good/bad, positive/negative, desirable/undesirable, etc. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism refrains from presenting right and wrong as something which exists independently of us, something 'out there' as it were.

I completely agree with this. Moral right and moral wrong are not fundamental principles of the universe, the way gravity is, for example. They are descriptors for human behaviors based on the consequences of those behaviors. In as much as these consequences are based on universal human responses (e.g. pretty much all humans feel pain when burned), I see Buddhist morality as being to a large extent culturally independent. Rape may be okay in some cultures, but it still leads to harm and suffering caused by a mind caught up in defilements, so it's not okay in my book.

I think to some extent MindGate and tmottes are right; on the Bodhisattva level, there is no right and wrong, there is only skillful and unskillful, or: actions that serve the most good. "The Nature of Buddhist Ethics: Only the end justifies the means, nothing else.

I don't agree that "the end justifies the means." If your means are evil, the end result will be poisoned.

It's difficult to get that center view. On one hand we think right and wrong is based on a cosmic system of judgement, on God or karma. On another hand we think there's no such thing as right and wrong.

The middle ground is that our karma/actions does lead to results, and we label these skillful/wholesome and unskillful/unwholesome based on whether they are beneficial or harmful to life. It's not a system of punishment or judgment from a cosmic source, but a causal relationship. We simply apply that relationship to human existence.

As with Jason's view, I completely agree with this. It's the middle ground for me.

I am trying to reach something beyond right and wrong. I would dare say that a great number of buddhists are aiming for this as well.

Try Nietzsche. (Not a fan myself.)

Alan

tmottes

@Still_Waters By suggesting Nietzsche to this comment you are either misunderstanding me, or Nietzsche.

Still_Waters

@Still_Waters By suggesting Nietzsche to this comment you are either misunderstanding me, or Nietzsche.

Perhaps I was sneaking in a pun. Since you know Nietzsche, I'm sure you get it.

Alan