Socrates, Buddha and Kant on Morality

All three of these great philosophers seem to share the same opinion regarding the hierarchy of morality and religion: morality clearly comes first. Religion is merely our attempt to describe it, to teach it, to point to it (as the finger to the moon).

Socrates with his interlocutor from the Euthyphro:

Soc. Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say?

Euth. We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry.

Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious* or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

My emphasis (as with quotes below). Pious here being the Greek τὸ ὅσιον. In the end we understand that piety is loved by the gods because it is pious or holy, not the other way around. This acts to secure piety from the whims of the Greek gods, who, like humans, had differing opinions on matters of morality. Piety, in other words, is above the gods.

Buddha, in the famed Kalama Sutta:

“So, as I said, Kalamas: ‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering” — then you should abandon them.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

Two scholarly things should be noted about this passage and sutta: first, it doesn’t appear to have been an “important” sutta before it reached European eyes. That is, it received virtually no commentarial attention in Asian countries. And second, its purpose and scope are debated. Early interpreters and their contemporary enthusiasts took it as proof of the amazing rationalist and empiricist trend in Buddhism, in opposition to silly blind faith found in Western religions. More recently and critically it has been interpreted as a clever Buddha’s way of getting the Kalamas to follow him.

In either case, the Buddha clearly here puts a person’s experience and reasoning ahead of received traditions and norms. He tempers radical individualism by noting the approval of the wise (a statement found elsewhere including in the very widely popular metta sutta).

Kant, as described by Onora O’Neill in her Tanner Lectures, holds a similar view:

This conception of proper interpretation [of Christian Scripture] can get going on the sacred texts of any tradition. Christian texts are neither unique nor indispensable. This can be illustrated by the fact that the philosophers of classical antiquity managed to interpret the crudest of polytheistic stories in ways that approximate a moral doctrine intelligible to all (R 101–2), and by equivalent moves in Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (R 102).

The issue behind these interpretive moves is highlighted by posing the question:

whether morality should be expounded according to the Bible or whether the Bible should not rather be expounded according to morality. (R 101n)

Kant’s firm answer is that morality rather than Scripture comes first:

since . . . the moral improvement of men constitutes the real end of all religion of reason, it will comprise the highest principle of all Scriptural exegesis. (R 102)