Archives for November 2008

Ram Bahadur Bamjan is an 18 year old male whom many people believe is the reincarnation of Buddha (Gurubacharya, 1). Bamjan has spent several months meditating under a tree in the jungles of Nepal without food or water, and has recently emerged to speak to fellow followers of Buddhism. After addressing several thousand devotees, Bamjan plans to retreat back into the jungle to continue his meditation. Because of his devotion to Buddhism, many people see him as the reincarnation of the original Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. Though meditating in isolation without food or water for months in an arduous task, it does not prove that Bamjan is a reincarnation of Buddha. However, Bamjan may as well be considered a modern day Buddha.

As discussed in class, Siddhartha Gautama, the original Buddha, was the first person to achieve Enlightenment. He was once a prince and lived comfortable life, but still experienced suffering (Dalai Lama, 68). He decided that in order to achieve happiness, it was necessary to change his mindset (Dalai Lama, 69). External conditions that we live through are not controllable, but the negative ways of thinking people develop are able to be changed. Siddhartha gave up his lavish life and spent six years in isolation sitting underneath a bodhi tree meditating to try to clear his mind and come to an understanding about suffering and life. Siddhartha eventually did attain enlightenment, and went on to tell other about his experience and realizations, thus beginning the notion of Buddhism. Historical accounts seem to confirm that he actually did spend six years in solidarity, which shows that his spiritual realization was an arduous path; it was not easy to become enlightened (Dalai Lama, 71). It takes a great amount of dedication to reach enlightenment.

I can see how people could relate Bamjan to the original Buddha. He seems to be taking a very similar spiritual path as his predecessor. Bamjan has only spent a number of months meditating, while Buddha spent six years meditating, but the fact that Bamjan survives without any nourishment is a Buddha-like quality. Bamjan’s goal of reaching enlightenment and teaching others is also very similar to Siddhartha. These comparisons to Buddha could be interpreted as Bamjan being an appearance of the sacred. The original Buddha, who lived over 2,500 years ago, seems to be manifest in the current world of human experience through Bamjan (Cunningham and Kelsay, 39). Bamjan could be considered a sacred person, specifically a sage or model. The original Buddha was considered to be a sage who discovered the true reality and ultimately Buddhism (Cunningham and Kelsay, 43). Bamjan, while not the discoverer of Buddhism, is helping to spread the idea of Buddhism and is giving people hope that it is possible to reach nirvana.

The appearance of the sacred is also evidenced through sacred space, that being the jungle in which Bamjan meditates (Cunningham and Kelsay, 51). He meditates underneath a tree just as Siddhartha Gautama did 2,500 years ago. Because of this, the bodhi tree can be considered sacred as an object itself, and the jungle as a geographical site can be considered sacred. Followers of Buddhism came specifically to the jungle to see Bamjan partly because of the aura surrounding the area. Bamjan making an appearance in a city would not have the same religious significance as him addressing followers of Buddhism outside of the jungle in which he meditates.

The appearance of the sacred is also revealed to the people through time. Some people believe Bamjan is the reincarnation of Siddhartha Gautama, thus there is a cyclical sacred time involved (Cunningham and Kelsay, 50). The history of Buddhism is repeating itself, in a sense. However, as discussed in class, when one reaches enlightenment, their soul is freed from the constraints of this world of suffering. They become no more once nirvana is reached, and they are simply free. This can be a difficult concept for those not familiar with Buddhism to comprehend. The Buddha was the first to reach enlightenment, and thus he was freed from the cycle of suffering. This means that he could not be reborn because he escaped from the cycle of rebirth. Just as Rakesh, a Buddhist scolar is quoted as saying, “Being Buddha means the last birth and the highest level that can be achieved. There can be no reincarnation of Buddha, even though Buddhists believe in life after death” (Gurubacharya, 1). With this in mind, it is illogical to believe that Bamjan is the reincarnation of Buddha. It is simply not possible for him to be Siddhartha Gautama reborn. He has to be the reincarnation of someone else. However, I can see how people would consider him to be a “God”. The mental and physical strength it would take to be able to meditate in the wilderness without food or water for an extended period of time must be outstanding.

The Dalai Lama defines meditation as “the process by which we transform our more instinctual attitude to life, that state of mind which seeks only to satisfy desire and avoid discomforts” (Dalai Lama, 46). He also calls it “the process whereby we gain control over the mind and guide it in a more virtuous direction.” Basically, meditation is a tool used to suppress suffering. Though meditation is typically a solitary method of worship, the collective group of people meditating creates a sacred community. The process of meditation is identifying in the nature of Buddhism, and gives its followers the basic structure of how to live their lives (Cunningham and Kelsay, 92).

Bamjan’s method of meditation is almost a model for Buddhists to abide by. He shows how dedicated someone who is serious about reaching enlightenment must be. While his strict ways are not for everyone, his ways are representative of the Buddhist community. They are a people who typically live peaceful and spiritual lives. All Buddhist work towards the same goal of enlightenment as Bamjan does. Bamjan’s “traditional” path to enlightenment is difficult to be achieved by those living in pluralistic settings, but at the very least he is giving those people some hope and inspiration (Cunningham and Kelsay, 101). Bishnu Maya Khadka, a Buddhist who received Bamjan’s blessing is quoted as saying “I got a chance to see God today,” showing how special the moment was for some people (Gurubacharya, 1).

He has helped to bring together the sacred community of Buddhist people, as thousands of them came to hear him speak when he emerged from the jungle. His public appearance created a horizontal worship, as well as vertical worship. Vertical worship was accomplished through the Buddhist people simply hearing and seeing Bamjan. Because of the belief that he is a sacred person, people felt like they were making a connection to the sacred (Cunningham and Kelsay, 105). Horizontal worship was evidenced through the people having common bond with each other. They all shared the privilege of being able to see someone who they believe is sacred together. Bamjan basically brought forth and strengthened the sacred community.

While Bamjan may not be the reincarnation of Siddhartha Gautama, he has helped to bring Buddhists together. A local farmer is quoted as saying: “I have no doubt in my mind he is a God. He has been meditating without food and water and no human can achieve such a feat. I used to hear about such miracles in the past but now I got to see one” (Gurubacharya, 1). There is no question that Bamjan and the aura surrounding him can be viewed as an appearance of the sacred. He shares such similarities to the original Buddha that it is hard for Buddhists to not be excited and hopeful. This appearance of the sacred has led to a strengthening of the sacred community. Buddhists from all around came together to witness Bamjan speak. The solitary process of meditating by Bamjan has made people come together and take part in horizontal and vertical worship. It is fascinating to see how one man could have such an impact on a religious community.

Being the prime minister in Great Britain is a valiant duty. The prime minister in Great Britain is essentially the head of the government and thus has a great deal of power. He or she plays an integral part in the politics of the country and are widely known around the world. The prime minister of Japan on the other hand plays a much reduced role in the Japanese government does not garnish nearly as much power. They are not nearly as well known as British prime ministers, party due to the fact that they are merely “keepers of the helm” and only stay in power for an average of 18 months (McCormick 2007, 140). While Great Britain and Japan have similar forms of parliamentary democracy, their prime ministers have differing amounts of power and support.

The British and Japanese prime ministers have the same basic powers. They both oversee government policies, have the power of appointment, and have the power to hold elections (McCormick 2007, 143). The British prime minister specifically uses this power to call the House of Commons and to appoint his or her cabinet, which are both very important towards bolstering their support and power (McCormick 2007, 95). The Japanese prime minister is also able to elect their own cabinet, but their cabinet does not play nearly as strong of a part in the government as the British cabinet, thus they do not have as much power backing them.

One of the foundations behind the British prime minister’s power is that they are the leader of their political party (McCormick 2007, 95). The prime minister is elected based upon being the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is a fairly important part of the British government, and thus having a majority of the members favoring the prime minister naturally gives him or her a good deal of power. The prime minister must call elections of the House of Commons at least once every five years, but they are allowed to call them at any point during those five years. This means he or she can call the elections at a time when it seems favorable to his or her party, basically ensuring their party wins the most seats and they stay in power. The prime minister also has support of the cabinet, which they are allowed to elect without any restrictions, so this adds to the foundation of support behind them. The cabinet intrinsically also owes their loyalty to the prime minister (McCormick 2007, 98).

The Japanese prime minister is not necessarily the leader of their party, which already shows a discrepancy in the support behind the British and Japanese prime ministers. Instead of becoming prime minister through a majority seating the House of Commons, the Japanese prime minister is elected by popular vote through the Liberal Democratic Party (McCormick 2007, 141). Whoever wins the most support out of all the factions becomes the prime minister. This person could be from any faction, which means they may not necessarily be from the most represented faction. Coupled with the fact that the elected person may not even be the president of their own faction, this means the prime minister can be under much scrutiny, and their terms are often terminated prematurely. The prime minister does have the power to appoint their own cabinet much like the British prime minister, but the Japanese cabinet is smaller and has less power (McCormick 2007, 143). There are also limits placed on the Japanese prime minister’s power by “the bureaucracy, factions within political parties, party leaders, and the consensus style of Japanese politics” (McCormick 2007, 140). These variables contribute to the discrepancy in power between British and Japanese prime ministers.

Armed with overwhelming power and support, the British prime minister is better able to concentrate on working for towards betterment of the state and govnerment. The British prime minister takes part in numerous endeavors, such as setting the national political agenda, appointing ambassadors, managing crises, and being an overseas representative of Britain (McCormick 2007, 95). It is much easier for them to pursue these types of things when they have the backing of both the House of Commons and the cabinet. The Japanese prime minister on the contrary must be slightly more concerned for themselves than a British prime minister would because they have less stability (McCormick 2007, 143). This means they are not able to achieve as much as a British prime minister, and they typically do not leave a notable mark on the government. Often times they are not even able to have their own individual policies. The Japanese prime minister does serve a role in helping to create policies and elect new officials, but they simply do not have as much influence as the British prime minister does.

Newly founded democracies face many challenges. It is unreasonable to think that a democratic institution, such as the one found in the United States, could promptly and smoothly be implemented in another country. After all, the United States has taken over 200 years to develop and consolidate its government. All countries that now have deep democratic roots have gone through many hardships over the years. Just as Rome was not built in a day, neither was democracy. The tough times that those countries have gone through are currently being experienced by new democracies.

Linz and Stepan describe three minimal characteristics for democracy to exist. They say there must first be a defined state, a democratic transition, and dignified leaders (Linz and Stephan 1996, 14-15). Many young democratic regimes have problems fulfilling even these most fundamental requirements for democracy. Without defined borders and boundaries of the state, it is not possible to enforce legitimate rule. The inhabitants of the country do not have a sense that they are enclosed in and belong to a nation, thus they are not obliged to abide by those at rule. Also, the government cannot know who is included in the nation in order to serve and protect them. A democratic transition is needed to implement free, fair, and competitive elections (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). New democracies usually do not have problems implementing elections, but do often have trouble making sure they are clean elections. Lastly, even if fair elections are implemented, those who are being elected must be honest and working towards the good of the people. All too often in democratizing countries, the people who are elected will violate the constitutions set before them, neglecting individuals, and thus in actuality not enforcing democracy.

Aside from the minimal values needed for democracy, those democracies should then want to consolidate, or better organize and improve their conditions. A democracy can be considered consolidated only if it behaviorally, attitudinally, and constitutionally becomes the “only game in town” (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). New democracies often have trouble meeting these three criteria. When they do not have the support of their people, they neither behaviorally nor attitudinally can become the only game in town. When the leaders do not follow the constitution and established rules, it also makes it impossible for democracy to become consolidated.

It can be difficult for young democracies to gain the support of their peoples, for various reasons. One of the biggest reasons is because democracy itself does not fix economic and social problems (Carothers 2004, 25-26). Democracy simply provides political values, choices, and processes. It is up to those in charge to improve life for their peoples. The implementation of democracy typically entails an economic downswing. During this time, it can be difficult for a new democracy to keep the support of its people. It is only human nature to want to immediate gratification as a result of the switch to democracy. Economic crisis can lead to political instability. In the long run, the economy will straighten out, but it is difficult for the people to keep faith in democracy during early growing pains. Authoritarian rule on the other hand is typically effective at increasing economic development (Carothers 2004, 26). Over the long run, the peoples will suffer in almost all aspects of life, but in the short term they may favor authoritarian rule simply for the economic benefits. This makes it difficult for previously authoritarian countries to implement democracy.

Another difficulty in gaining the support of the people is when a country is socially divided (Zakaria 1997, 14). Many times a country will be comprised of ethnic groups with different values and interests. This creates conflict when implementing democracy because people will instinctly be in disagreement about values the government preaches. This leads to unjust officials that run for leadership roles on the behalf of their respective ethnic groups, rather than for the country itself. Violence is often the result of this competition for power. Zakaria mentions that two scholars in the 1960’s concluded that democracy “is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences” (Zakaria 1997, 15). This problem has been evidenced in the case of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, where a split of countries was inevitable.

Even when civil and political society are organized and in harmony, there is still the lingering problem of possible unjust leaders (Ottaway 2003, 28). These new democracies are actually semi-authoritarian in nature. The elected officials will campaign saying they are for the people, but then abuse their power. Often former communist or authoritarian leaders are the ones running for the new “democratic” offices, but their techniques of ruling do not change. Those leaders are also pretty much guaranteed to stay in office, because although multiparty elections are run, the same party wins every election. This façade built around “free” elections, makes it seem like democracy is in place when it really is not.

Once all those previous factors are addressed, there is still the problem of simply maintaining a high level of democracy (Schedler 1998, 91). It is said that sustaining democracy is just as hard as establishing it. After democracy is set up, there must be a sense of urge to keep it in place. Democracy can be undermined by small groups of people, such as guerrillas, violent street protestors, and corrupt officials (Schedler 1998, 95-96). It is necessary for young democracies to stay on top of these possibly troublesome peoples to prevent a breakdown of all that has been accomplished. These peoples’ negative views can be swayed in a positive direction if the country is succeeding. Economic progress and political stability will typically lead towards nation and state building, and ultimately, the legitimacy of democracy among the peoples (Schedler 1998, 100-101). This task of consolidating democracy is much easier said than done and is a continual process, even for established democracies.

Overall, trying to establish democracy in often former authoritarian and communist states is a very daunting task. There are overwhelming odds against these new regimes. The former governments must typically be uprooted and started anew, which usually brings a time of despair and uncertainty among the peoples. This critical time in the birth of a democracy can be an indicator of how successful it will become. Simply implementing democracy is not enough; there must be a common mindset between a majority of the people that want democracy to succeed. The building of democracy must be a joined effort, and all too often the movement does not come to fabrication.

I. Introduction

The Ten Commandments are considered to be universal laws which are practiced and preached by nearly everyone, from all corners of the world. Despite widespread agreement on the moral value in these rules, they are often and continually broken by society. One of the more compelling commandments is number seven: “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Most people would agree that it is in theory immoral to cheat on your spouse or significant other, yet it continually happens. One would think the possible dire consequences of being found out would be enough to deter the adulterer. Even television has made public the ramifications of being caught in the act through shows such as “Cheaters”, yet there are obviously many more people who will continue to cheat on their spouses, some of whom will never be caught.

There must be compelling reasons for people attempting to cheat on their significant others; otherwise it would not keep happening. Some people may simply be tired of going through the motions with their spouse and are looking for a one night stand. Others may simply feel the need to do something daring and exhilarating as a break from their mundane lives. Aside from the motives to consider, the question still remains whether it is moral or immoral to commit adultery. In theory, adultery is obviously not an ethical practice, but aside from theory it can have moral value. I feel the consequences must be examined in order to determine whether it is a moral endeavor or not. If the adulterer is not caught, this means there will be no consequences to be burdened and the action of adultery is morally justified. However, if the adulterer is caught in the act, the resulting ramifications are in most cases so horrible that adultery can not be considered ethical.

II. Analysis

The philosopher J.S. Mill’s approach to the moral dilemma of adultery would be grounded in his utilitarianistic school of thought. His basic belief is that which is ethical pleases most of the people most of the time. In order to determine how much pleasure an action will yield, Mill uses “Hedonistic Calculus”, which is based on a set of criteria that measure happiness. The first criterion of Hedonistic Calculus is certainty. This is a measure of how sure we are the action will produce happiness. In the case of adultery, the person committing adultery must certainly be fairly confident they are going to experience pleasure, and thus happiness. The next factor is intensity, which describes how happy the action will make people. The act of sexual intercourse typically produces a great deal of happiness. Duration, the next criteria, of happiness would not be very long, and thus would not be especially affirming of adultery. The next factor in Hedonistic Calculus is propinquity, which deals with how soon the happiness will result. In the case of adultery, the craving would be instantly gratified. Happiness is also measured by fecundity, which begs the question of how much happiness will the action produce by association. When committing adultery, typically only two people will be pleased and possibly many others will be harmed. The last factor in Hedonistic Calculus is purity, which asks if the action is tainted by guilt or reason. Adultery in most cases will be filled with guilt, unless the person committing the deed has absolutely no conscious at all.

When analyzing the Hedonistic Calculus, I feel Mill would argue that this specific summation of factors is only seen from the point of view of the adulterer. The only factors that are really deterring them from attempting adultery are purity and possibly fecundity. The sole reason these factors would steer them from cheating is that they may be caught. If they knew they would not be caught, then it seems that the Hedonistic Calculus would approve of adultery. However, if the Hedonistic Calculus was taken from the point of view of the adulterer’s spouse or family, then I think Mill would argue that adultery would make many more people unhappy than happy. Most of the time, adultery will only please a minority, and thus that makes it unethical.

Mill’s theory of utilitarianism also deals with sanctions. He believes there are two types of motives behind actions; external and internal. The theory behind internal sanctions is doing good for the concern of fellow human beings. External sanctions deal with doing good in order to avoid punishment. The motive behind not committing adultery would be external. The only reason they would not pursue the action would be because they are afraid of the ramifications. Mill argues that acting externally is the wrong way to act, and that we should act on an internal level. Thus I feel Mill would say adultery is not moral because external sanctions are what stop one from doing it. If we acted according to internal sanctions, which are superior to external sanctions, we would not even be thinking about adultery because of the love for our spouses and family.

Finally, the only way I think adultery could be possibly justified in the eyes of Mill would be through act utilitarianism. The situation would be viewed individually to determine how much happiness the adulterer would experience and if there was any possibility of them being caught, or how extreme the consequences would be. In a case where the adulterer’s spouse has gone frigid and they are desperate to get some, then I think Mill may argue that adultery would be morally backed. However, dealing with his theory of rule utilitarianism, I think Mill would probably make a general rule that all adultery is immoral. In this case, Mill would not advocate adultery at all.

On the contrary, I feel the philosopher Ayn Rand would advocate the act of adultery in all cases. Her beliefs are founded in ethical egoism, which is the theory claiming that which is in our rational best interest is selfishness. Rand is also highly opposed to altruism. She believes humans are selfish in nature and that we should act in accordance to these primordial ways. She states that even when it seems that we are trying to be courteous to others, we are in reality trying to benefit ourselves. Thus, there is no point in trying to act like we are unselfish and we should always act in ways to benefit ourselves. This theory is illustrated through the story of Prometheus. Prometheus stole fire from the Gods and shared it with fellow mankind. Upon becoming aware of this, the Gods were angered and Prometheus was tortured for the rest of eternity. If he had been looking out for himself, he would not have risked angering the Gods and thus would have been better off.

Likewise, Rand would say that we are better off being selfish when questioning whether it is ethical to commit adultery. If we feel compelled to go out and cheat on our spouses, we should do it. Even though there could be difficult consequences associated with adultery, we should not worry about how other people would feel. If we feel it is in our best interest, there is no reason why we should not do it. However, if when weighing out our decisions we come to the conclusion that committing adultery could be risky and possibly ruin ones life, then I feel Rand may argue that we would better benefit ourselves by not cheating on ones spouse.

To further expand on that thought, Rand provides a few arguments advocating ethical egoism which would seem to make adultery acceptable in all cases. Her argument on “wants and needs” states that if wants and needs are indeed personal, then we should only be concerned about ourselves. Furthermore her argument on privacy comes to the conclusion that deciding what is best for others is immoral. These arguments seem to universally support adultery. Rand argues that it is impossible to know what other people want, so therefore it would be acceptable to commit adultery in all cases because we do not know what our significant others are thinking. They may want us to go out and have a rendez-vous for all we know. Also, I feel Rand would argue that deciding adultery would harm your spouse and others is wrong because it is immoral to decide what is best for them. With that thought in mind, that must make adultery moral by association. Whether or not we think we will get away with adultery, it is perfectly reasonable to commit the act because we should only be concerned with ourselves. We can not know what other people want or what is best for them.

III. Critique

I believe that adultery can be justified as a moral action only if the adulterer knows for a fact that they will not be caught. It does not matter how many times they cheat; as long as they do not harm anyone else in the process, I believe that adultery can be viewed as ethical. I agree with Ayn Rand in that we should be selfish, at least some of the time. It can be invigorating to act according to our selfish primordial needs. I do put value in altruism, but there are times when I think it is important to put oneself ahead of others for the sake one’s mental well being. When an adulterer attempts to cheat on their spouse, there intrinsically must be something causing distress in the relationship, otherwise they would not consider that kind of action. Pursuing adultery may be in their best interest in that situation. Committing the act may make them feel relieved and even improve domestic relations as long as their spouse never finds out.

However, adultery can quite easily have the opposite effect. If there is any chance that the adulterer could be caught, then there is no way adultery can be morally justified. It is the type of action that can destroy relationships and tear families apart. In this sense, I agree with the utilitarianistic approach of J.S. Mill. When adultery hurts more people than it helps, then I think it is highly unethical. In nearly all cases of adultery, I believe this is the case. Most persons committing adultery are probably experiencing problems in their relationship. Cheating is probably one of the worst options they could choose to deal with those matters because it can only create more problems.

The question still remains whether or not it is possible to tell if there is any chance to be caught committing adultery. I feel that it can be a morally justified action if there is no chance to be caught. However, I do not think there is any way the adulterer can be 100% certain that their significant other will not find out about their escapades. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, meaning even the most carefully planned act of adultery can be exposed. For this reason, I believe adultery is universally unethical. The ramifications are too extreme to possibly justify adultery. In conclusion, while I believe that adultery can be considered moral if the adulterer knows they will not be caught, I believe there is no way to be certain of this, and therefore the pursuit of adultery is always unethical.