Kantian Autonomy and Buddhist Moral Cultivation in Philosophical Dialogue

This paper develops a systematic philosophical dialogue between Kantian autonomy and Buddhist ethics in relation to freedom, moral agency, and moral cultivation. And in place of a hierarchic or reductionist juxtaposition, it is rather a question of how each tradition articulates the ethical normativity it adheres to in relation to specific philosophical problems. Kantian moral reasoning connects freedom with rational self-legislation and conceives moral obligation through universal law as articulated in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Practical Reason. Buddhist ethics, by contrast, understands freedom as liberation from ignorance and craving, emphasizes causal continuity, compassion and moral cultivation, and it does so without postulating an enduring self. Drawing on recent contributions in Buddhist moral philosophy particularly that of Damien Keown, Charles Goodman and Jay L. Garfield, the article argues that the two perspectives offer kairotic rather than chronological perspectives on moral agency. Kantian universal respect and autonomy are at odds with Buddhist ethics which discloses the emerging and relational character of ethical existence. The conclusion is that the concept of moral freedom is better conceptualized when understood through the combined view of rational normativity and moral cultivation.