Ethical score profile
This assessment does not reduce the subject to one moral
ranking. Each dimension is scored separately from −100 to
+100 and must be read with its evidence and uncertainty.
Scorecard status:
Recalculated under multidimensional system
- Personal moral conduct
-
+80.0
Plausible range:
+65.0
to
+95.0
- Rights and dignity
-
+79.7
Plausible range:
+64.7
to
+92.3
- Nonviolence and harm
-
+70.0
Plausible range:
+55.0
to
+85.0
- Stewardship of power
-
+95.0
Plausible range:
+80.0
to
+100.0
- Wisdom and truthfulness
-
+72.7
Plausible range:
+57.7
to
+87.7
- Consequential legacy
-
+80.2
Plausible range:
+65.2
to
+92.7
- Severe-harm record
- No separate finding recorded
- Evidence confidence
- C — moderate
Scope of assessment
Combined historical-and-traditional assessment. This assessment concerns the early Buddhist portrayal of Siddhartha Gautama and the core teachings most consistently attributed to him. Non-killing, compassion, restraint, self-examination and reduction of craving are major strengths. Limitations include uncertain biography, monastic hierarchy, initially unequal rules for women and limited direct treatment of structural injustice outside personal and communal ethics.
The score evaluates documented public conduct during the stated period. It does not measure inherent human worth, does not constitute a legal verdict and remains open to correction when stronger evidence becomes available.
Reasoned conclusion
The Buddha scores very positively for nonviolence, compassion, intellectual self-examination and a practical programme for reducing suffering. The score is moderated by gender hierarchy, ascetic assumptions and the limits of applying an ancient monastic ethic to public institutions.
This assessment presents six separate ethical dimensions rather than one overall moral score. Each result must be read with its evidence, plausible range, confidence, disputes, exclusions, severe-harm findings and sources.
Ethical-domain scores
| Domain |
Score |
Intensity |
Confidence |
| Consequences |
+90.0 |
90.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Rights and duties |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Virtue and character |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Intentions |
+80.0 |
80.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Care |
+95.0 |
95.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Justice |
+90.0 |
90.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Wisdom and judgment |
+65.0 |
65.0
|
C — moderate
|
| Baseline ethics |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
Bipolar ethical variables
| Positive pole |
Negative pole |
Score |
Intensity |
Confidence |
Reasoning |
| Human dignity |
Dehumanisation |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Human dignity and Dehumanisation. |
| Care |
Neglect |
+95.0 |
95.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Care and Neglect. |
| Benefit |
Harm |
+90.0 |
90.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benefit and Harm. |
| Benevolent intention |
Malicious intention |
+80.0 |
80.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benevolent intention and Malicious intention. |
| Justice |
Injustice |
+90.0 |
90.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Justice and Injustice. |
| Respect for rights |
Violation of rights |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Respect for rights and Violation of rights. |
| Courage |
Cowardice |
+70.0 |
70.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Courage and Cowardice. |
| Wisdom |
Ignorance |
+65.0 |
65.0
|
C — moderate
|
Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Wisdom and Ignorance. |
Principal positive evidence
Non-killing, compassion, loving-kindness, restraint, truthfulness, self-examination, non-attachment and concern for all sentient beings form a coherent programme for reducing suffering.
Principal negative evidence
The principal limitations are subordinate institutional rules for women, hierarchical monastic authority, severe ascetic assumptions, uncertain biography and limited direct treatment of structural injustice or public institutions.
Evidence considered
WIN-C1
benefit-harm: The first precept and repeated rejection of killing and cruelty establish a strong presumption against harm.
benefit-harm: The first precept and repeated rejection of killing and cruelty establish a strong presumption against harm.
- Ethical axis
-
Benefit ↔ Harm
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-R1
rights-respect-rights-violation: The teaching recognises the moral standing of all sentient beings, although early monastic rules gave women a subordinate institutional position.
rights-respect-rights-violation: The teaching recognises the moral standing of all sentient beings, although early monastic rules gave women a subordinate institutional position.
- Ethical axis
-
Respect for rights ↔ Violation of rights
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-V1
courage-cowardice: Karma and impartial moral causation support responsibility, while social and economic structures receive less direct reform attention.
courage-cowardice: Karma and impartial moral causation support responsibility, while social and economic structures receive less direct reform attention.
- Ethical axis
-
Courage ↔ Cowardice
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-I1
benevolent-intent-malicious-intent: Students are encouraged to examine experience and avoid false speech, though later traditions also rely on inherited authority.
benevolent-intent-malicious-intent: Students are encouraged to examine experience and avoid false speech, though later traditions also rely on inherited authority.
- Ethical axis
-
Benevolent intention ↔ Malicious intention
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-CA1
care-neglect: Compassion, loving-kindness and identification with the suffering of all beings are foundational.
care-neglect: Compassion, loving-kindness and identification with the suffering of all beings are foundational.
- Ethical axis
-
Care ↔ Neglect
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-J1
justice-injustice: The analysis of craving, impermanence and mental causation provides a sophisticated practical psychology with room for self-correction.
justice-injustice: The analysis of craving, impermanence and mental causation provides a sophisticated practical psychology with room for self-correction.
- Ethical axis
-
Justice ↔ Injustice
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-W1
wisdom-ignorance: Concern for animals and restraint in consumption are substantial, though ecological systems are not addressed in modern terms.
wisdom-ignorance: Concern for animals and restraint in consumption are substantial, though ecological systems are not addressed in modern terms.
- Ethical axis
-
Wisdom ↔ Ignorance
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
WIN-B1
human-dignity-dehumanisation: The monastic model limits personal accumulation and promotes deliberation, but hierarchical rules and charismatic authority remain.
human-dignity-dehumanisation: The monastic model limits personal accumulation and promotes deliberation, but hierarchical rules and charismatic authority remain.
- Ethical axis
-
Human dignity ↔ Dehumanisation
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- Teaching career, approximately fifth century BCE
- Affected scope
- Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom
Disputed claims
This assessment concerns the early Buddhist portrayal of Siddhartha Gautama and the core teachings most consistently attributed to him. Non-killing, compassion, restraint, self-examination and reduction of craving are major strengths. Limitations include uncertain biography, monastic hierarchy, initially unequal rules for women and limited direct treatment of structural injustice outside personal and communal ethics.
Excluded claims
This assessment concerns the early Buddhist portrayal of Siddhartha Gautama and the core teachings most consistently attributed to him. Non-killing, compassion, restraint, self-examination and reduction of craving are major strengths. Limitations include uncertain biography, monastic hierarchy, initially unequal rules for women and limited direct treatment of structural injustice outside personal and communal ethics.
Sources
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-B1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-B1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-B1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-C1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-C1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-C1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-CA1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-CA1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-CA1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-I1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-I1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-I1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-J1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-J1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-J1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-R1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-R1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-R1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-V1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-V1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-V1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 129–145
— SuttaCentral
(2015)
Evidence item WIN-W1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Dhammapada 1–20
— SuttaCentral
(2018)
Evidence item WIN-W1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
-
Sigalovada Sutta
— SuttaCentral
(2026)
Evidence item WIN-W1;
Supports the evidence item.
View source
Correction history
No corrections have been recorded.
Related ethical assessments