In western philosophy, there is a bizarre divide in ethic's between so-called deontologism or non-consequentialism of wich Kant is the most predominant represantant and consequentialism of wich utilitarianism is the most predominant branch.

The whole divide is focussed on the question whether someone's intentions are the most important factor in ethic's or whether it's the consequences of ones actions.

To me this seems, like i said bizarre, because in the real world it in my view just cannot be that someone has the right intentions, without caring for the consequences of his actions.

Example: I donated money to an emergency-fund to help earthquake-struck haïti. If i've been properly informed, the total sum of money of this fund has not been spent well because the emergency situation seems only to have worsened.

If i where a deontology adept i would say:"well, i shouldn't worry about that, because i gave with the right intentions"

But how could that be true? If i would say that, then apparently i didn't care whether my money would have been spent wisely, so i wouldn't have cared for the people it was meant for in the first place...so how could my intentions have been good then?

I might as well have said then: "well i've put a lot of money with good intentions in a jar, and now i'm gonna spent it all on hookers and booze, but hey...well deserved because my intentions have obviously, looking at all that money, been very good this year".

A classic utilitarianist would on the other hand say that i've failed morally because my money didn't amount to anything.

So how can you see intentions and the consequences of those intentions as two such separate things, instead of as two different aspects of a whole constelation in wich i'm supposed to act?

Budhism doesn't occupy itself with useless pondering about wich of the two things is more important, but looks at the complex of the whole.
It clearly has an utilitarian trait by stating that it's aim is to relief people from suffering, but it focusses on making people aware of themselves in this world and creating the right state of mind that will lead to good intentions, effectively exercised in order to maximise results on the whole.

I don't see how western philosophy could have failed so deeply, compared to budhism in answering the question on what's right?

I think this is a rather one-dimensional take on Western ethical philosophy, though I am not well versed in it nuances. I did, however, take a moment to acquaint myself with a general overview. Consequentialism and deontology are among many ethical standpoints generated from the Western philosophical tradition. I think that kind of absolutism died mid-20th century. Western thought has a tendency to change frequently. Stoicism, for instance, bears some resemblance to Buddhism.

As the saying goes, "the way to hell is paved with good intentions"

I agree we have to look at both the intentions as well as the consequences. The more aware, the more of these different variables count for one's decisions and the value of one's actions.

Yes, i made a charicature of western philosophy. But i realy feel that generally in our moral thinking, we do mis something.

The saying goes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but what realy lies behind this saying is i think, good intentions without critical reflection. The question is whether good intentions are REALY always good intentions, whether they're genuine.

morality is always a complex of factors and you could say that what we're missing can never be found, because it's how we behave as people in real life that matters and not just words, ink on paper.

But the challenge to stay true to yourself as a human being, to maintain your humanity amidst all that life will throw at you is something that can be learned and be taught.

And therefore we have to learn how to see ourselves in this broader context, to see for instance how our thoughts will affect our actions and as a result of this the wellbeing of others.

It's like western philosophy is too academic, but yet fails to penetrate the real 'technicalities' of moral behaviour.

Many western philosophers will find the emphasis on personal, spiritual enlightenment in budhism a lacking of academical distance, a vague, misty concept and will simply not take it seriously.
But i think it is the inevitable consequence of a hollistic vier. How for instance, could a philosopher seriously give lecture on ethic's and not do everything he can to practice his teachings in his daily life himself? It would mean that he didn't take any of it seriously.
It would mean that he only sees what he lectures as an intellectual discipline, yet by seeing ethic's as such you fail intellectually because you fail to see the whole equation in the context of real life and fail to see real life into the the make-up of the equation.

^^^^^
You make some weighty claims about most Westerners. I would like to know exactly what you are criticizing, besides the perceived shortcomings that arise from a gross generalization. Again, Western philosophy is not in any way centralized. Buddhism, despite being practiced differently by various people, is essentially one philosophy. How many Buddhists are philosophers? If they adhere to Buddhism, how far can they possible stretch it until it is not Buddhism any longer? Buddha was the philosopher and Buddhists are his adherents. Kant had his adherents, Socrates his, and anon.

I don't see most people (at least in my country) polarizing intention and consequences. They may, however, be mislead and misinformed in either of these areas (War on Drugs, Terror, etc.), but if people realized the truth of the matter, polarizing philosophies would not get in the way of their understanding.

I don't think i make weighty claims about westerners. As a matter of fact i think budhism could very well be integrated in western culture, maybe even more so, then in most eastern cultures.

The claims i make are about mainly the western philosophical tradition and how in many ways we have outgrown the philosophical culture we've grew up in. Western philosophy seems unable to free itself from it's tradition.

Western ethic's has for the last few decades been dominated by firstly-human rights.
The philosophical tradition has nothing to do with that, it has mainly emerged, catalysed by the horrors of the second world war and the innevitable proces of deconolisation, out of the political heritage of the american declaration of independance and the french declaration of human rights. Both of those declarations where sparked by the necessaty of rebelion, rather than out of a rich and long heritahe of deep philosophical pondering and reflection.
-secondly it has been the scientific revolutions that have overtaken philosophical debate from philosophers.
Any contemporary philosopher who's taken seriously by people outside his own field of expertise bases his thinking more on scientific revolutions than on anything from our philosophical heritage.

You ask how many budhists are philosophers. The answer is that budhism has a very rich philosophical tradition that in many ways very much resembles that of the west.

The point i make is that much of the western academic establishment besides not knowing anything about budhist philosophy, wouldn't recognise much of the budhist tradition as philosophical.

The main thing is that we need a foundation for on wich we an base our actions and that foundation is totally absent.
There is no common ground on wich we stand anymore and the worst thing is that the majority of people feel that such a common ground is not needed also.

We lack the believe in right and wrong, we think everything is subjective and therefore we can have illegal wars based on lies, political trials against those who expose the lies and we can use childeren in poor countries as sex-slaves and whatnot because we can always defend ourselves by saying that there is no such thing as objective reality and certainly no such thing as an objective absolute moral standard.

Western philosophical tradition has allowed us to do this because it is too weak, it lacks substance.

Budhism would not allow us to act like that.
Budhism is far more compatible with the views of modern science and rational thinking. It is intellectually superiour to most of western philosophy but wouldn't be recognised as such by western academic's because as a result of it's intellectual superiority it is not a philosophy that distances itself from the world.

That is the real point i'm making actually. That western philosphy DOES have the tendancy to centralise, to isolate aspects of a certain philosophical issue and focus on those isolated aspects, that it DOES lack a holistic view and even shy's away from anything holistic.
And that budhism, although it has so much in common with the western way of thinking, although it is so compatible with our current mindset is in that sense exactly the opposite.

In budhism, although it is aproximately 2500 years old, you already see a psychology that resembles those aspects of freudian psychology that have not been discarded by modern science.

You must see how incredible that is. Freud lived only a century ago, and his ideas where seen as almost too revolutionary, too far ahead of his time...but when you rid it from all the bullshit like oedipus and women who want to have penusses, etc, you get more or less the budhist view on the human psyche.

Budhism answers most of man's moral and philosophical questions with a theory on human psychology.
You have to see how briliant that is and at the same time how that explains the main difference between western ethic's and budhist philosophy.

Western ethic's focusses on isolated issues in an academical setting, while budhism makes you look at those same issues within the context of human psychology.

Now you have to see how the main point of criticism that western academic's would have against budhist philosophy, that it lacks an academic attitude is true, but at the same time that in that criticism the western academic attitude reveals itself as inferiour: Once you start asking yourself how the world is, seen through the limitations of how you perceive the world as a result of your own psychological make-up, you CAN no longer distance yourself from moral questions, you CAN no longer see issues in their isolated solitude. Everything falls into place, not because of the absence of intellectual reasoning, wich is the western prejudice against all eastern philosophy, but because of the perfect integration of subtle intellectual reasoning into something greater, into the what sparked philosophic questioning in the first place, wich is this very moment of being.

^ yes you can put them side by side, from east to west. How about taoism compared to buddhism? Taoism more philosophical to my personal, superficial taste..
I dont like to suffer ; )

Considering eastern philosophy i think the west is helping to develop the west part of it. Spinoza seems to have had a more or less (i dunno ) genuine western, holistic approach to god, subsequently ethics. He and other pantheist seem to have paved the way. The west is in need indeed.

Perhaps also the loss of metaphysics has made a dent in academical confidence. The atheist west suffers from PTSD because of all the religious folk trying to maintain all sorts of non sense. The so called atheist turns spooky white when hearing the word god. This is holding us back i think. Give to them some of the E to see. Apparently it does help.

So i say we as a west start where we left when the christians where abusing and corrupting the whole thing. Let's start where the stoicist left us, and forget about those christians, muslims, jews and the like... Lets reconnect with our pagan roots.

We could use guns and rockets and stuff for fireworks : )

Or at least i like to dream so.