Global ethics

Global ethics

1. Challenge of developing a global ethical perspective

The challenge of developing a global ethical perspective entails many factors given that each country has its own traditions, culture, national and religious perspectives which shape the behavior or views of people on certain actions or values. For instance, some people in a certain country can attest to some actions or behaviors as rightful while other people in another country can view the same action as ethically bad. Moreover, it is a challenge to build a new global ethical perspective given the numerous nature of existing religions in the world which can make individuals to consider a certain behavior ethically good or bad based on their beliefs.

There are two perspectives related to developing a global ethical perspective; ethical imperialism and cultural relativism. The cultural relativism concept argues that no cultures ethics are more important than other cultures. This means that there are no agreed international wrongs or rights. Cultural relativism believes in the saying “do what romans do while in Rome”. On the side of ethical imperialism, people are advised to do what they always do while at home. All of these perspectives do not allow people to develop global ethical perspectives since all of the concepts are extreme and absolutist. However, given this scenario, a middle path can be created that can shape a new global ethical perspective. Such a middle platform can involve respect for the existing local values and traditions and also respecting and valuing human core values and beliefs in a given tradition.

Therefore, it is challenging to establish a culturally sensitive global ethic perspective that respects all values and traditions. There is a challenge in the possibility of accommodating diversity of traditions and practices in a culturally mixed world. A global ethicist can explore a certain global perspective and normalizes it to become a generalization of particular areas of concern. Such a move jeopardizes the genuine approach to global ethics.

2. Freedom, cosmopolitanism, and the European enlightenment

There is a widespread belief that cosmopolitanism is rooted in the ancient universal moral traditions of Europe, where excesses of nationalism in the history of Europe is expressed. Notably, the integration of Europe is regarded as an inspiration of cosmopolitanism ideals due to its contribution to prosperity and peace on a continent that was torn along nationalist warfare between the German and French conflicts. With the rise of globalization in 1990s, cosmopolitanism appeared to be a major factor for Europe’s self-understanding.  The whole of Europe has maintained its leadership and peace on a reflexive modernization perspective through renewal of the neo Kantian theory of moral universalism, advocating of human rights and democracy, development of international law, boosting global policy on climate and provision of humanitarian and financial assistance.

The uncertainty of European enlightenment cosmopolitanism is manifest in the manner that Europe appears to be the modern epitome of human progress. By basing on Kant as the supporter of Enlightenment cosmopolitanism, its universalism can be understood in framework of what is right and wrong. This means that European cosmopolitanism can be argued as a critique of the rights of man based on the universal rights principles. Enlightenment cosmopolitan can also be analyzed as a pathology of European history especially based on its non-relativity; the tendency of elevating the rights of a person over the others.

In this sense, cosmopolitanism can be understood as a current presentation of intellectual evaluation of how Europe has brought about diverse globalization in the world. In the entire 2000s, most ethical theorists have understood European Union as a representation of post national competitor to cosmopolitan global order. This means that the issue of Europe enlightenment and cosmopolitanism has provided a clear framework of understanding Europe’s ethical standings.

3. Religion, civic life and civil disobedience

During the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem, there were repentant people who sought for His direction (Luke 3: 12 – 14). Among these people were tax collectors who were corrupt, publicans and soldiers who were experts in using brutality. On a religious perspective, Jesus did not order them to abandon their positions but instead redefined the manner they should carry out their duties.

In most of the western democracies, part of the civic responsibility is to being politically active even for the Christians, Muslims and other religions. All the officials are chosen through public means and policies are determined by the choice of citizens. Citizens also participate in public participations through representation by their elected leaders. At bare minimum, citizens are publicly and legally accountable for the leader they choose and even if deemed necessary, they can refuse to vote, which is a sign of civil disobedience. However, under these circumstances, no citizen is forced to vote or denied the right to vote, and also denied the right to exercise rights bestowed to all citizens. The same thing applies to Christians and other religious persons all over, especially in western democracies. Everybody is allowed to share the equal duties and privileges like other citizens. It is always required that all citizens should bring their discipleship with healthy citizenship duties on their world decisions. This implies that the heavenly King who will someday judge their righteousness with regard to the fulfilment of their responsibilities.

Therefore, religious principles on civic duties and disobedience cannot be equated to strategies. It is important to realize that principles never change and principled religious people should employ proper religious principles to balance civic duties and religious laws. They should be critically grounded in the provisions of religious values in order to effectively advance their civic responsibilities.

4. Ethics, Religion and divine command theory

Divine Command Theory argues that good actions are good in moral sense because they are commanded by God. Most of the religious followers often subscribe to the principles of this theory since their main moral duty is to respect Gods commands. The theory also asserts that what God desires is usually morally right.

Religion appears to be the most considered and accepted form used to make a body of ethical decisions in addition to making moral decisions. In the world, individuals rely on many religions to determine the best ethical decision or action to make. As much the divine command theory is used to establish what is good for religious sects, there exists some difference in the manner the theory is applied. The use of the theory differs within religions themselves and also from religion to religion.

One of the fundamental features of command theory is using God as the custodian of all principles. By using this approach, a person is supposed to believe in the existence of a rational and willful God that has provided a straight path to a successful ethical outcome. As such, it is through Gods actions and commands that behaviors and actions are considered right or wrong. It is also through these divine provisions that the divine command theory establishes a detailed objective analysis of what is considered moral or ethical. Therefore, the theory is a good explanation of why morality and ethics are crucial for a rightful living. From the religious perspectives, good deeds are believed to be rewarded afterlife, while the unwanted actions are punished. Thus, what makes religion a powerful system of ethics is its potential eternal punishment that makes people to act ethically. In essence, the notion of eventual punishment shapes rightful thinking of people to base their decisions on the commands and directions of God.

5. Pluralism and the Golden Rule

In a society that embraces pluralism, there is a common moral grounds of respecting people. A pluralistic society embraces respect as something all people must abide to, regardless of what they agree or believe in. the best famous expression of this perspective is the Golden Rule, which implies the principle of respect. The golden rule is found in many traditions and religions worldwide. When an individual encounters pluralism at first, one can feel defensive and assume that it is more of religious inclusivism or moral relativism. This means that pluralism provides a dilemma whereby people believe in value truth claims while at the same time participating in a diverse public sphere. However, far from inclusivism, pluralism welcomes public differences. It envisions protection of religious communities, people and social structured through idealized principles of universal respect.  Through provision of space and respect for people through truth claims, pluralism offers an opportunity for people to truly understand the world and the course of humanity.

It appears that there is a major similarity in multiple understandings of moral responsibility. This elusive core of these understandings lies in the Golden Rule which requires one to treat others the way he or she wish to be treated under similar circumstances. The rule also provides for the need to do to others as one would like to be done to them in similar circumstances. It is believed that the Golden rule does not only appear in major religions or culture, but it can also be seen in many moralities that are spread across various social structures. At the very least, this rule appears to insinuate that morality in society means equity. It seems to argue that everybody should treat people in the same way. Perhaps this proves the moral salvation that gives human hope to survive in a conflicted and complex world.

6. The Problem of Evil and Free Will

There have been advanced debates on the understanding of the problem of evil. Some of the understandings have been also used in both defenses and theodicies. One of the arguments, known as free will claims that human beings are responsible for evil and not God. The question posed by the Problem of Evil is whether the society is marred by undesirable state of affairs which provides a framework of arguments that makes it possible to question the existence of God.

The Problem of Evil argues that goodness cannot exist without evil. This means that goodness is a product of evil, and that the Omnipotent being, who is God, could not stand making a good world without evil. So, the concept of Problem of Evil claims that God created a world full of evil since that was the only way the world could be good. The concept of Problem of Evil also argues that a world with evil is better that a world with no evil. The concept reveals that evil in universe is necessary if certain goods are to happen. For instance, certain actions of mercy and kindness are good actions, and they cannot happen without occurrence of an evil such as suffering.

The Free will defense argues that God lets evil to exist for humans to get free will. The concept argues that it is not possible for God to give human beings free will without introducing evil, which means that God allows existence of evil on purpose. This means that God created the world and everything good in it. Part of the goodness is the idea of rational beings who are self-aware who are able to discern between abstract thought and contemplated course of outcomes. This means that even the omnipotent being does not have power to control or determine choice of actions for an individual.

7. Secular ethics and toleration

Secular ethics is among the moral philosophy concepts whereby ethics is solely based on the faculty of humans such as moral intuition, empathy, reason and logic. In this case, human ethics is not based on the supernatural guidance or revelation as applied in most religious ethics. This implies that secular ethics is a framework that does not draw its values and principles in the supernatural frameworks, that is, it depends on freethinking, secularism and humanism to derive its ethical standards. It can be understood that secular ethics involves the normativity of the social contracts where human beings agree on which principles and rights to respect and uphold. It is important to understand that secular ethic system have the ability to vary across cultural and social norms but on a given period of time. The need to create a diversified and unified society is the real essence of secular ethics and its hallmark is to create a commitment to tolerance and liberty of conscience.

On the issue of Tolerance, its ethical view argues that religious beliefs should be based on individual conscience and not political or social coercion. This means that the aspect of toleration does not believe in coercion as an ends to produce genuine beliefs. The state should not force citizens to abide or follow certain religious beliefs, instead it should leave religious convictions to the individuals to choose their actions. Tolerance as an ethical perspective is a not interference or a conditional acceptance of practices, actions or beliefs which can be wrong but are tolerable. Such actions or practices can be wrong but they are not subject to constraint or prohibition. The legal principles themselves are not enough for a complete secular society. As a concept of equality, secularism supports right to equality, but this right should be supported by unquestioned traditions that encourage people to view each other as equals.

8. Criticisms of secularism and global ethics

Secularism refers to a creation of a society where people that belong to all religions or people who do not belong to any religion live peacefully as one. The concept argues that no person should be subjected to discrimination by any institution, state, persons or groups on grounds of religious beliefs. This means that the state cannot interfere in religious traditions and beliefs of people. The problem with secularism is the possibility of neutrality and assumption of boundaries from believers or non-believers that require state protection. In legal and official terms, the state is neutral but since it represents the people who are not neutral, secularism seems to interfere with the function of state in providing security in case of offensive religious practices. Public servants often force neutrality by repressing believes for the sake of secularism, forcing the state to selectively fight to maintain people’s values and believes. Thus, the challenge with secularism is that anti-religious secularism is likely to rise which creates conflict in the long run.

On the other hand, global ethics refers to justification of moral traditions and values as applied in the global world. Laws, norms, values and traditions are assumed to be similar in a global word, and the values bind together all people no matter the race, culture, origin, sex and gender. However, in a more culturally diversified world, globalization has made it difficult for global ethics to take root. Practicing global ethics has been faced by varied moral and cultural reasoning whereby different countries have different beliefs, historical values, ethnicity, religion and culture. The concept of global ethics thus presents a challenge for ethicists who seek to solve the misery of integrating various cultural values, norms and traditions.

9. Explain the meaning of civil disobedience

Civil disobedience refers to active and professed resistance of citizens to follow and obey particular laws, order, commands and orders from the government. Civil disobedience is a non-violent behavior and it is often referred to as non-violent resistance or protests against the government in power. In obeying the lays, a citizen has both backward and forward looking outcomes intended to express certain message. A person who disobeys a law does not only seek to condemn or disavow a particular policy or law, but also to sensitize the public towards a certain policy that requires public instigation.

Civil disobedience is a matter of conscientiousness where citizens feel that certain laws have not been respected. Under this scenario, all accounts or reasons of civil disobedience points to the moral conviction and seriousness with which citizens breach certain policies or laws. Most citizens who break laws often demand for moral consistency in application of the law and also self-respect that integrates their interests as people in society. This means that civil disobedience is a vehicle used to draw public attention to the policies or laws that are rejected or neglected by the government and need urgent redress or reassessment.

On some account, civil disobedience in a just society entails a united protest by majority of citizens who feel that their considered opinion in matters of justice, governance, policymaking and respect of their interests have not been respected to the latter by the governing body. The aspect of civil disobedience should not be mistaken with common crimes where people break laws intentionally. The difference between civil disobedience and normal crimes lies in the willingness of civil disobedients to accept any legal outcomes of their action, which is different from common crimes. The readiness and willingness of people who disobey certain laws is regarded as a mark of fidelity to the existing law and also as a reflection that they are different from petty criminal offenders who break laws to benefit their personal gains.

10. Evaluate the divine command theory of ethics

Divine command theory refers to a meta-ethical perspective that argues that a certain action or behavior is morally good if it from God. The theory reveals that only actions that are directed by God’s commands are morally good and that what is morally acceptable is determined by God’s will. This implies that for a person to be morally upright, he or she is required to act according to commands of God. Different perspectives of divine command theory teach that no moral truths or justification can exist independent of God’s intervention. In this case, the theory seems to suggest that morality is only determined by God’s divine commands and rules.

Stronger and elaborate versions of divine command theory argue that it is only through God’s commands that all actions and behaviors are considered moral. The weaker versions of the theory however suggest that any form of divine commands are crucial elements of a greater reason to do certain actions. Most of the religious follower subscribe to the concept of morality by following what God requires. It is because of these beliefs that all believers in the divinity of God respect the moral obligation as required by God’s commands to always do what favors His will.

Essentially, divine command theory requires people to express morality by believing in afterlife and God’s will. The theory seems to suggest that it is important for people to believe in God’s existence since morality requirements cannot be sustained by man alone. In order to satisfy the requirements of the moral law, the theory requires people to believe in what God needs them to do. By having such beliefs, the theory asserts that human race has a higher chance of living moral lives. The theory does not however guarantee happiness but assures humanity that believing and following God’s commands leads to morally upright afterlife.

11. Differentiate between humanistic and religious approaches to ethics

The humanistic, also known as secular ethics approach analyses ethics based on the human faculties including, empathy, logic, moral intuition and reason. This means that ethics is studied as a product of human abilities and not supernatural guidance or revelations. On the other hand, religious ethics derives its ethical revelations and standards in religious concepts, ideas and traditions. This implies that in a religious study of ethics, values are defined according to the metaphysical doctrines of punishments and rewards, especially under Christianity. Most of the religious perspectives talk on the good behaviors and actions of the world plus the promises and hopes of living a good afterlife.

The humanistic approach seems to leave God and other supreme beings in picture. The perspective solely relies on the concepts of deontology based on intuitions, social contracts, scientific knowledge and intrinsic moral values in understanding the moral truths. Under the Christian perspective, human beings have no idea of what truth is, rather, they only follow the faith and commands from God, a supreme being. This implies that the only good thing in religious perspective comes from God’s commands, where He commands people to love each other and treat others as one would wish to be treated.

On the side of humanism approach to ethics, more attention is drawn to the independence of human thoughts. The approach argues that people are custodian of their own values and ethics since they work under an autonomous mode to perfect their understanding of surrounding world. This means that human perspective understands human reasoning as their sovereign decision to control their own decisions and values. Since human beings depend on each other for various needs, they tend to create their own values and stick by them in order to co-exist peacefully. Fundamentally, human beings are believed to be dependent on their fellow human beings, such that even the new born will grow up in a world that already has rules that are subject to change in case of a new situation that may arise in society.

12. Universal Human Rights

Universal Human Rights refers to such rights that are inherent to all people. These rights are applied and respected equally regardless of status, language, religion, sex, nationality, race and ethnicity. Such rights include right to work, life, freedom from torture and slavery and many more. Universal human rights mean that the rights are indivisible, interrelated, inalienable and interdependent. They are commonly referred to as universal since all people are born with the equal rights regardless of many differences they may have.

The laws are inalienable and universal since everybody is entitled to them. The rights are also indivisible especially in political, social, economic, and cultural spheres where they are inherent to each person’s dignity and self-worthy. This means that all human rights are equal and same in all aspects, depicting that they cannot be placed in a certain order of hierarchy. Essentially, denial of universal human rights infringes one’s right to enjoy life and purpose in society.

Each of the human rights places a person in a position where he or she can enjoy satisfaction, dignity and development in terms of spiritual, psychological and physical aspects. This is the interrelatedness and interdependence aspect of human rights where every right, either in part or whole, depend on other rights to ensure respect of other laws. Accountability and adherence to the rule of law require that states should respect human rights. Under these provisions, the state is liable to any infringement of personal rights as enshrined in international standards. The universality of human rights is reflected in the self-evidence and inalienable form as it applies to human beings. The rights have a universal perspective that reflects the respect of human dignity and existence, and that each state is required to adopt and implement the to the latter.