A philosophical approach to find a solution beyond religion adherence (part three): Borderline Between Ethics and Religions
Finally, I forced myself to write the third part of this approach; because as I am going more through this, it’s getting harder to set up the solution and it’s the essence of any argument. And the major reason was laziness!
Summary of two prior parts:
1. Based on many factors that affect our life, we pick an ideology and we stick to it. Maybe some other factors affect our life and in the middle of way we change to a better one. Then everyone has a right to choose his/hers, stick to it and NO One should blame him/her for that ideology and selection. (Part One)
2. Since our ideologies are personal, then positive and negative (preaching and blaming) approaches are the same and not only is useless to change a mind, but also would make the rivals annoy! (Part Two)
As we look behind at the history we see always there have been honest and righteous people among every cultures and religions and at the same time vicious ones among them. For example, there have been many virtuous Christians in Middle Ages when many were vicious and tortured human beings in that era. And also today we see that there are many nice Christians among our societies. So one may ask if Jesus teachings were vicious in Middle Ages but is not now.
When you walk in Muslim societies you always face some nice people with all respect, respecting each other and also respecting you as the stranger. Sometimes you find them very nice to you that you’ve never seen that before. And also if you look at history you’ll find Muslim societies to be great, rich and well armed with knowledge in Middle East and North Africa when Christianity was torturing the Christian world in Middle Ages.
But these days when you turn your TV on, you can watch arresting Muslims for some terrors here and there! Another question is also what happened to Mohammad’s teachings? Was it great in the Middle Ages and suddenly turned to something vicious in 21st century?
I can go for many ideologies now with this simple argument. But I stop here to go through deeper.
There are criminals always among us and it’s a truth that we can’t ignore. Every criminal has his reasons why he does such a thing. It is not our aim here to go through why criminals appear in societies. But there are always injustices behind these criminals.
Bad situations make those criminals and we can find them in every society with any ideology and religion. Jews have criminals among them, Hindus have, Muslims have, Christians have, Bahai’s have and etc.
First Conclusion: As evolving the criminals is due to social and ethical topics; then we can’t conclude these manners to be religious! The influence of our ideology is not what makes us criminals or nice guys!
My first conclusion may seem to be a little strange, so I explain it more:
By referring to common sense between human beings and what we know as universal ethics (what is good for all of us and what is bad), ethics is beyond religion; because I assume here the ethics to be universal but not the religion! (There are many religions between human societies but not many ethics.)
And because vicious and virtuous always had been in human societies and it doesn’t depend on which religion they had practiced, then it is an ethical issue and is not related to religion. We know many religious one that their wickedness has also misused religion as an instrument to reaching his wicked goals. And also that religion has been an instrument to a virtuous one to bring goodness out.
Second Conclusion: We cannot attribute a criminal will to religion that he bears its name with. And also there are nice guys among them that we don’t mention as the symbol of that religion. The influence of our ideology is not what makes us criminals or nice guys! That’s the influence of our social and political situations. Then let’s draw a borderline between ethics and religions!
Then with this approach there would be no place to make conclusion as Is hating Islam the same thing as hating Muslims? that one may declare. We shouldn’t attribute terrorism to Islam or Muslims, to Christianity or Christians, to Jewish and Jews, to Bahaism or Bahai and etc. Terror will evolve in any hard situation and is product of social and political problems that with the name of religion takes place! Then let’s draw a borderline between ethics and religions!
Join the Conversation
May I say your “ethics” are what has been written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
And then, I think you miss the influence the social / political situation and a religion / ideology have on each other.
But I’d always sign your conclusion to draw a borderline between ethics and religions. I’d call that state a “social laizism” – but I think the religious leaders wouldn’t like it. If religion doesn’t influence the ethics anymore – is there a need for organized religion any longer? Or doesn’t religion find its way back to pure, unorganized, personal believing?
You might rethink your use of the “tag” criminal. What is criminal in one society may well be accepted as the norm in another; example: the Moslem belief in and practice of stoning a woman to death for the “crime” of infidelity (or many times for even less controversial acts). Such a practice would obviously be considered some degree of murder in Western societies. Note also that this “crime” committed with some regularty in the Moslem world is dictated by the Moslem religion (or at least by some interpretations of the Koran). Following this train of thought religion can be blamed for immoral (in OUR society) acts.
Dear Simon,
After I read your comment I added another paragraph to this post to clearify it more.
Yes, I’m trying to seperate social / political situations from religion / ideology and tell that political and social problems are motivation for doing something (for example a terror act) and religion is what we find legitimations for our acts. Then it seems that we did something vicious because we practice a special religion! No, its not true.
Here you can say, that was the mutual influence of social / political situation and a religion / ideology! But social / political situations are the motivation and religion / ideology is an instrument to come our motivations true.
As I mentioned in the part one, yes I dont care what religious leader may feel, because religion should be something personal. As we are individuals with different life experiments and different views, then its simple result to conclude that our ideologies are different. And religions can be personal, Why not?
Dear Whymrhymer,
I know what you mean, but as I said before, when you find a ideology that suits you not, then leave it behind for a better one (part one) as it seems that you are not into islamic rules!
You can believe in whatever you want but again as I said before, but you cant change a believer mind unless he himself find out that his way is wrong! Thats the problem and as I figured this out, I tried to set this approach up.
I agree that I cant wholly cover it, but I’m trying to find solution and thanks for your contribution and good points of view.
Not Muslim belief. Some countries like Iran. Last time I checked if you stone people a person to death for the above reason in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Indonesia, you will goto jail.
@ Jina:
You mix up religious rules and national law. (That’s why I prefer laizism…)
“Muslim believe” does not mean that it is lawful in all countries with a Muslim majority. And not all laws of “Muslim” countries may suit the Islamic leaders…
Lord Kavi, I like how you mention “common sense” and how you say that it points us to a universal sense of ethics. Do you believe that ethics is universal, in the same way that mathematics is? And if that’s the case, what makes it so? Is it the instrinsic logic of saying: If you don’t kill me, and I don’t kill you, then we both can continue to live on, thank you very much?
My sense is that there are universal principles of logic which spell out pretty clearly: how we should treat each other, how we should think with regard to ethical principles, and how we should organize ourselves as a social order.
For me, common sense, or the collective wisdom born of shared experience, would have us: treat each other well by investing in one another, think straight by moderating our views and using common sense as our ideology, and maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a vision of hope. These are applications of the 3 greatest principles of common sense: The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good.
Does this kind of approach appeal to you?
Dear Nissim,
I think now I wanna read ‘Selling a Vision of Hope’ to understand your approach better. It sounds great now to me. tell me what to do. Send an email to me please.
Dear Lord Kavi,
You can reach me through my website, if you wish, at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org Once you register, you can e-mail me on the contact page, and I’ll help you get a book. The website talks alot about the various ideas of Selling a Vision of Hope, but the book goes into much more depth. The idea is to make something real happen on the ground, but the first step is getting the word out. I enjoy your posts, and I hope you enjoy finding out more about Selling a Vision of Hope.
Pingback: The poor man who stood against a world - Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead