|
| The Global Freedom Institute |
| American Society: A need for Ethics (page 2) With the religious infighting among different groups, how much do they really have in common? Besides the similarity if the origins of them, which does not prove useful here, there are basic tenants of these religions that could greatly improve our society. Three basic, universal tenants to every major religion and moral system in America, and even the world, deal with the concepts of honesty, nonviolence, and respect for self and others. When one thinks about honesty, one must try to be honest and tell the truth. The questions arise when one asks, �what is the truth?� Part of honesty and truth telling is a willingness to search for the truth. If a democrat, for example, were to still say �Bill Clinton did not lie� today, they would not be fulfilling this obligation of searching for the truth. Especially considering that Bill Clinton has admitted wrong doing. Following the party line is not searching for the truth. Distributing the party line for political gain or damage control is also not searching for the truth or telling the truth. Expecting this of others, political figures, and most importantly, of yourself, is a necessary first step to creating a universal ethic that has common ground. When one thinks of nonviolence, one must try to do all they can to not be violent. This tenant arises out of the respect for others and human life in all religions. Does this mean an end to guns? Maybe someday, but our constitution does give people that right, so not in a governmental sense, but rather in a lack of necessity. Does this mean an end to abortions? Hopefully someday, but not a government mandated end to them. The scope of this article is not on those issues, they will be dealt with in other articles. However, it does mean that one should not instigate violence. If one must defend themselves, few would argue that you should defend yourself. However, if people don�t instigate violence, then the need for self-defense is not necessary. But that right to defend yourself does exist in our books. This means shooting, following and assaulting others because of something that happened on the freeway should not be advocated. �Road rage� should not be a defense. Just because a person gets upset, doesn�t like someone else, doesn�t like the actions of another, violence is not justified and should not be tolerated. When one thinks of respect for self and others, one must try to respect even the differences between them and others. This comes out of things like �the Golden Rule.� Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a simple ethical value for dealing with others. While you may not agree with someone else, you may not agree with their religion, their sexual orientation, their racial views, or any one of a number of other things, they do have the right to have those views. That means that if you disagree, you should not physically or verbally assault another. Engaging in debate with another, when that debate is invited and accepted is okay. However, forcing that debate on another is not respecting them and their rights. Smoking without regard for others around you who may choose not to smoke is not respecting others. Smoking in a place and with an attitude of cooperation towards others does show respect towards others. Attacking smokers is not respectful of their right to smoke either. Respect for self is probably the hardest part of the ethical system. While you do have the rights to do many things to yourself, and we would never argue that you don�t have those rights, however, you should respect yourself. Things like bulimia, anorexia, smoking, and many other things are not good for you. You should have the right to end your life is you want, but we don�t think it is a good thing to advocate. Notice that many of the tenants of religions are what you should do, not what your neighbor should do. There is a reason for that: your government should not do it for you, you should do it for yourself. The governmental officials should move toward ethical systems like this one that try to build commonality, but this should not be a government policy for people. This is something that we hope that the reader will embrace and spread through discussion, but not force upon people. People have the right to their own views, but we think this ethical system has numerous advantages in society: 1) It respects the ethical, religious and moral systems of people in America and around the world. 2) It respects the diversity of views in America and around the world. 3) It promotes a society that expects more from people in terms of honesty, integrity and debate. We don�t expect that the world will suddenly stop and change on a dime, on a moment�s notice. However, we do hope that it will begin the ripple effect of changing society for the better. What could be the impact of such an ethical system, should it be accepted by individuals? Would people still hate others? Probably. However, the hope is that they would respect the differences in others. One does not have to be a homosexual, or even approve of the lifestyle, to accept anyone�s right to choose the lifestyle they want. One does not have to approve of the lifestyle of a drug addict, and it may be a loss of potential, however, each of us should have the right to choose our own lifestyle. One does not have to approve of the lifestyle of hunters or militia people, however, one should respect their right to choose to have that lifestyle. The only time a person�s lifestyle should become an issue is when it takes away the rights of others. Absent that, all should respect the rights of others to be who and what they want. 1 2 3 |
|
|