This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should there be such a thing as global ethics?
Should there be a moral system on which all human beings agree independent of cultural characteristics of the community they come from? Is morality defined absolutely or does its definition change from community to community?
Vera Nova
Many of us believe that we "know" what Good is, however our personal "good" may be Harmful others.
We need many different communities/societies governed under a great diversity of ethics, because each of us has a more or less unique character.
However I believe that "Do Not do anything to others until you have a mutual agreement with them" would cover the fundamental issue of Global Ethics. Some people want to be restricted by their beliefs while others cannot take these beliefs seriously. Some people want to fight to get what they want, so let them be in their own closed community and follow their own rules that they all accept. And Let peaceful, learning people live in their own society under their ethics. But we all have to respect "Do Not do anything until you are asked for it."
I see that children's life is still unprotected from manipulations by "rules" in any kind of society. This is something to think about.....
Speaking in general we have to accept that we are born to be unique one way or another, and are here to live different lives.
Lets do not forget that all our man-made systems are serving no real person but a collective non-existing prototype.
Neil Menzie
Vera Nova
Neil Menzie
Should that system have different values depending on where you are from? I think that if we look at Ethics as a system of values based on the well being and suffering of conscious creatures, as per Sam Harris, than the question becomes much clearer. Are there things that we can say that is common to all conscious creatures to alleviate suffering and foster well-being? If so, this should be what we are striving for as a system of Global Ethics. What is needed is the ability to look at morality from a secular viewpoint, as arguing from Religion is just an argument from authority that falls flat at the gates. We need to be worried more about the suffering/well being of other more than ourselves, therefore when we view our morality only as personal characteristics, we fall short of the real point, helping others....
Ken Stephens
Still, they are personal characteristics. We are each of us responsible for how we choose to respond to our world.
Whatever community or communities we identify with, be they local, global, even virtual, we must choose which ethics to accept and which to reject. Failing to choose is to surrender our selfhood to the person or group that is doing the choosing.
So we are either responsible for our choice, or we are responsible for our lack of choice.
This is a good and hope-filled thing. It means that we can learn from our mistakes and make better and better moral and ethical choices as needed in our lives. We don't need to wait for our community or anyone else, we are responsible and response-able.
Oso Wallman
Paul Philippa
It is agreed that there are actions for which perpetrators can be held responsible as demonstrated currently with the re-examinations of the affairs in then Serbia/Bosnian conflict and the conduct of major characters during that period. The issue of an international warrant for the arrest of Lybian Gadafi is another example of global ethics in action.
More importantly, there is the phenomenon of Natural Law, that encompasses those innate senses of justice and fairness, goodness, generosity, compassion and mercy that are part and parcel of a normal human being's make-up. Even very small children display these values in some form at a very early stage of life.
I would also suggest that many of the agreements between nations on values as set out in the various United Nation statements are a reflection of global ethics.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
If we had global ethics, then that would require a system for promoting it. If that were in place and it worked, the world could be a very different place.
The Dali Lama provides clear direction in his book, “Ethics for a New Millennium.” My understanding of what he is saying that ethics can be summed up as cultivating compassion and avoiding harming others. Basically, “Do no harm, if that is not possible act in ways so that you do the least harm to the fewest and take responsibility for it.”
If you think about it, ethics is simply what works over the long-run in living a fulfilling and satisfying life. Someone who harms others in the quest for their own happiness will not feel very fulfilled or satisfied once they and others realize the true cost of what they done.
If we want global ethics to succeed, then we need to think about how to set up a system that integrates this thinking into the daily life and education of all cultures. Something like a Facebook for global ethics could bring people together to work on it.
Vera Nova
I think that the new ethics shall teach:
"Never (!) treat others as you would like to be treated yourself—unless they agree to it first—because what is good, right or amusing for you may be deadly damaging for others."
(We are working on a project WWW.NOVATOWNSITE.ORG that aims to practice new, wiser ethics and sustainability of all kinds, allowing each unique individual to develop his/her best abilities and character. "Our society can live as a harmonious orchestra where every person, just like a more or less unique instrument, plays its part meaningfully." V.N.
Safoora Yousefi 20+
LA Hall
jaeyun hwang
The reason i say this is because the diversity of human races are nothing compared to the diversity of human customs, norms and religion. In someplace picking an ugly potato and smashing it in the face of the nearest male might be considered a no no but in the Andes Mountains (if memory serves me right) it is a custom of the local people. Global ethics will squash every national identity into a mold only enforceable with force. I agree that everyone should share my ethics but i don't think everyone will want to.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
not so at all..read below.".global values would be those that supercede soverignty not erasing culture or traditions at all. I would hope we would always cherish cultural diversity and always not only tolerate but enjoy the obersvance of custom and tradition.
Global human rights, global moral, global goverance..none of these things imply or would seek homogenization.
inthegarden beyondthecave
What is Ethics? In Philosophy, it has been the study of how to determine what actions or choices are right, or an investigation into what is necessary for a good life, or an investigation into which character traits are good (virtues) and which character traits are bad (vices).
The word Ethic can mean the set of norms that some person or group tends to follow. Alternatively, it can mean a set of norms that a person or group tend to affirm. An Ethic defined as a set of personal or cultural norms (mores) will not necessarily be internally consistent. We are not perfect beings. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that any such set of norms we follow or affirm will tend to be somewhat self defeating and harmful because inconsistent with our nature as human beings.
And so within Philosophy there has been the attempt to discover the ideal set of norms. Sometimes, this has been refered to as the theory of morality. Morality is an ethic which is not defined as the set of norms we actually do follow or affirm, but rather, is defined as the set of norms we all ought to follow or affirm. It would be universal and hence "global".
But isn't it true that we can only determine what set of norms we ideally "ought" to follow and affirm from the perspective of the set of personal or cultural norms we already affirm or follow. It is. How then can we transend parochial norms and find the true, universal (global) set of norms? It is possible only if on reflecting upon our norms and the human nature which generates them, we can find something fundamental that is their source, and their justification, which is shared because it belongs to the nature of what we are. Only by identifying this natural shared normative source, and then drawing out its implications, can we uncover the one "true" and "global" ethics which applies to us all, which is internally consistent and consistent with our human nature.
R Vishnu prasad
In simple words if you are interested in following the rules follow this principle and make others to follow.That is -
"Be perfect in what you are.."
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
We have been using it here in this discussion as if "Human rights", "morality" and ethics" were all interchangeable..which they are not.
So to speak of global ethics, one would first need a global moral standard ( which at the moment is the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(.whatever issues we may have with the UN and the in group outgroup aspect of that).
Global ethics would then refer to whether the UN upholds these standards in its actual actions and speech and the extent to which the signatory nations actually are striving as promised to achieve these standards in their own countries
.By that standard, II would say, right now, our ethics are definitely not in line with the written standard.
.My question though is "ethics" a strong enough reference for enforcement and upholding of something as important as Human Rights. A breech of ethics is punishable by exclusion of membership or revocation of certification but is not otherwise criminal or very serious
. Is a breech of the ethics the standard we would want to apply globally to the UN's failure to uphold the Universal Declartion of Human Rights? Do we want nno complying member nations to simply be excluded as signatories to the UDHR(which theoretically also excludes them for certain UN benefits)? Expelled from the UN itself?
In otherwords is ethics a high enough standard for compliance with things that are important enough to be global moral issues?
inthegarden beyondthecave
I am wondering whether you think law precedes morality and defines it, or whether morality precedes law and tells us what our laws should be? The reason I ask this question is that you said that for now, the current gloal moral standard is the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights. It seems to me that the Declaration, which was created by international legal processes is law that attempts to declare that certain moral rights exist. Thus, I see the Declaration as an attempt to state gloal moral principles that existed prior to and independent of the Declaration.
With regard to your final question, it would seem to me that we are stuck in a difficult quandary. On the one hand, in the best society, ethical motives would be adequate without law to motivate action in accordance with true moral standards. In such a society, if we had laws, they would be guidelines rather than enforceable inflexible rules. they would help organize cooperation but leave room for useful departures from rigid requirements.
The problem in our world is that there are too many people that are unwilling to be moral in the absense of sanctions. Thus, we are stuck with the problem that if we define the laws rigidly so that we can implose sanctions, we end up with laws that do not fully coorespond to our moral obligations. Furthermore, we freeze moral discourse, taking the lawyers, judges, and legislators as the experts when they are not because we constrain their authority to engage in genuine moral dispcourse in order to prevent them from becoming dictators.
See ya later. Gotta catch a flight.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
The order, I think is written Law, Common Law,morality,ethics ( the last two having no weight of law and no enfrcement outside of what might be established by an organization promulfating the code of conduct.
I am not an expert on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( I have read it and its history several times and read afew articles) but It does not have the weight of law. It is in effect a moral statement. Members are not required to actually be in complaiance but agree to make good faith efforts to bring themselves into compliance . Supposedly certain benefits of United Nations membership are available only to the those who are in compliance ( for example grant sin aid for nation building?) But I understand the U.N. quite often looks the other way when there is a greater need to do so. .( Any Tedsters with better knowledge, please correct me) Interesting side note, Gadhaffi by the way was the elected representative to the Human Rights Commission by the African nations and was affirmed by the U.N. in that capacity.
So, to recap, I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the weight of Law..it is only a standard of conduct to which member nations agree to endeavor. Althpough tied to certain benefits of U.N. membergship non complying nations frequently receive those benfits anyway/ We would all need more information about specific instances to evaluate whether the U.N. itself or its memeber nations have a pattern of repeated "breach of ethics" with respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I have a vague recollection that in the TED Conversation on our Obligations to Third Wolrld Countries someone mentioned Bangladesh as an example of the U.N. giving aid and overlooking extreme violations of Human Rights. My own reserach on Libya leads me to beleieve the U.N. wrogly cited "Humanitarian concerns" as the basis of U.N. approval of the flyover.
Kumar Sambhav Manu
Global ethics should be shared not just by law.... but by all party to it - that means, ethics should be taught right from the cradle.... n not just depend on its enforceablity.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Ethics have no force of law..they are about "right action and speech" with reference to an agreed upon code of conduct, action and speech consistent with the avowed or agreed to.code of conduct.
To me ethics is really a personal matter as you suggest Kumar. Only entities with consciousness can have either "morals" or "ethics". Corporations can't. Governmental units can't.
In this conversation we have all de facto agreed to waive these ideas and distinctions and to accept questioners apparent intent to use "ethics" as equivalent to "morals","rights","principles" but I think they are very important distinctions.
Gerald Leb
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
inthegarden beyondthecave
I would put the matter differently. The UDHR is law that attempts to protect moral rights.
When we use the phrase "having the force of law" we are talking aout the fact that law often includes sanction for violations and processes for judging violations and applying those sanctions. However, many laws do not include sanctions.
In the legal codes I use, when law is enacted on a new topic, a new chapter is added to the code, Typically, there will be a section that defines terms used in the chapter, then there will be sections that create various obligations. Some fo the oligations will be substantive and some will be procedural. Then, in some but not all cases, there will be a section or sections covering the sanctions to be imposed for violations. The sanction can be whatever the legislature chooses. It may be severe, or almost negligible. The code may include provisions limiting the sanction to only certain violations.
Whether something is "law" depends upon whether it has the authority of law, not upon whether it carries a sanction. Generally, something comes to have the authority of law by the manner in which it was created by persons or institutions having legal authority in accordance required legal procedures, although it is arguable that there is such a thing as natural law. Even in the case of natural law, it does not get enforced by legal institutions until legal institutions recognize such law in a manner that conforms to required legal processes.
Lindsay has indicated that the UDHR provides for sanctions although they are not always imposed. I wonder if the UDHR explicitely allows for exceptions to the imposition of sanctions. If the sanctions would actually do more harm to the people the UDHR is trying to protect, then an exception would make sense. Unfortunately, that's ussually the case.
If the Declaration was enacted by the UN, then I think it is "law" whether or not it carries sanctions.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
It isn't the presence or absence of penalties and sanctions that make something "law"..it is the excercise of authority to act over others, hopefully for an on behalf of serving the "common good"
.If we all conducted ourselves morally and ethically we would need no written law. That is what "common law " is in effect..it is for those countreis who apply it, universally agreed upon behaviors that further the common good.that define where personal speech and action transgress anothers freedoms.
.Whenever we have to pass a law to REQUIRE a standard of conduct we have failed culturally to self regulate.A pattern or course of action not in the public interest has been taken up that is not subject to oversight or control. So force of law means there is a body that either has been given or has taken authority to regulate what is not self regulating ( hopefully in the public interest interest and for the common good)
inthegarden beyondthecave
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3885/what_are_effective_ways_of_gai.html
Please contribute your insights on how we might gain greater control over our emotions, desires, and ourselves.
LeAnn Risch
In the wake of our world today, every human being should wake up with the question put to themselves, "What am I going to do today that will make the world a more just, ethical, and moral place?"
Elizabeth Coutty
Tricky stuff. It would be nice to think that representatives of various cultures could sit down together over a long span of time, hash out issues and come up with an agreement about global ethics. But I'm doubtful. This is humanity, afterall, as you point out.
Kumar Sambhav Manu
I think it is morally wrong to stereotype the whole community and try to build a wall around them. There should be reason, logic and a respect for humanity.
To diverge a bit n point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster. Union Carbide is now owned by Dow Chemicals Co. DCC has outright refused to assist the victims. Isn't this TRULY more inethical. Isn't it more heinous... and is so non cultural.
I think global ethics should take being human, equality of human life and a more human approach to life as the basic premise.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Traditions like "hajib", or not eating meat on Friday during lent are not about morality or ethics. They are practices that express identity with a specific culture and often express underlying values of the culture. For example not eating meat on Friday is a practice about living more simply and less self indulgently.
. Even as we learn to grow into being global citizens, for most of us cultural identity will remain important and will continue to be part of personal identity. Hopefully these cultural traditions would never be homogenized or lost.Civil law takes precedence over religious or cultural traditions and observance. It sets the boundaries for these practices. For example acts of violence are prohibited by law and in some progressive places like California and Canada, "hate speech" is circumscribed by law
.When we talk about "global morality" or "global ethics" or "global law" we are speaking about a set of conditions, or concerns that supercede sovreignty..we aren't speaking about making the laws of all countries the same..but circumscribing in the global interest. When we talk about "global law" we are talking about how to manage those issues where one country's set of laws and practices iterferes with another countries set of laws and practices ( which is wha tthe U.N. has mainly focused on ..that's what "peace keeping is"..and increasingly now we ar also talking about universal human rights and global enviornmental policy
.So a nation's decisions to forbid women from driving, or requirng women to be fully covered in public is not matter of "global concern". That's a cultural issue .
Rick Lewis
Rafi Amin 10+
Jack Dear
Quite often we discuss Religion as the basis of morals - religion was created by humans!
What is the natural reaction of any one person to causing another person pain?
Brian Simerl
Ethics requires a knowable, pliable agreed upon set of criteria. As long as the educated try to control the uneducated or visa versa there will always be questions regarding a unified code of ethics.
One World Governments and unity of standards across the world are dangerous as is 'fair competition' which provides a mandate for each nation's ventures/vultures to set out to reap the global bounty as fast as their wings can carry them. Meanwhile this leaves the world open to exploitation and corruption while also leaving it open to increased standards of living, as temporary as they may be.
What is the long term goal of this international ethic? It is only to benefit some association of multi-national corporations that we all give up our 'culture' and 'traditions'? We are raising up each nation economically to the detriment of our precious Western World, but to what end? What ethic is there in giving away the family farm to indulge but a single generation?
What is the consensus Western ethic now a days anyway? I am young, maybe someone older, a Zoomer maybe, can fill me in?
inthegarden beyondthecave
I'm not a zoomer but a boomer.
I suggest that the consensus will not be found on the surface. People have many standards. But those standards came from somewhere and so far as the source has not been forgotten, they are justified by their source. Even if the source is forgotten, a review of a communities' standards may imply the source as the justification of the standards. The argument that there is a true global ethic must typically rely upon the thesis that all of our standards come from, and are subject to evaluation by, a standard that serves as their source.
Please see my post in this discussion on the relation between desire and a global ethic. That is an attempt to locate the source of all standards and to draw out the implications of that source.
Comment deleted
Mark Burke
jag . 50+
Jonathan Neiss
Alexandre Tonnaire
inthegarden beyondthecave
It should be incorporated into every culture to the extent that it is not. It should be accepted by every culture as a basis for critique of that culture.
Each of us is born as a being that experiences desires. In this we are equal. If God created us this way, then God created us as equals. If evolution lead to our existing this way, then evolution resulted in our being equal in this respect: we all experience desire.
Ethics has to do with pursuing good and being good. To understand ethics, one needs to understand how "goodness" is related to desire.
Desire provides us with cares and concerns. We have cares and concerns because we have desire.
Sometimes desire is experienced as unsatisfied. We call this suffering. Sometimes desire is satsified. We call this enjoyment. Sometimes we experience desire as something that is in the process of being satisfied. Because we desire this process, its presence provides enjoyment and its absence provides suffering.
We give the names "good", "bad", and "evil" to certain aspects of things. The same thing can have (and usually does have) both good and bad aspects. We give the name "good" to the three kinds of aspects that things can have, all of which are related to desire: (1) the presence of things we desire, (2) usefulness for obtaining the things that we desire, and (3) the kind of consciousness that has desires. We give the names "bad" and "evil" to three aspects of things: (1) the absence of the things we desire, (2) hinderance to obtaining what we desire, and (3) the destruction or absence of the kind of consciousness that has desires.
Ethics has to do with being the kind of being that respects those conscious beings who have desires by making ourslves into tools for well distributed minimization of suffering and well distributed maximization of enjoyment. This is how we treat others the way we would want to be treated. (A start. 2000 characters is not enough)
Comment deleted
inthegarden beyondthecave
It appears to me that you underestimate the flexibility of the standards I suggested. It also appears that you incorrectly suppose that the primary function of the global ethic I am suggesting is the judgment of persons.
I would suggest that the actual primary function of morality is the guidance of decisions. Only a small number of decisions pertain to the judgment of persons and I would certainly argue that , morality significantly limits the extent to which we should be involved in the judgment of persons, especially where the lack of ability or wealth or biological assets provide significant excuses. As I indicated, the point of morality is to pursue the development of a well distributed minimization of suffering and a well distributed maximization of enjoyment. That would seem to me to require a very sensitive approach to differences in cultures and human situations. One does not avoid suffering or bring about enjoyment by ignoring the specific situations of particuar persons and other organisms that experience suffering or enjoyment.
What I am arguing for is hardly a simple rigid moral code like don't lie, don't steal, etc.
Rather, I suggest that the standard by which action should be judged is the very factor that motivates action in the first place: desire. If desire is our ultimate reason for doing anything, then that desire is also the standard that determines what counts as good choices and good actions.
What removes my position fom selfish subjectivism is that it recognizes that if desire is the ultimate standard, it is all desires (not just my desires) that together form that standard.
When you introduce more arbitrariness into the judgment of what matters by indicating we are free to use whatever standard we choose, you do not do more to repect the person living in poverty in Sudan. Rather, such arbitrariness deprives that respect of meaningful benevolent content and thus destroys it as genuine respect.
Kevin Fine
While we can promote freedom of speech, information and religion in the Western World, are we within our right to enforce it on other countries?
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
,Consider these hyptheticals and extremes
Can a culture then pursue genocide without fear of outside sanction?
Can a Culture then pursue gential mutlitaion without fear of outside sanctiom?
Can a country then elect to pollute the earrths atmosphere and posion its ocaens without fear of outside sanction?Can a country elect to exploit children and effectively enslave workers to reduce the costs of its good on world markets?
Can a country that happens to be a wintering spot for humback whales or turtles go and kill every single whale or turtle because they are in the territoral waters of that country ?
What about a country with a bronze age battle with ancient enemies. Can they just go wage war on that basis ?What about religious freedom.if a country decides to eradicate all non beleivers of an official state religion through hanging or burning at the stake., is that ok?
As global citizens we do have values and a sense of what is ethical, what values the sancity and oreservation of life, that transcends sovereignty and transcneds culture, religion and tradition when they do not honor life.
carole lyc
Jonathan Neiss
inthegarden beyondthecave
You quote the Bard, "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so".
But you take this out to be something special about "good" and "bad". It is not. There is nothing that somehow "is" without "thinking making it so".
The word "is" asserts a relation between the objects of words. If one says "Snow is white", one is claiming a paricular relation between the objects of the words "snow" and "white". But for there to be a relation between an identifiable object of "snow" and an identifiable object of "white", there must first be a relation between the word "snow" and its object and the word "white" and its object. But where doe that relation come from. It comes from the practice of using these words by thinking persons. In the absense of thinking persons using these words in a way which identifies their objects, the words are just sounds or marks on paper or a computer monitor. Thus, it is thinking which makes that relation which we call "is" possible.
But you might respond that the objects were there before we ideintified them with words. Yes. But so were the objects of "good" and "bad" before they were identified with these words. They, too, were already there before they were identified with words.
Your quote from Shakespeare merely refers to the fact that apart from thinking, the words "good" and "bad" do not refer to anything. But that is the case for all words.
But, you might argue that the words good and bad do not always mean the same thing for all people. True enough. But the same is true of any other word.
What we are really up to here in asking whether there should be a global ethic is asking whether we should agree upon rules of conduct. Of chourse the word "should" already presumes some shared method of evaluation. Anyone who presumes to answer this question one way or the other already presumes the existence of a shareable standard that we ought to share.
ABDUL SATTAR
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
----------------------------------------I think this the best and most comprehensive foundation for Global ethics
Christophe Cop 500+
The others are ok.
Simon Tovey
Also the rest hardly define a faultless moral code. For example, slavery and torture would be perfectly allowed under these rules.
Jordan Miller 20+
Of course the motives should come from a love of God and of man as Christ taught but no matter the motives the universal ethics system remains incredibly simple. Treat others as you want to be treated.
inthegarden beyondthecave
The Golden rule may be a simple statement, but its implications are far from simple. It refers to a method for making decisions that it is so flexile that it can be applied in every possible situation. But until it is applied in each situation, we do not know about everything it implies.
Bernd Fesel 30+
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948: http://tinyurl.com/8mc59
The central ethical values in this Declaration are to me:
1.) freedom of speech 2.) freedom of belief, 3.) freedom from want and 4.) freedom from fear.
Eva - for me it is not about the heart. In terms of a personal ethical standard I favor the value "empathy" - the quality to feel how the other feels....Or as Kant stated in this imperative principle: you should treat others like you want them to treat you.
If this single rule would apply world wide, we probably would have no wars and torture anylonger.
Elena Purser
I'm not sure how we can return to the interconnectedness that must be in place so that we can become the society we have the potential to be.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
The return is one by one..each of us raising awareness in forums like this in our own blogs, in our community, in what we teach our children .
Just your being here and having this conversation you are co-creating what you seek, you are calling it into being.
inthegarden beyondthecave
I suggest we work to change school curriculum. Many US state legislatures have imposed a regimen of fact memorization and "teacher accountability" testing of children on fact memorization that move our children farther away from having a moral compass. As this regimen takes over, our children spend more an more time doing more and more homework that largely wastes their time memorizing a standardized set of fact and vocabulary that removes them from the reality of being persons with responsibilities other than the completion of homework.
I suggest the use literature, movies, photography, etc., to encite empathy. There should be a class every school day in a students life that focuses on the empathy inspiring arts.
I suggest we provide them with another class that would focus on having children think through practical problems. Start with a premise like all people matter or treat others the way you want to be treated and work on discussing and writing about what follows in particular situations or for particular policy questions. Engage the children in learning how the facts matter, and thus, how the other discipllines are relevant for answering these questions. This class should meet just as often as any other core curriculum class. Have the students keep a journal with regular writing assignments on such matters. Hold small group discussions of three or four students to discuss the journal entries. Have students write responses to other students journal entries.
For the most part, these two classes would replace Language Arts. They would effectively teach writing, reading, and the analytical arts through the hands on practice of doing them...
ABDUL SATTAR
I personally thing that U N has lost its validity , its un democratic , we can't leave issue of Global ethics to UN, I think we need forums like these where people can come together and discuss , only then can we form Global ethics.
Eva M
The problem is not that we miss universal ethics. The problem is we deny that we have it. People deny that they know what is wrong and what is right in order not to submit themselves to the high standards that their own heart would require them to live by. People are in denial, that is the problem.
The moral codex provided by culture falls terribly short comparing to the real requirements of the heart. It compromises too much. It allows for the “little sins”, that in reality nobody feels good about, but is trying to justify them and talk oneself into feeling okay about.
Making a set of rules and asking people to follow them is a vain attempt of the mind to replace what is already there in our hearts. It can never work either, because a set of rules will never be flexible enough to respond to reality. At one occasion it is inappropriate to shout, on the other occasion it is inappropriate NOT to shout. There is no way to regulate human behaviors by external rules and call it morality.
The only way to provide the world with the universal ethics is to admit that in our hearts we know what is right and what is wrong, and come to integrity with it, moment by moment.