 |
|
|
FOREWORD by the author
"Tantum aude, quantum potes" (Dare as much as you can)
"A man does what he must — in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers — and this is the basis of all human morality."John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) 35th U.S. President
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do." Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970)
This book provides a moral compass for anyone who seeks to follow its principles in order to think and act as a humanist. In it, I develop the idea that rational humanism provides an objective moral code, and offers reasons for behaving morally, within the global context of a shrinking world. Since our worldview affects how we interact with others, any moral code must be judged as to how its adherents treat other people and whether or not it improves people's lives. If the adherents treat others badly and their moral code reduces people's quality of life, it is a bad moral code; if the adherents treat others with dignity and respect and the code improves people's lives, it is a good code of ethics. —This is the ultimate pragmatic test of reality and results.
In December 2004, I was awarded the Condorcet Prize of political philosophy by the Quebec Secularist Movement. On this occasion, I was asked to give a short lecture on the origins and sources of human morality (metaethics). During my research, while reading numerous secular and religious books on morality, I was astounded to find how restrictively the concept of morality has been applied throughout history. I was struck by four major flaws in the ethics of organized religions.
Firstly, I was struck by the fact that in most cases, especially as it relates to 'religious morality', the principles espoused by organized religions were initially devised to apply to a particular ethnic group, nationality, or to insiders of a religious denomination, and were not at all meant to be universal in their application. It seems that ancient religious or political leaders used religious laws and precepts to increase the social and political cohesion and unity of their own group or community, and its eventual survival, while at the same time emphasizing their differences with, and often their hostility toward, other groups and other communities. This is the main reason why I think religious morality is fundamentally flawed. Too often, it leads to an ethnocentric or hostile moral system.
One can easily arrive at such a conclusion after reading the so-called 'holy books' that support the monotheist religions of Judaism (the Torah), Christianity (the Bible) and Islam (the Qur'an or Koran).
In these three 'revealed' books, one discovers, for example, that while it is written, "do not kill", what is really meant is "do not kill the insiders". Anything goes regarding the "outsiders"—the neighbors, the infidels, the non-believers, the mecreants, the pagans, the enemies. Thus, in the book of Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (Bible: New King James Version), the 'chosen' Hebrews are ordered to commit the genocide of other tribes: "But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive,—but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you." Similar passages can be found in the Islamic Qur'an. This may explain why some deeply religious peoples have no qualms about killing their enemies, or anybody who does not belong to their group of insiders, however they define themselves.
The second major flaw of religious morality is the subtle distinction that it often introduces between individual or private morality, and public morality. There is one morality for ordinary people in their daily lives and another morality for leaders and government agents acting in their official capacity. This moral dichotomy may explain more than anything else why humanity is still saddled with murderous wars. There are two recent examples of such moral ambiguity. The first is personified by Osama bin Laden, the self-proclaimed religious leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist movement, who harbors two moralities simultaneously: one drawn from the Qur'an enjoining him "not to kill", and another one—also inspired by the Qur'an—that says that it is good to kill certain innocent people "for the cause of God (Allah)." The second example is a self-proclaimed deeply religious American president, George W. Bush, who presumably still considered himself religiously moral after ordering a war of aggression against Iraq, in 2003, an onslaught that resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people; men, women and children.
Why such a morality à-la-carte? My answer is that the medieval religious concepts of morality are fundamentally inadequate for a humanity living in the modern integrated and multicultural world and on an ever-shrinking Planet, a planet that requires global solutions to global problems. They belong to another age, when each human group had a circumscribed geographical horizon and when the moral rules for survival were more primitive and more cruel. Over the coming centuries, moral rules must adapt in order to maximize the chances of humanity's survival in the new environment of global economic, political and cultural cooperation, and in the face of the new challenges of global climate changes.
The third flaw of religion-based morality comes from the fact that it relies on the fiction of an eternal 'hell' to intimidate and demonize non-believers. This is a very immoral and unjust threat because it condemns without appeal two-thirds of humankind to exclusion, and possibly, to persecutions, religious wars and genocides. This is a very serious defect of religion-based morality because this ideology of "hell" and the hatred it may have encouraged against "the others", may have caused, directly or indirectly, millions of deaths.
The fourth flaw of religion-based morality arises from its philosophical stance about a hypothetical separation between the human mind and the human body. Much of the negative religious morality concerning the human body comes from this erroneous distinction.
Faced with such an entrenched but flawed morality and considering the huge challenges that humanity must overcome, it would seem that we need a new moral code of conduct, one that transcends traditional religion-based morality and which adopts a posture of global awareness and sensitivity to human problems. The rational humanistic principles of morality can provide such guidance.
Some may argue that universal humanistic principles of morality are self-evident and need not be presented in an orderly fashion. —I disagree. I believe that such principles are superior to any other system of moral principles, especially those based on the flawed concept of ethical duality or of in-group morality. I believe these principles should not only be proclaimed, they should also be compared to other moral codes and taught to all the world's children. Of course, none of the humanist ideas espoused here are completely new, but they are emphasized and placed in a new context, the context of the twenty-first century.
This explains why I attempt in this book to represent and compare a set of ethical values, as a direct extension of my Condorcet Prize acceptance speech. This set of humanist moral principles are not inspired by narrow religious dogmas but are based on universal humanistic values.
This book does not fall into the politically correct trend, because it openly questions some long-held political and philosophical views. It is my contention that in the twenty-first century we can no longer depend upon old gods, ancient prophets and old books for guidance. We must look into ourselves to discover the rules for living together in peace and mutual understanding. We need a new moral code to fill the moral vacuum that exists presently around the world. —Warning: This book may change your outlook on life and transform your way of thinking.
INTRODUCTION:
THE ETHICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE OF ANY SOCIETY
"Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart.
Trouble no one about his religion.
Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours.
Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life.
Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide.
Always give a word or sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, or even a
stranger, if in a lonely place. Show respect to all people, but grovel to none.
When you rise in the morning, give thanks for the light, for your life, for your strength.
Give thanks for your food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason to give
thanks, the fault lies in yourself.
Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision.
When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death,
so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live
their lives over again in a different way.
Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home."
Tecumseh, (1768-1813) -Shawnee native Chief
I. A NEW MORAL CODE
The question of human morality and how to implement it has been with us ever since humans began living in groups and in more or less organized societies, where survival depended on mutual assistance. In this sense, morality is the oldest philosophical question. But what is morality? Morality is an attribute of human conduct, and it establishes why some actions are deemed to be wrong and others are seen as being right. It can be general or specific. A general or basic moral code exists in person's mind and is independent of any deity or supernatural world. For example, people know naturally that to kill another human being is wrong or that to steal from others is also wrong. People also have a natural feeling that their behavior and their interactions with others must be honest, fair and just, above and beyond any legalistic or religious subtleties. In this general sense, basic morality relates ideally to how people do what is right in their private activities and when dealing with their fellow human beings...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
