The Ethic of Freedom
Reciprocal behavior is the structure behind ethics. One type of reciprocal rule, which is sometimes referred to as ‘The ethic of reciprocity’, but is more commonly known as the Golden Rule, appears in most religions in some form. It is often expressed as ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
This is only one form of reciprocal rule and it is misleading to name it ‘The Ethic of Reciprocity’, as this suggests that it is at the heart of all reciprocal behavior. Reciprocity is not inherently good. It can lead to good or bad outcomes. ‘Kill or be killed’ is a reciprocal rule. A masochist following the golden rule would not violate it by inflicting harm on others. Many warrior leaders throughout history accepted that if they were weaker than their opponent they would be killed. ‘Give no quarter and expect none’ (take no prisoners, and do not expect to be taken prisoner) is a reciprocal rule. The golden rule applies equally in Theocracies and other forms of dictatorship as it does in democracies. The flip side of the golden rule becomes ‘I expect everyone to act like me’. ‘I expect to be persecuted if I blaspheme and I will punish those who blaspheme.’
Reciprocity is a structure for creating rule sets and appears to be part of human nature. It is neither good nor bad. It simply is the way we are.
If you live in a complex society that contains a mix of people with different religions, politics and cultures, what reciprocal rule can be applied to create a community out of diversity? What reciprocal rule includes tolerance?
The implied rule in a free society is the ‘Ethic of Freedom’, which is ‘Let people do live as they want, as long as they do no harm to others’, the flip side being ‘I will do as I want, as long as I do no harm to others.’ This freedom of personal behavior is not new. Throughout history such communities have existed. Trading ports often had a large mix of races and cultures and these ports often stood outside the normal conventions of the host country.
In a free society, people’s own ethical systems, whether religious or not, will inform their behavior, but the behavior of others should only be of dispute if it harms others. The formation of rules must take place through a rational debate around the harm caused to others, not through divine laws.
This may seem like a dilution of a person’s religious beliefs, but it is actually a structure that allows religious freedom for all. If religion enters the political arena it will, when successful, discriminate against other people on the basis of their religious or secular beliefs. Most religions do include the notion of final judgment by God on people’s behavior and beliefs. The religious person should, therefore, be able to rely on a divine judgment by their God to punish unbelievers and sinners, not the state. Through a reliance on divine judgment, the religious person should be able to live within a free society without attempting to undermine it.
This is only one form of reciprocal rule and it is misleading to name it ‘The Ethic of Reciprocity’, as this suggests that it is at the heart of all reciprocal behavior. Reciprocity is not inherently good. It can lead to good or bad outcomes. ‘Kill or be killed’ is a reciprocal rule. A masochist following the golden rule would not violate it by inflicting harm on others. Many warrior leaders throughout history accepted that if they were weaker than their opponent they would be killed. ‘Give no quarter and expect none’ (take no prisoners, and do not expect to be taken prisoner) is a reciprocal rule. The golden rule applies equally in Theocracies and other forms of dictatorship as it does in democracies. The flip side of the golden rule becomes ‘I expect everyone to act like me’. ‘I expect to be persecuted if I blaspheme and I will punish those who blaspheme.’
Reciprocity is a structure for creating rule sets and appears to be part of human nature. It is neither good nor bad. It simply is the way we are.
If you live in a complex society that contains a mix of people with different religions, politics and cultures, what reciprocal rule can be applied to create a community out of diversity? What reciprocal rule includes tolerance?
The implied rule in a free society is the ‘Ethic of Freedom’, which is ‘Let people do live as they want, as long as they do no harm to others’, the flip side being ‘I will do as I want, as long as I do no harm to others.’ This freedom of personal behavior is not new. Throughout history such communities have existed. Trading ports often had a large mix of races and cultures and these ports often stood outside the normal conventions of the host country.
In a free society, people’s own ethical systems, whether religious or not, will inform their behavior, but the behavior of others should only be of dispute if it harms others. The formation of rules must take place through a rational debate around the harm caused to others, not through divine laws.
This may seem like a dilution of a person’s religious beliefs, but it is actually a structure that allows religious freedom for all. If religion enters the political arena it will, when successful, discriminate against other people on the basis of their religious or secular beliefs. Most religions do include the notion of final judgment by God on people’s behavior and beliefs. The religious person should, therefore, be able to rely on a divine judgment by their God to punish unbelievers and sinners, not the state. Through a reliance on divine judgment, the religious person should be able to live within a free society without attempting to undermine it.
posted by craig fotheringham at 12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home