Fred: ‘there are a dozen separate purported sources of Divine insight into matters of right and wrong. Perhaps there is agreement amongst them, or some of them, at a certain level of abstraction.’

For Sikhs, Ahmadiyaa Muslims, Bahais, Jains (and various syncretic religions I’m yet to investigate) the Golden Rule of loving one’s neighbour, reasonably cited by your good self as Civility, is enhanced in their inclusive teachings resembling ecumenism, and by some as Progressive Revelation *. Christians believe in a sort of progressive revelation too in that Jesus expanded on Moses’ teachings. The ‘certain level of abstraction’ linking ‘the purported sources of Divine insight’, that you reference, constitutes the crucial common ground in resolving conflict resolutions that modern psychology also deems essential.

* To guide humanity in morality and spirituality founders of the world Faiths arise consecutively every 500 years or so; They differ only in their physical form and in the glory of the attributes bestowed divinely upon them by the one true God according to exigencies and crises of the era as already adumbrated by this writer on this thread, Fred.

The southern hemisphere is provisioned to better survive the Anthropocene, global warming, pollution, over population, corporatization, racism, nationalism, nuclear proliferation, conventual war, all precipitated by the root cause shared by communists and democrats: the cancer of materialism. And, of course, as identified yesterday, worst of all, the twin horrors headed up by hypocritical and hateful religious and political leaders in the east and the west.

For many Australians, me too as an old white guy who on the street can afford to be as civil as civil can be, life on our island continent is fine relative to the desperation faced by zillions elsewhere. Sincere civility, way more than the superficial civility of ubiquitous political correctness, is the bare minimum of what’s urgently required given the suffering assailing humanity from all directions. There’s the rub, Fred, civility that’s truly meaningful and productive ain’t in abundance anywhere except perhaps to a degree in certain well funded elite bodies and their venal spokespersons who can ‘talk the leg off a chair’ all dressed up for one another to project groupthink notions of national and corporate advantage. True unity at a global political human level, as you indicate, is essential; it will assuage an inexorable and imminent cataclysm that’s already unfolding. (Even time honoured institutions such as the Diplomatic Service, and the UN, albeit helpful, are looking as impotent as the League of Nations and the diplomats who served in Versailles.)

What I’m primarily suggesting here is that without a globally united frame of ethical reference, be it God centred or man centred, an increasingly bigger percentage of our race is facing an unimaginable catastrophe unheard of in human history and that the same old problems will catalyse again if unity is not achieved. Out of the chaos we must seriously engage in a united and fair way of doing things for the chastened survivors of World War 3. Whether God’s retributive hand is evident in all this is perhaps not a question for this forum. Theodicy, theophany and modern proofs as to God’s existence are however questions for everyone, sooner or later, and not just for theologians, philosophers, and ethicists.

Thanks, Paul Desailly. I might well opine, as you put it, that acknowledging God as the truth-maker for statements about right and wrong doesn’t necessarily in itself render things simpler and clearer. I have two points, and I preface them with a proviso: I am not a theologian; this isn’t an area of competence, let alone expertise, for me. The first point is one you’ve mentioned. I might put it in terms of your “dozen separate philosophies”: there are a dozen separate purported sources of Divine insight into matters of right and wrong. Perhaps there is agreement amongst them, or some of them, at a certain level of abstraction. (Indeed, Civility is just the Golden Rule and it has multiple points of origin, historically.) But this brings me to a second point, which is that I am unaware of Divine instruction at the level of concreteness and specificity that would be necessary, for example, to distinguish one proposed public policy initiative (on say climate change) from another. So, at this level, a certain amount of human interpretative and expository work would be needed and, with that necessity, considerable potential for divergence in thinking. And, at this point, we’re back to where we would be if we’d started with something strictly human being the truth-maker for right and wrong. My remarks aren’t a denial of the point about the source of truth for claims about right and wrong; maybe that source is a divine one. They’re just about what, even in that case, might nevertheless be necessary to advance discussion about complex matters subtended by multiple competing interests. There’s still human work to do and the possibility of doing that work depends on civility. Thanks again and all the best–FRED

😢

Thanks, John McKeon. Certainly the congeries of issues associated with climate change constitutes a wicked problem, to which there will be no solution that doesn’t leave a nasty remainder. A solution which is favourable in one of the relevant dimensions will create “losers” in other dimensions. And that, of course, is a reason why the various interested parties are “fighting their corners” so vigorously. The principle of civility isn’t a device for solving wicked problems or even for finding compromises. It’s however a precondition for any collective attempt to find a compromise … all the work is still to be done; it’s just that honouring the principle enables the work to get started. Right now there are pressures to ignore or indeed dishonour the principle of civility. I find the situation bewildering, but hope that people currently caught up in more partisan attitudes will recognise the futility of persistence in those attitudes. But those who do adhere to civility need to put this adherence into action by seeking out and listening to those who disagree with them on the various substantive issues which currently divide us. Really listen. Actually hear. Try to understand. Try to find a “hook” on which to hang an actual conversation about the issues. Thanks again. All the best–FRED

IMO it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets better, Ingrid jaan, but the timing is a mystery. Religious fanaticism in the east, whose conflagration none can quench AND in the west excessive liberty leading to sedition whose fires none can quench are drawing the world nearer and nearer to a universal catastrophe. What chance to mitigate global warming while wars rage & the aforesaid toxicity bubbles away? I’m too scared to hop on a plane anywhere other than interstate

Thanks, Paul, for the reminder that powerful interest are at stake fanning the flames of our epistemological crisis and general moral confusion …