Finding a social consensus for survival
Editorial
WHENEVER there is a spate of human tragedies largely brought about by the deliberate actions of normal and ordinary members of society, the shocked mind seeks for the rationale behind the deeds, the whys and the wherefores that constrain people to behave in a destructive manner. Perhaps the human intellect needs to be given a reason, however irrational it may seem for any cruel, incomprehensible evil perpetrated on the innocent and the blameless. The recent tragedies in Guyana demand such a rationale, and we are certain that the hearts of many citizens must have gone out in silent sympathy to the relatives of the victims, who more than most, must find the moral and psychological fortitude to put their own lives back together again. We are reminded of a comment made in mid-1996 by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, about religion being reduced to a hobby in Britain, and of his dire warning that society would perish unless the difference between right and wrong was taught to the young. Dr Carey was reported to have told BBC Radio that he wanted to initiate a debate which looks at the whole morality and how children can be taught to grow up as moral and responsible agents of society. Later, in a speech delivered to the House of Lords on society's moral and spiritual well-being, the Archbishop called for a partnership between parents and schools as well as between the churches and the government. "It would be a failure if our schools were to produce people with the right skills and aptitudes to take on economic competitors, but who cannot string two sentences together about the meaning and purpose of life, or who have no idea what it means to be a good citizen and moral person. Without a spiritual or moral heartbeat, society will perish," Dr Carey prophesied. Some weeks later, Archbishop Carey's pronouncements found resonance in the views of a self-styled Roman Catholic dissident who had launched the Global Ethic Foundation in Tubingen, Germany. In an interview published in NEWSWEEK, the dissident, Mr Hans Kung, advocated the idea that religions, governments and corporations should have agreed on a basic code of ethics. "The need for a consensus on ethical principles," he argued, "has become critical in the wake of the rapid changes in technology, science and global trade." Asked what was a global ethic and why he thought one was necessary, Kung replied, "A global ethic means a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards and personal attitudes which can be shared by people of all religions and also non-believers. Hardly anyone disputes the need for a new global ethic - a minimum ethic which is absolutely necessary for human survival. How are schools to cope with the readiness to use violence, which has increased so strongly? How is our society to become more human again? In an age when more and more children are killing children, it is obviously necessary to teach them some very basic human imperatives, like `You shall not kill' and `Have respect for life.'" That the thoughts of two philosophical men from different societies could converge so cogently on the quest for a moral standard of behaviour indicates that there are still leaders who have the courage to speak out against the tide of negative and aberrant behaviours that are much glorified by tabloid television and newspapers. While this epoch in our civilisation will be celebrated for its achievements in medicine, science, communications and technology, these brilliant advances will continue to be stained by the senseless violence that destroys humans, and by terrorism, disease, ethnic strife, wars and want if a consensus for survival is not articulated and endorsed by all right-thinking individuals.
|