On page 118, Ernst writes, “acknowledging difference in religious ethics will be a vital step in creating the conditions for a global civilization” with reference to a Euro-centric claim to a universality of ethics. Ernst also mentions that other religious traditions, as well as Islamic traditions, have prohibitions on “murder, theft, adultery, lying, and other crimes.” There is a sort of interesting contradiction here. Do you agree that acknowledging differences in religious ethics will help to create a civilization in which all people can live at peace? Do you disagree with him and believe there is a valid universal code of ethics? What do you think that code is? What would it have to be if we lived in a totally peaceful and ethical society?
By
3 thoughts on “Ernst, Religious Plurality, and Ethics”
stabakha
I believe that acknowledging differences in religious ethics will help create a civilization in which all people can live at peace because if individuals consider the thoughts of those around them and see why certain individuals live that way, then it should be understandable to accept those types of ideologies. Now, I am not stating that one must follow certain beliefs or ethics that another informs them about, but I think they should respect one another and let them believe what they think as long as it does not proceed to violence or hatred amongst groups. This is something that the United States needs to develop more on because one can not fight the fact that the United States is one of the most diverse countries in the world. So, individuals within the U.S. should get to know their different neighbors and understand their differences, and could even share similarities to which may help them grow together in thought and practice.
jneeh
I believe that acknowledging differences in religious ethics will definitely help create a civilization in which all people can live at peace. I agree on that because if we acknowledge other religious groups’ ethics or morals we would be benefiting both ourselves and others around us. If every person in our world would respect and understand other’s religious ethics, we would be living in a place where race and religion do not matter, so clearly we would be living in peace. For example, some of the European countries where Islam is not a primary religion, most of their problems are about why Muslim women wear Hijab. So imagine if everyone respect and get educated about other religious ethics how many conflicts we would prevent and how much peace we would be living in?
aodalton
I think there is a universal and objective morality. To believe there is not would cause a lot of confusing problems. For an example, I don’t think anyone believes that in one location on the globe, it is okay to kill an innocent person. We institutionally believe that killing innocent people is wrong no matter where you are. Although some may initially disagree, this cannot be dependent on culture, because we are always trying to improve our culture and are always seeing injustices in it.
As far as religion goes, I think Ernst is right, but only to an extent. While we have to respect others’ freedom of religion, this ends where one’s freedom of religion restricts another’s. Not all religions are good. In fact, many religions are a mixture of good and bad, just like humans. These religions often try and understand the right moral code, but at least some are bound to fail. Sometimes, they fail miserably. And when they do, we cannot allow such beliefs to become a part of law if we want our society to be as peaceful as possible.