GEC 7: Ethics

1. Title of the Module

Chapter VI: Ethics Through Thick and Thin & Ethics and Globalization

2. Introduction

Ethics through thick and thin is the concluding part of this course, yet interestingly, it also challenges the philosophical minds
of the students with this question: how may the discourses of ethics from the previous chapters help us students engage ethical
dilemmas on a global landscape with all its ramifications from consumerist capitalism, neoliberalism, individualism, religious
fundamentalism and fanaticism, and terrorism?

The first topic discusses the challenges of globalization in ethics. This is an important concept for students to understand
and appreciate since daily experiences at school, home, and community are an integral part of the globalization process. With
globalization, however, are the issues of pluralism, liberalism, loss of cultural values and identity, and the disenchantments that go
with it. Studying globalization could help us understand the differences and similarities of different cultures and to understand how we
are connected and at the same time separated from the world.

The second topic dwells on the challenges of millennials. With the fast-paced lifestyles of people across the globe brought
about by globalization and the overwhelming inventions in the field of science and technology, generation gap has become an issue
especially so that ethical dilemmas are dealt with differently among age groups whether at home, in school, at the workplace, and in
recreation facilities or anywhere else. Ethical attitudes differ from Traditionalists, to Boomers, to Gen Xers, to Millennials, and to Gen
Z or iGen. Hence, this topic deals directly on individualism, humanism and secularism – ideologies that influenced the millennials’
moral compass.

The third topic discourses on the role of religion in ethics. At the heart of religion are moral codes and through the values
they embody, they often build the basis for ethical living. Students are challenged to evaluate ethical claims of religions in a
comparative way and rediscover the Divine as a guide to living fully human and fully alive.

The ethical decisions and courses of action that we take points back to the moral compass that we have embraced in this
course.

3. Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
a. explain globalization and pluralism as challenges to ethics;
b. evaluate the challenges that Millennials encounter in relation to ethical
behavior; and
c. explain the roles of religion in ethics.

4. Learning Content

Topics for Chapter VI

Topic 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics
Topic 2: Challenges of Millenials
Topic 3: The Role of Religions in Ethics

5. Teaching and Learning Activities

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion

6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading books

Nelson, M. F., James, M. S., Miles, A., Morrell, D. L., & Sledge, S. (2017). Academic integrity of millennials: The impact of
religion and spirituality. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 385-400.
Sheffield, Jim; Korotayev, Andrey; and Grinin, Leonid (eds.) (2013). Globalization: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. ISCE
Publishing.
Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D. (1982). Sacred texts of the world: A universal anthology. NY, USA: The Crossroad Publishing
Company.
Steger, Manfred. (2013) Globalization: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, George (2011). Globalization: a basic text. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Archard, David (1996). Philosophy and Pluralism. Cambridge University Press.
Weber, J., & Urick, M. J. (2017). Examining the millennials' ethical profile: Assessing demographic variations in their
personal value orientations. Business and Society Review, 122(4), 469-506.

7. Flexible Teaching Learning Modality (FTLM) adopted

Modular Distance Learning (MDL) – Module

Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Edmodo, Email,
Messenger, Zoom

8. Assessment Task

a. Reflection Paper
b. Module Exercises
c. Home work
d. Situation Analysis
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

Nominal Duration: 6 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. define globalization and explain its different dimensions;
2. enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of globalization;
3. evaluate the role of ethics in globalization; and
4. analyze the challenges of pluralism to ethics.

Introduction

Virtually, all aspects of modern life is affected and transformed by the forces of
globalization. News is shaped daily by issues concerning activities that go beyond the confines of
our domestic borders. Our homes are filled with products sourced from the world over. We
consume food coming from different countries. Even what we read, watch and view originated
from somewhere in the world. This means we are not isolated and we are active participants in
all these global activities.

We find ourselves in a period of time marked by an unprecedented transformation. The

fast and incessant social, cultural, economic, and technological changes we experience makes
our world more and more interconnected. Globalization’s dynamic power will continue to alter the
way we think about or understand people and things, as it reshapes our lives, the system of our
communication and the manner we relate. The many changes which globalization provoked in
every society and culture have resulted in the cross-border stream of individuals, consumer
goods, and information by reducing an indefinite number of obstacles among nations.

Globalization: A Search for Definition

Globalization is not a single concept that can be defined with certainty. Different
interpretations of the term reflect different perspectives rooted in different positions, attitudes and
benefits derived from it. There is a long line of definition from academics, scholars and theorists
since globalization as a term first appeared in Webster’s dictionary in 1961. Here is a brief survey
of the definitions proposed by leading intellectuals and organizations over the years:

Kenichi Ohmae (1992) defined it as “the onset of a borderless world”. Roland Robertson
(1992) referred to it as “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of
the world as a whole”. Arjun Appadurai (1996) posited globalization as “a ‘world of things’ that
have different speeds, axes, points of origin and termination, and varied relationships to
institutional structures in different regions, nations, or societies”. Robert Cox (1999) outlined the
“characteristics of the globalization trend to include the internationalizing of production, the new
international division of labor, new migratory movements from South to North, the new competitive
environment that accelerates these processes, and the internationalizing of the state…making
states into agencies of the globalizing world”. Fredric Jameson (1996) defined it as “a cultural
process, globalization names the explosion of a plurality of mutually intersecting, individually
syncretic, local differences; the emergence of new, hitherto suppressed identities; and the
expansion of a world-wide media and technology culture with the promise of popular
democratization. As an economic process, there is assimilation or integration of markets, of labor,
of nations”. Thomas Friedman (1999) brought up the “inexorable integration of markets, nation-
states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before - in a way that is enabling individuals,
corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than
ever before, and in a way that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left
behind by this new system. Globalization means the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually
every country in the world”. In contrast, Martin Khor (1999) related globalization as “what people
in the Third World have for several centuries called colonization”. World Bank (2001) defined it as
“the growing integration of economies and societies around the world”. Robert Keohane (2002)
described it as “a trend of increasing transnational flows and increasingly thick networks of
interdependence”. International Monetary Fund (2002) interpreted it as “a historical process, the
result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of
economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows”. Pascal Lamy (2006)
referred to it as “a historical stage of accelerated expansion of market capitalism, like the one
experienced in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution. It is a fundamental transformation
in societies because of the recent technological revolution which has led to a recombining of the
economic and social forces on a new territorial dimension.” Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan and Gérard
Stoudmann (2006) defined it as “a process that encompasses the causes, courses, and
consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities.”
Manfred Steger (2014) in a more general and simplified terms put it as “the expansion and
intensification of social relations and consciousness across world-time and across world-space”.

The abundance of definition is clearly an indicator of varying opinions, discourses and

debates and no single definition can put an actual claim to it. This only shows that globalization
is indeed multifaceted, multidisciplinary and complex. It is also an evolutionary and fluid process.
Certainly, new definitions will be put forward and old definitions will be revised to reflect the
changing nature and context of social realities in the world today.

Globalization and its Dimensions

Manfred Steger (2005) contended globalization as matured ideology for “it not only
represents a set of political ideas and beliefs coherent enough to warrant the status of a new
ideology, but also constitutes the dominant ideology of our time against which all of its challengers
must define themselves”. For more than a decade, there has been an emerging consensus and
growing acceptance among academics and thought leaders that indeed it is a valid and sound
ideology to perceive and explain the world. And to discuss it, it is imperative to divide the
ideological landscape into three broad regions or dimensions: Economic, Political, Cultural and
Sociological Globalization.

Economic Globalization

Economic globalization refers to the mobility of people, capital, technology, goods and
services internationally. It is also about how integrated countries are in the global economy and
how different countries and regions become more economically interdependent with one another.
Economic globalization is also about globalization of production and trade of goods, financial and
capital markets, technology and communication, organizational regimes and institutions,
enterprises and corporations, and labor. In its economic sense, Joshi (2009) understood
globalization as the free movement of goods, capital, services, technology and information. It is
the increasing economic integration and interdependence of national, regional, and local
economies across the world through an intensification of cross-border movement of goods,
services, technologies and capital.

Over the past three decades, under the framework of General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO), economic globalization has been expanding
at a much faster pace. Since the 1980s, economic globalization has spread rapidly through the
expansion of capitalism and neo-liberalism. Countries have rapidly been cutting down trade
barriers and opening up their current accounts and capital accounts. This rapid increase in pace
has occurred mainly with advanced economies integrating with emerging ones. They have done
this by means of foreign direct investment and some cross-border immigration. They have also
reduced trade barriers. Free trade is the main driver of economic globalization. Economic
globalization has grown at an increased rate due to improvements in the efficiency of long
distance transportation, advances in telecommunication and information systems, and by
developments in science and technology.

In some regions of the world, countries group together to form preferential trade
agreements and economic blocs. Main goal of these regional economic organizations is to
promote and adhere to the free movement of capital, labor, goods and services. The North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened up the free movement of goods and services,
but not labor. This has the same arrangement for Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). European Union is a common market, and therefore the most advanced in terms of
economic integration allowing free movement of all factors of production within its internal borders.
Political Globalization

Central to any meaningful discussion of political globalization is the declining importance

of nation-states and the rise of other non-state actors in international politics. In fact, some actors
such as multinational and transnational corporations and large international non-governmental
organizations can challenge role of national governments and may even pose threats to
sovereignty of states. Consider this: gross revenues of some global companies may exceed
combined gross domestic product (GDP) of several small Sub-Saharan or Latin American states,
in most likelihood, countries where they operate and have branches.

Political globalization is primarily concerned with growth and expansion of global political
system and its institutions. The creation and continued existence of the United Nations is a classic
example of this. Valentine Moghadam (2005) outlined key trends towards this expansion:
multilateralism, emergence of transnational state apparatus and the emergence of international
non-governmental organizations that would provide oversight functions to national governments.
Political globalization has also been discussed in the context of emancipatory possibilities, toward
greater global democratization and the creation of a kind of a global civic society by transnational
advocacy networks.

Political globalization has also spurred debates about the primacy of nation-states in
international relations and about the notions of global governance. Hyper globalists argue that
globalization is eroding state boundaries and nation-states loose significance. However, this is
contested by nationalists and skeptics who argue that it is not pragmatic as supranational
organizations such as the UN do not have police powers and therefore limited to enforce
resolutions. They maintain that state actors remain supreme in international relations.

Cultural Globalization

James (2006) defined cultural globalization as the “transmission of ideas, meanings, and
values around the world in such a way as to extend and intensify social relations and expansion
of social relations is not merely observed on the material level for it also involves the formation of
shared norms and knowledge with which people associate their individual and collective cultural
identities”. Furthermore Steger and James (2010) pointed out cultural globalization as harbinger
of “increased interconnectedness among different populations and cultures”. Watson (2016)
argued that “as a result of the diffusion of commodities and ideas, everyday life reflects a
standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. Such cultural globalization may lead to
monoculturalism or the adoption of the culture of the dominant group. This process is also
understood as cultural imperialism wherein dominance by a homogenized and westernized,
consumerist culture tends to destroy and alienate cultural identities of minority groups. The global
influence of American products, businesses and culture in other countries around the world has
been referred to as Americanization. Americanization has become more prevalent since the
collapse of Soviet Union in 1991. Greater Americanization became more widespread through high
speed internet and smart phone technology since 2008, with a large fraction of the new apps and
hardware being designed in Silicon Valley. American-based TV programs are re-broadcasted the
world over and Netflix shows are transmitted through the internet. Americanization is best
represented by iconic companies such McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Terms such as Coca-
colonization and McDonaldization have been coined to refer to the dominance of American
products in foreign countries, which some critics of globalization view as a threat to the cultural
identity of these nations.

Cultural globalization is clearly driven by advances in information technology, wireless

communications, electronic commerce, popular culture, and international travel and migration.
Though seen as a trend toward cultural homogeneity and standardization of human experience,
to some scholars, this appears to be an overstatement of the phenomenon. According to Watson
(2016), although homogenizing influences do exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a
single world culture. Another alternative perspective argues that in reaction to the process of
cultural globalization, a “Clash of Civilizations” might appear. Samuel Huntington (1993)
emphasized the fact that while the world is becoming smaller and interconnected, the interactions
between peoples of different cultures enhance the civilization consciousness that in turn
invigorate differences. Indeed, rather than reaching a global cultural community, the differences
in culture sharpened by this very process of cultural globalization will be a source of conflict. There
is a whole gamut of conflicting claims and opinions to a Clash of Civilization, however, there is
general concurrence that cultural globalization is an ambivalent process bringing an intense sense
of local difference on one hand and cultural imperialism, greater cultural homogeneity and
uniformity of experience on the other.

Sociological Globalization

Albrow and King (1990) defined globalization from the sociological perspective as, all
those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated into a single world society. In
his work, In The Consequences of Modernity, Giddens (1991) writes, globalization can thus be
defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a
way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice
versa. Robertson (1992), describes globalization as the compression of the world and the
intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole. Held, et al. (1999) in their work,
In Global Transformations, state probably the most widely-cited definition on globalization:

Although in its simplistic sense globalization refers to the widening, deepening

and speeding up of global interconnection, such a definition begs further
elaboration. ... Globalization can be on a continuum with the local, national and
regional. At one end of the continuum lie social and economic relations and
networks which are organized on a local and/or national basis; at the other end
lie social and economic relations and networks which crystallize on the wider
scale of regional and global interactions. Globalization can refer to those spatial-
temporal processes of change which underpin a transformation in the
organization of human affairs by linking together and expanding human activity
across regions and continents. Without reference to such expansive spatial
connections, there can be no clear or coherent formulation of this term. ... A
satisfactory definition of globalization must capture each of these elements:
extensity (stretching), intensity, velocity and impact.

Larsson (2001), in his book, The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization, stated
that globalization is the process of world shrinkage, of distances getting shorter, things moving
closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which somebody on one side of the world can
interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on the other side of the world.

As the phenomenon of globalization continuously increases its speed of the exchange or

transfer of goods, services and capital across borders, it invites everybody to come together, to
connect and unite in a common interest or focus without regard to geography, distance or
language. As knowledge, world views, values, social practices, products, and other components
of culture convergence, people not only communicate but also collaborate. Due to faster, further
and deeper global integration, complex issues are bound to arise which cannot be ignored. These
pose new challenges and problems which are global in nature. Global challenges and problems
demand global solutions. This requires new thinking, new ideas and new solutions.

Globalization and Its Discontents

Many are critical and skeptical about the claimed benefits of globalization. One among
them is the Nobel Prize winner for Economics Joseph Stiglitz as articulated in his controversial
book “Globalization and Its Discontents (2002). He argued that globalization must be reinforced
further to reap potential full rewards and advocated providing “safety nets” for people left out by
the process. Some critics are more aggressive, rejecting it outright and calling for countries to
totally abandon the globalization project. Nevertheless, these are just some of the big arguments
against globalization and some of the moral dilemmas facing us in our time:

Globalization and Income Inequality

Though globalization, particularly economic globalization, has its rewards, countries

derive unequal benefits from it, and as a result tends to widen the divide between the poor
countries of the “South” and the richer countries of the “North”. Countries deeply engaged in
globalization have reported widening income gaps as measured by their Gini coefficient ratios.
According to Asian Development Bank (ADB), before China implemented reform and open-door
policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects.
At this time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official
Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number has been disputed by scholars who
“suggest China’s inequality is actually far greater.” A study published 2014 estimated that China’s
Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002. Income balance is worsening
between rural areas of the inner counties and the coastal regions. And according to Bank of
England Governor Mark Carney, globalization has been one of the main causes of the increase
in inequality in many countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). These countries, including the United States, Canada, and Argentina, have faced an
increase in inequality by between one-half to one-third between the 1970s and the late 1990s.
Globalization has been described as an "uneven process" in Africa. Some groups are integrated
into international economy while most are marginalized and therefore excluded from the rewards.

Globalization, Labor Conditions and the Environment

By being first and foremost concerned with free trade and dismantling of barriers to trade,
proponents of globalization according to critics, tend to overlook the process of how goods and
products are made. World Trade Organization (WTO) as the premier body for trade dispute
arbitration, rules with the idea that a country cannott embargo a good because they object to the
process by which it is made. Only the quality or content is relevant. This has become known as
the “product” versus “process” principle. If a product is made by child labor, in unsafe conditions,
or is damaging to the environment, it cannot be rejected. Underdeveloped countries do not want
to be pressured to impose labor and environmental standards as it will make their products more
costly. They want and need the business. They also say that many people in the west may regard
low-paying jobs at Nike factories as exploitation but for many people in the underdeveloped world
factory work is far better than growing rice and risking hunger. They also add that child labor is
the only way a family may have as protection from starvation. This, according to Ehrenfeld (1012),
makes it difficult for a country to impose environmental labor or health standard. Economic
development fueled by manufacturing and export in rapidly advancing economies such as China
and India led to increased world coal consumption, and therefore world carbon dioxide emissions.
Industrial pollution has devastating effects on climate change and the environment.

Globalization and Democracy

It is a well-established view by many that globalization encourages democratic institutions

which promote democracy. As the global market relies on capitalist democratic values, it is
inevitable that organizations that reinforce these values are rewarded- they can expand into
countries with other forms of government and promote these ideals. Hence, the increased
involvement of international non-governmental organizations and other businesses that further
the transparency and liability of institutions that reduce state intervention, all which facilitate
democracy. However, many scholars such as Jens Bartelson (2004) have a contrary idea:
globalization poses a threat to the democratic state instead of aiding its expansion as it
undermines the essential requirements of state autonomy, patriotism and national identity. For
this reason, one could say that political globalization could be a contradiction in terms.
Globalization is causing the decline of the nation state, as governments no longer have control
over their economy, their trade and their borders. Nation states may have in the past been in
complete control of their markets, exchange rates and capital. Now, transnational companies are
becoming increasingly imperative to the economy, and the state is becoming obsolete. This
supports the argument that globalization is reducing the power of democracy and the state,
resulting in “hollow” democracy.

Sceptics like Quan & Reuveny (2003) believe that while globalization promotes
opportunity for growth and increase in wealth, it has also increased the socio-economic disparity
between people, making nations less democratic and progressively more ruled by the wealthy
multinationals. This means that governments now try and compete for foreign capital and design
their policies to please global investors and firms, who may not act in the best interest of, nor be
held accountable to, the voters. It follows that the level of democracy declines. Also, scholars
such as Peter Drucker (1994) argue that globalization cripples even more those who are less
fortunate, as previously stated. Companies who are unable to compete with multi nationals on an
international scale lose from more economic openness. The results of this loss cause a
weakening in the country’s democracy. Another argument made by O’Donnell (1993) is that in
order for a stable and functioning democracy to work, the concept of citizenship and participation
must be active and embedded in the population. According to him, globalization has transformed
the common citizen into an individual who is more willing to pursue its own economic interest than
to be concerned with the content of public policy.
Samir (1996) pointed out even in the international community; globalization has increased
the cleavage between the developed countries from the North and the developing countries from
the South. In international organizations such as the United Nations it is commonly witnessed that
the elite wealthy countries always have the final say in conflicts or important issues that are
discussed, which ends up swaying the domestic politics of less developed countries to their favor.
Globalization and Cultural Values and Identity

The most controversial debate raised on the issue of cultural globalization is the resulting
“identity crisis” and the role of mass media as a facilitating tool for its expansion or limitation.
Cultural globalization is perceived by some like McLuhan (1968, 1964) as an instrument for the
establishment of universal unity and democracy based on a global culture signified as the “global
village” through the expansion of new communication systems. However, others like Rajaei
(2001) disagree and contend that globalization has not resulted in a unified political and economic
identity. In contrast, cultural globalization has destroyed national identities. Critics argue that
cultural globalization will result in cultural dominance and supremacy. The deterioration of
endemic cultures will be replaced with a universal culture promoting excessive consumption and
dominance of the economic and information technology powers of the world. These scholars
believe that the western world is unfit to provide a suitable response to cultural globalization.

Skelton & Allen (1999) contend that the cultural globalization that we are witnessing today
is not the net result of human endeavors and experiences and even it has not equitably benefited
from cultural diversities, rather it is the manifestation of dominance of a certain overpowering
culture. They emphasize that the efforts made to conform to the aggressive culture or interpret
western culture in various parts of the world have had disastrous results and have revealed
insurmountable cultural gaps. Thus, it is impossible to create a global culture with this procedure,
and it only widens the existing gap between cultures. Globalization has affected certain values
rooted in major religions and cultures of the world. Concepts of good and evil, right and wrong,
individual interaction with the society and the very meaning of life are all warped and corrupted
by global capitalism, international markets, mass media and the promotion excessive
consumption. Even some local languages and valuable traditions are on the verge of
disappearance as the result of globalization.

Muffazar (2002) points out that global consumerism is now forming a homogeneous global
culture where indigenous cultures of the South are being replaced by Western cultures.
Sociologist James Coleman (1990) notes the alienation of societies with their history and their
fascination with foreign values. According to him, these new values and beliefs have no root or
connection to their national identity. Therefore, globalization weakens the traditions and values of
local cultures for the sake of universal uniformity and dominance of a commanding culture through
the formidable power of international media.

Manuel Castells (2005) another sociologist, concludes that our world and our lives are
being shaped through two opposite trends namely, globalization and integrity of identities. The
information revolution and reconstruction of capitalism have established a new society that could
be called the “network society”. The most important characteristic of this society is its prevalent
culture established by a diverse and comprehensive media system. This novel society threatens
traditional social institutions and alters both culture and collective identity. Power magnates and
moguls prepare the news, information, science and political decisions at the national and
international levels and then inject them to the societies through the media. Therefore, mass
media is an instrument in the hand of the ruling class that not only justifies its authority; it gains
the support of its audiences. With this in mind, many communications scholars and advocates of
alternative media call for preservation of territorial integrity and protection of national identity by
establishing special media for specific groups and audiences. To them, the advent and
strengthening of media alternatives represent the capability of various societies in introducing
their own needs and point of views through utilization of advanced and up- to-date technology.

Role of Ethics in Globalization

As the effects of globalization increases, ethics must itself become globalized. Ethical
principles have crossed many boundaries and have indeed became globalized. Cultural
differences and the advancement of technology have changed ethical beliefs and traditions. There
should be globalization of ethical principles despite diverse ethical beliefs and cultural differences.

Ethics cannot be separated from globalization. The great changes which globalization has
brought about to different cultural systems necessitates changes in the philosophical field of
Ethics. Ethics’ traditional manner of explaining good and evil and how to lead a good and happy
life in order to guide us in the right direction, needs to be reconstructed. Without this adaptation,
Ethics will be regarded as obsolete and futile and unable to adjust to new conditions introduced
by globalization.

In his work, The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the Technological
Age, Hans Jonas (1984), indicated that traditional ethics has been based on “simultaneousness,”
“directness,” and “reciprocality.” In traditional ethics, “the range of human action and therefore
responsibility was narrowly circumscribed.” Moreover, he asserted that:

All enjoinders and maxims of traditional ethics, materially different as they may
be, show this confinement to the immediate setting of the action. “Love thy
neighbor as thyself”; “Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you”;
“Instruct your child in the way of truth”; “Strive for excellence by developing and
actualizing the best potentialities of your being qua man”; “Subordinate your
individual good to the common good”; “Never treat your fellow man as a means
only but always also as an end in himself” and so on. Note that in all these
maxims the agent and the “other” of his action are sharers of a common present.
It is those who are alive now and in some relationship with me who have a claim
on my conduct as it affects them by deed or omission. The ethical universe is
composed of contemporaries, and its horizon to the future is confined by the
foreseeable span of their lives. Similarly confined is its horizon of place, within
which the agent and the other meet as neighbor, friend, or foe, as superior and
subordinate, weaker and stronger, and in all the other roles in which humans
interact with one another. To this proximate range of action all morality was
geared (Jonas, 1984).

This implies that traditional ethics had concentrated only on presence in the spatio-
temporal sense of the word. Traditional ethics has confined itself on beings who live in the present
or in the here and now. However, globalization, with its advanced technologies, has decreased to
a great degree the separation among people in terms of distance and time. In the process, it also
torn down the structure of the ethics of presence. In a globalized world where different people
connect through highly developed system of communication, distant and absent individuals can
possibly be located near another. Hence, a person’s decisions and actions can possibly affect
anybody residing on the other side of the globe.

What could be the reason for the limitation of the premises of traditional ethics? According
to Jonas (1984), when the conventional concept of ethics was developed, the power of human
action was not so great that it could destroy the world. When the force of scientific technology
exceeds the scale imagined by previous ethics, we have no choice but to widen the scope of
responsibility as new conditions might require. The measure of responsibility must correspond
with that of power. Furthermore, he explained:

It will be the burden of the present argument to show that these premises no
longer hold, and to reflect on the meaning of this fact for our moral condition.
More specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our
powers the nature of human action has changed, and, since ethics is concerned
with action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a
change in ethics as well: this not merely in the sense that new objects of action
have added to the case material on which received rules of conduct are to be
applied, but in the more radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of
certain of our actions has opened up a whole new dimension of ethical
relevance for which there is no precedent in the standards and canons of
traditional ethics. The novel powers I have in mind are, of course, those of
modern technology (Jonas, 1984).
 To effect its transformation into a new ethics, a global ethics, traditional ethics must
respond to the challenges and issues that globalization brings. It must rethink its principles vis-à-
vis the sophistication of the new world. It must consider, in its revisit, the future world and future
generations or those who are not yet existing. It must also consider not only men but all living
organisms together with their environment. Jonas (1984) argued:

And what if the new kind of human action would mean that more than the interest
of man alone is to be considered that our duty extends farther, and the
anthropocentric confinement of former ethics no longer holds? It is at least not
senseless anymore to ask whether the condition of extrahuman nature, the
biosphere as a whole and in its parts, now subject to our power, has become a
human trust and has something of a moral claim on us not only for our ulterior
sake but for its own and in its own right. If this were the case it would require
quite some rethinking in basic principles of ethics. It would mean to seek not
only the human good but also the good of things extrahuman, that is, to extend
the recognition of “ends in themselves” beyond the sphere of man and make
the human good include the care for them.

Jonas regards man as having a special place among all beings. He thinks that due to
man’s immense technological ability, he must have the full responsibility for all beings. Since man
holds great power he is bound to assume great responsibility.

We are all part of a global community. Since our decisions and actions can impact anybody
anywhere in the world, we need to consider them accordingly. A new ethics is necessary to the
global community’s future. At this point, ethics does not possess a universal language. While
there may be some ethical principles that are similar, every culture’s beliefs and practices vary
which makes the exercise of ethics unique. Consequently, it behooves us to seek a global ethics,
a new one that is approved and received willingly by every culture so that the global civil society
can continue to be. A new ethics founded on globally shared values and manifested in interlocking
rights and responsibilities.

Pluralism in relation to Globalization and Ethics

The more the merrier! Pluralism is an idea used in many different ways. In its general
sense, it refers to the theory that there is more than one basic principle. Pluralism, also known as
the “doctrine of multiplicity” suggests differences in concepts, world views, discourses, viewpoints
etc. and that they differ widely from subject area to subject area.

Pluralism is an interpretation of social diversity. It can be rendered as a political, cultural,

social, or philosophical stance. Any kind of pluralism makes at the very least an empirical thesis
about irreducible diversity. Yet each of these kinds of pluralism pivots around different types of
conflict – including ethical values, social or cultural practices, epistemological worldviews,
ideologies, and/or political interests – and each accounts for these clashes from a different angle
and with different implications.

Socio-political Pluralism

As a political concept, it is the acknowledgment and the affirmation of diversity among the
polity, which permits toleration and the peaceful co-existence of differences. Pratt (2015) pointed
out political pluralism exists where multiple distinct groups share power to promote compromise
and coalitions preventing any form of political absolutism. Social pluralism could be said to exist
in a situation where distinctions are made between private values for life and public values for
social order. Yaacob (2013) defined religious pluralism as religious diversity or heterogeneity. In
this context, pluralism is the recognition of multiple religious groups to co-exist harmoniously.

Whereas political, cultural and religious pluralisms articulate the social difference that
stems from habits, beliefs, ideologies or interests, philosophical pluralism goes further and adds
an interpretation of the origin, character, and experience of value heterogeneity. Ethical pluralism
is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views and stance that are each worthy of respect,
therefore, the claim that there are not just one single good for human beings, but many. The
varieties of good may lead to conflicts in values, but it does not mean that the values are
subjective. Some values are important only for people of a certain group, which are recognized
but not held by other people. The list of values may include: Freedom, justice, equality, harmony,
solidarity, love, friendship, fidelity, naturalness, utility, affluence, etc.

One glittering example that has been the subject of much discussion and debate lately not
only in our country (with Duterte’s War on Drugs) but across Asia, particularly in China, is the
principle of universal human rights. Human rights is construed as the idea of ‘individual freedom’
in Western societies, but in the orient, it is deemed more from the vantage point of ‘common good’
and preservation of the community. Individual freedom and common interests can conflict with
each other even if both are in accordance with the same moral principle.

Moral Value Pluralism

Ethical pluralism connotes the idea that there are diverse theories about what is morally
"right" and "wrong", and that which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable with our own
personal and cultural moral norms (Sher, 2011). In Ethics, moral pluralism assumes that there
are many independent and different sources of moral values.

Moral pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or value pluralism) believes that there are
many moral values which may be equally correct but disagree with each other. It postulates that
there is no single truth, even in moral matters. In moral pluralism conflicting moral views lack a
basis for comparison in respect to importance.

Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are
each worthy of respect. Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when faced
with competing viewpoints. They analyze issues from several moral points of
view before deciding and taking action. Moral pluralists believe that many moral
issues are extremely complicated. Thus, no single philosophical approach will
always provide all the answers.

For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush
inside and save the children trapped in the burning building. But in doing this
she may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral pluralist would
conclude that there is no definitive way to decide which is the better course of
moral action.

Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose between

competing values. So, moral pluralism occupies a sensible middle ground
between “there is only one right answer” as moral absolutism says, and “there
is no wrong answer” as moral relativism claims. (Moral Pluralism n.d.)

Universal or absolute set of ethical principles has no place in moral relativism. Evaluation
of moral standards in moral relativism are culturally defined since there are many differences
across cultures. Preference of moral values of one culture over another has no objective grounds.
Every culture makes its own moral judgments based on its unique beliefs, customs, and practices.
People assume that the right moral values are the values that can be found in their own culture.

Since moral pluralism seeks balance in competing principles, it encourages different

cultures to carefully understand and accommodate their differences by
avoiding extremism (sticking blindly to just one moral value, or at the very least unwilling to
acknowledge the legitimacy of other moral values). Since human values, by their very nature,
come into conflict with other, sometimes compromises between these values should be found.

Criticisms on Pluralism

1. Pluralism as Relativism

Pluralism seems to suggest relativism. According to this line of reasoning, in order to be

a pluralist it’s necessary to believe that all ethical laws are relative to culture and circumstance,
so there can be no one moral law that applies to everyone. So by extension, some people believe
that pluralism cannot exist alongside universal morality. For this reason, several metaethicists
including Shafer-Landau (2004) have argued that realism alone can support the commitment to
toleration as a universal value—such that intolerance can be morally condemned—because only
realism allows for the existence of universal, objective moral values.

J. Baird Callicot (1999) claims that moral pluralism leads to relativism, skepticism and the
undermining and weakening of moral obligations. He asserts that moral pluralism provides no
basis for determining which are of multiple incomparable principles to follow in any given
circumstance, thus without a unitary system of morals, we tend to lose moral and intellectual
coherence. This assertion by Callicot is best illustrated in the quest for an environmental ethic
and the search for the right moral grounding for issues on global climate change, pollution
overload, resource depletion and other environmental challenges and concerns.

Indeed, the main objection to pluralism is its capacity to solve real moral problems.
Whether the issue on hand is organ harvesting and sale, cloning, divorce, euthanasia or same
sex marriage, in solving moral conflicts, pluralists have to rely merely on judgement as there is no
principle by which they can draw the conclusion that it is on the whole right or on the whole wrong.
But then, they can never be sure that they are right. They just have “more or less probable
opinions” with regard to the right solution of conflicts. Hence, there is no possibility of moral action.
One therefore could only think that there is something problematic with such a concept of conflict-
resolution.

According to Connolly (1996), pluralism is usually conflated with relativism, that is, with an
account of the rightness and wrongness of moral judgments that attaches normative warrant to
different cultural and historical contexts. Indeed, some thinkers have claimed that pluralism and
relativism are cognates. However, pluralism departs from this view in two consequential aspects:
its account of culture and its role; and its conception of incommensurability. Pluralism, unlike
relativism, does not attach ultimate normative authority to cultures. Culture does not stand as the
final source of normative assessment nor that determine the central ground upon which value
decisions are arrived at. In other words, culture does not determine the scope or justification for
pluralism. Second is the idea of incommensurability. While in relativism moral judgments make
reference to the cultures in which they emerge and in turn are untranslatable into each other (it is
not possible to assess the relative worth of conflicting judgments – moral judgments and their
corresponding cultures are therefore incommensurable), for the pluralist, the notion of
incommensurability is not attached to or hemmed in by cultures. Incommensurability is an
attribute that applies to the character of values themselves, regardless of cultural boundaries. For
pluralism, incommensurability cuts across cultural borders and applies to the universe of values
that are significant to human experience. Pluralists make room for meaningful normative
assessment among incommensurable views. Ethical pluralism makes a distinction between thin
(minimalist) morality and thick (maximalist) morality. Ethical pluralism allows that there are a few
basic moral principles that all cultures should follow but beyond these principles, each culture can
have its own value system, provided that it does not violate the higher moral principles. Therefore,
thin morality is the same everywhere (ex. idea of goodness, respect for life) whereas thick morality
is valid only for people in the same community (example: notions of bravery or courage).

2. Pluralism as Tolerance to Liberalism

From the philosophical perspective, pluralism entails an irreducible, open-ended exercise

in practical reason. In any of its versions, pluralism yields necessarily tentative and inconclusive
ethical decisions. From this perspective, pluralism opens the possibility of a permanent rewriting
of normative dispositions. In short, pluralism holds that social diversity and the disagreement that
grows from it are unending.

Tolerating practices and values with which one might disagree has been a hallmark of
liberal democratic societies. Should this permissive attitude, however, be extended
indiscriminately to all values and practices with which one disagrees? Are some moral differences
simply intolerable, such that it would undermine one’s own moral convictions to even attempt to
tolerate them? More than that, is it conceptually possible or desirable to tolerate the intolerance
of others? This is the paradox sometimes referred to as the Liberal’s Dilemma. Karl Popper
(1945) famously argued against the toleration of intolerance, which he saw as an overly-indulgent
extension of the concept and one which would undermine the “open society” he believed to be a
prerequisite for toleration in the first place.

Critic on Value Pluralism

 Isaiah Berlin (commonly credited for fathering value-pluralism) posited that incompatible
values may be incommensurable, i.e. they do not share a common standard of measurement or
cannot be compared to each other in a certain way. Brown (1986) suggested that Berlin ignores
the fact that values are indeed commensurable as they can be compared by their varying
contributions towards the human good. Regarding the ends of freedom, equality, efficiency,
creativity, etc., Brown thought that none of these are ends in themselves but are valued for their
consequences. Berlin, according Brown (1986) has failed to show that the problem of conflicting
values is insoluble in principle.

Pluralism questions moral truths which becomes problematic since moral absoluteness of
a human act is affirmed by religions. Another problem of pluralism, as a product of
multiculturalism, is the idea that it downplays a continual dialogue between subcultures and larger
cultures and the ways that this dialogue inescapably defines us (Fowers, and Richardson, 1996).
If pluralism does not defend the uniqueness of subcultures, it could promote the dominant culture,
which can lead to tyranny.

As the global community grows, most individual cultures are being diluted and nation
states need to step up so as to prevent the weakening of their cultures by foreign media contents
and to counter influences in their domestic moral values and beliefs (Thierstein, and Kamalipour,
2000).

In his work, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”, Dr. Alister E. McGrath
demonstrated the untenability of moral pluralism.

To claim that it does not matter which religion we adhere to is in effect to say
that it does not matter what behavior we adopt. The two are integrally
connected. And that is very evident today when decline in religion in Western
countries is accompanied by massive moral collapse. Relativism in belief and
relativism in morals go together. The result is disastrous. Think of the unwanted
girl children left exposed to die on the hillsides of Ancient Greece. Think of the
human sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient Polynesian religion. Think of the
murder and gang rape carried out by practitioners of Satanism. Are we to
believe that these all spring from differing insights into the same ultimate reality,
as the pluralists claim? Not only is pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also
morally impotent. It gives you no ethical standard, and offers you no moral
power (McGrath, n.d.).

In Philippine society, it is common for Filipinos to be resilient and courageous and

optimistic, despite the fact that they are stricken mostly by natural calamities, economic
turbulence, and global pandemics. Hence, there is a call for ethical responsibility that needs to be
promoted globally.

Learning Resources

Albrow, M. and King E. (eds.) (1990). Globalization, knowledge and society. London:
Sage.
Al-Rodham N. and Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A comprehensive
overview and a proposed definition. Program on the Geopolitical Implications of
Globalization and Transactional Security.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Definitions_of_Globalization.pdf
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bartelson, J. (2004). The critique of the state. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Callicot, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Castells, M. (2005). Global governance and global politics. In PS: Political Science and
Politics, American Political Science Association Vol. 38 No. 1 Jan. 2005.
Coleman, W. (1990). Globalization and autonomy: An overview.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240522613_Globalization_And_Autono
my_An_Overview
Connolly, W. (1996). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Cox, Rt. (1996). Approaches to world order: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drucker, P. (1994). The theory of the business. In Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct
1994 Issue.
Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Beyond the brave new world: Business for sustainability.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290311476_Beyond_The_Brave_New_
World_Business_For_Sustainability
Friedman, T. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Harper Collins.
Held, D.; Goldblatt, D.; McGrew, A.; Perraton, J. (1999). Global
transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/United_ States/1993-06-01/Clash-
Civilizations
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.) https://www.iep.utm.edu/
International Monetary Fund. (2002). Globalization: A framework for IMF involvement.
Washington: International Monetary Fund.
James, P. (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tibalism: Bringing Theory Back In. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
James, P. and Steger, M. (2010). Globalization and culture: Vol. 4. ideologies of
globalization. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Jonas, H. (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the
technological age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration with David
Herr, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Juzhong Z. and Li S. (2016). Understanding recent trends in income inequality in the
People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 480.
Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Keohane, R. (2002). Power and governance in a partially globalized world. New York:
Routledge.
Khor, M. (1999). Globalization and the south: Some critical issues. Penang: Third World
Network.
Kosmin, B. (2001). The rising tide of secularity. Published speech delivered at the 32nd
Annual Convention of the Freedoms from Religion Foundation at Red Lion Hotel,
Seattle, Nov 7, 2009.
Lamy, P. (2006). History of globalization. Paris: Vuilbert.
McLuhan, M. (1968). War and peace in the global village. New York: Gingko Press.
Moghadan, V. (2005). Globalizing women: Transitional feminist networks. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Muffazar, C. (2002). Islam and the west. In Frontline, published interview available online
at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ muslims/themes/west.html.
Ohmae, K. (1992). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy.
New York: Harper Business.
O’Donell, G. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual problems: A Latin
American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries. In World
Development, Vol 21 Issue 8 August 1993.
Pratt, S. (2015). American philosophy from wounded knee to the present. London:
Bloomsbury.
Quan, L. & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic openness, democracy and income inequality:
An Empirical Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Rajaei, F. (2001). The phenomenon of globalization. Tehran: Agah Publication.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Samir, A. (1996). The challenge of globalization. In Review of International Political
Economy, Vol 3. No. 2 Summer 1996.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2003). Moral realism: A defense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skelton, T. & Allen, T. (1999). Culture and global change. London: Routledge.
Steger, M. (2005). Globalism: Marjet ideology meets terrorism. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Steger, M. (2014). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu/
Yaacob, M. F. (2013). The challenge of religions: Pluralism in Malaysia.
http://www.iop.or.jp/documents/1121/Journal21_Yaacob.pdf
Watson, J. (2016). Golden arches east: McDonalds in East Asia. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
World Bank. (2001). Globalization and development. Washington: The World Bank.
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 2: The Ethical Challenges of Millennials

Nominal Duration: 3 Hours

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the students are expected to:
1. describe the distinct characteristics of Millennials apart from other generation labels;
2. identify and evaluate the ideologies that influence Millennials in relation to ethical behavior.

It is a general observation that behaviors vary from older generations to younger

generations: from fashion to lifestyle to attitude but why the issue in ethics? Before we delve into
this question, let’s first inform ourselves from Jenkins’ (2017) brief historical account on the
labeling of generations. You may also go to this site to view a video clip as report by millennials
like you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqH8u6LdfWU.

The idea of "social generations" was introduced in the 19th century. Social generations
are groups of people who were born in the same date range, share similar cultural experiences,
and have been shaped by significant events or societal trends while coming of age. Prior to this
concept, “generation” had generally referred to family relationships. Howe & Strauss (as cited by
Jenkins, 2017) define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of
roughly twenty years or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife,
and old age. They state that generations are identified by age cohorts sharing three criteria:

Age Location in History Members of a generation encounter key

historical events and social trends while
occupying the same phase of life.

Beliefs and Behaviors Members of a generation are shaped in lasting

ways by the eras they encounter as children and
young adults and they share common beliefs
and behaviors.

Perceived Membership Members of a generation are aware of the

experiences and traits that they share with their
peers, and they share a common perceived
membership in that generation.

How are the generation names created? Jenkins explains that in 1945 following World
War II, economists, businesses, and policy makers began labeling generations as a new way to
measure and study demographics. The Baby Boomers (those born between 1946-1964) were the
first generation to adopt a widely accepted label. The generations before the Baby Boomers were
named retroactively. Baby Boomers achieved their generational label due to the spike in birth
rates following the war and a clear end date with the introduction of birth control.
The Census Bureau in the US first referred to the years between 1946 and 1964 as the
“Post War Baby Boom.” As the people born in this boom started to age, agencies began using
the term “Baby Boomers” to help them target the demographic. This was the first and last time a
generation’s “official” name had its origin in a government agency.

Coupland (1991) and his contemporaries identified Generation X as an anonymity in the

shadow of Baby Boomers. The letter “X” was meant to signify this generation’s desire not to be
defined.

Millennials simply refers to the generation who came of age during the 2000 millennium.
In 1993, Advertising Age was credited with creating the term “Generation Y”. Howe & Strauss
used the term “Millennials" because the members of the generation did not want to be associated
with their predecessors, Gen X. Soon after, Advertising Age conceded that Millennials was a
better name and insisted that "Generation Y” was only a placeholder until more was discovered
about them.
 Similarly, Gen Z or iGen will likely change as more is discovered about the youngest
generation. Generally, from governments to advertising industries, and individuals have all had a
hand in naming the generations. The naming of generations is random and typically takes time to
evolve before becoming “official."

Who sets the dates of generations? There are no “official” start and end dates for the
generations, except for the Baby Boomer generation. The US Census Bureau claims to only
define the Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964) as they were first to draw attention to the
birthrates that increased from around three million a year to over four million a year following
World War II. Because there is only a general consensus on when the various generations begin
and end, the date ranges differ depending on the group or study. Some define the date range of
generations by where there is a shift in the social mood of an age cohort. Historians will define
the date range of generations based on historical events. Demographers will define the date range
of generations based on the shifts in birth rates. Others believe that to some extent the media
shapes the boundaries of generations. The dates that define the generations are useful tools for
analysis, but they should be thought of as guidelines, rather than official distinctions.

Do generations differ across the world? Jenkins affirms that generations differ across the
world according to social moods throughout society that impact the generation but he noted that
Millennials are the first generation to break the international divide across generations. Because
Millennials have been in communication (visually, audibly, and/or in-person) with their global
peers as they have come of age, their communications and characteristics are very similar across
the world. While they are aware that the “use of labels are not universal and context dependent,
they just openly identify themselves with the label as a way of making sense of their place in a
rapidly changing world” (Lyons, 2020).

Characteristics of Millenials/iGens

Millenials are born from 1977-1994 or 1981-2000. There other names are Generation Y,
Gen Y, iGen, Generation Next, Echo Boomers, 24/7’s, etc. They live in merged families and they
are coddled kids. Their education is incredibly expensive and they value individuality. They are
ambitious, have the tenacity and entrepreneurial mindset and always look forward to what’s next.
The tables below give an overview of their peculiarities.
Attributes
• Ambitious but not entirely focused. • Invited as children to play a lead role in
• Look to the workplace for direction and to family’s purchasing and travel decisions
help them achieve their goals. • Loyal to peers
• At ease in teams • Sociable - Makes workplace friends
• Attached to their gadgets & parents • “Me First” attitude
• Best educated - Confident • Most doted upon of any generation@work
• Diversity Focused - Multiculturalism • Net-centric team players
• Have not lived without computers • Open to new ideas & Optimistic
• Eager to spend money • Parent Advocacy (Parents are advocates)
• Fiercely Independent • Political Savvy (like the Boomers)
• Focus is children/family • Respect given for competency not title
• Focus on change using technology • Respectful of character development
• Friendly Scheduled, structured lives • Self –absorbed
• Globalism (Global way of thinking) • Strong sense of entitlement
• Greatly indulged by fun loving parents • Techno Savvy - Digital generation
• Heroism -Consider parents their heroes • Think mature generation is “cool”
• High speed stimulus junkies • Want to please others
• Incorporate individual resp. into their jobs. • Hope to make life contributions to world
• Innovative-think our of box • Seek responsibility early on in their roles
• Individualistic yet group oriented

Influencers Core Values

• Digital Media, child focused world, school • Achievement
• Shootings, terrorist attacks, AIDS, 9/11 • Avid consumers
terrorist attacks. • Civic Duty
• Typically grew up as children of divorce • Confidence
• Diversity
 • They hope to be the next great generation • Extreme fun
& to turn around all the “wrong” they see in • Highly tolerant
the world today. • Hotly competitive
• They grew up more sheltered than any • Like personal attention
other generation as parents strived to • Self-confident
protect them from the evils of the world. • Social ability
• Came of age in a period of economic • Members of global community
expansion. • Most educated generation
• Kept busy as kids • Extremely techno savvy; Now!
• First generation of children with schedules. • Optimism; Realism; & Street smarts
Work Ethic and Values
• Believe that because of technology, they • Looking for careers and stability
can work flexibly any time, any place and • Mentoring is important to them
that they should be evaluated on work • Obsessed w/ career developments
product-not how, when or where they got it • Prefer diversity, technology, informality &
done. fun
• Expect to influence the terms and • Recognize that people make the company
conditions of the job successful
• Have a work ethic that no longer mandates • Tolerant
10 hr days. • Thrive in a collaborative work environment
• High expectations of bosses and managers • Training is important to them
to assist and mentor them in attainment of • Understand importance of great mentors
professional goals. • Want to enhance their work skills by
• Want long-term relationships with continuing their education
employers, but on their own terms • Looking for meaningful work and
• “Real Revolution” - decrease in career innovation
ambition in favor of more family time, less • May be the first generation that readily
travel, less personal pressure. accepts older leadership
• Goal oriented

Ideologies and Their Influence to Millennials

While millennials were able to break the barrier of international divide across generations
brought about by the impact of globalization, there are underpinning ethical principles that may
have a disputable implication to the seemingly progressive moral values of millennials. Millennials
are ignorant of history and thus are caught off guard by the influence of secularism, humanism
and individualism which can be traced back to the Renaissance and Enlightenment Periods
whose influence spread across Western Europe and the rest of western civilization.

1. Secularism

The upbringing of millennials has been marked by an unprecedented increase in liberal

approach to all facets of life: from fashion to sports, to politics, economics and morality brought
about by globalization. One of the effects is the downtrend participation of younger generations
to faith identity and related activities which started in the west and spread around the globe like a
plague. This gave way for secularism to clasp the mindset and lifestyle of millennials.

Secularism comes from the word secular, meaning “of this world”. People are encouraged
to take an interest in this world and not in any place with religious sense such as heaven or hell.
It is broadly defined as freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. Secularism seeks to
interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion. It shifts
the focus from religion to other ‘temporal’ and ‘this-worldly’ things with emphasis on nature,
reason, science, technology and development (“Secularism”, n.d.).

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons

mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious elites. It means that
governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit
the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. Religious ideas
influencing law are incompatible with this. Modern liberal democracies are generally recognized
as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion enshrined in most constitutions
(beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority
of religious leaders over political decisions.

Barry Kosmin (2009) has broken down modern secularism into two types. First is positive
or soft secularism which separates the roles of church and state. The church does not “exercise
direct political authority.” Second is negative or hard secularism which attempts to marginalize
religion and keep it out of society as much as possible. In July 2010, the French National
Parliament passed a law banning the wearing of face-covering headgear including masks,
helmets, balaclavas, burqas and other veils covering the face in public places. This opened deep
public debates over secularism and identity in France. In 2012, the Reproductive Health Law in
the Philippines stirred a controversy on the separation of church and state during the process of
its passage. All religious groups in the country were defeated simply because they cannot impose
their beliefs for legislation by the state.

2. Humanism

Humanism advocates the value, freedom, and independence of human beings. Its slogan
is that all human beings are born with moral value, and have a responsibility to help one another
live better lives. It emphasizes reason and science over scripture (religious texts) and tradition,
and also believes that human beings are flawed but capable of improvement. It also tries to
discover the truths about the universe and humanity’s place within it. It is usually very
individualistic, seeing each person as important in his or her own right, regardless of the needs of
the community. Some humanists, however, have a more collectivist outlook that focuses on
balancing individual rights against the needs of the community.
Types of Humanism

Secular Humanism

Humanism is often associated with atheism (the belief that God does not exist). If the
emphasis is on the value and freedom of human beings, then it follows that the value of God and
the divine law is placed in the backseat. In addition, humanism believes that we should exercise
individual powers of reason rather than accepting the truth of scriptures or dogma, and this goes
against the teachings of some religions. In today’s world, many humanists are secular humanists
(i.e. atheists).

Religious Humanism

Not all humanists are atheists. In fact, there is also a Christian Humanist movement that
is as old as humanism itself. (There is also Jewish humanism, Islamic humanism, and various
other traditions.) In religious humanism, the idea is basically that God exists, but he wants us to
act like humanists — to search for truth on our own, to exercise free will, and to strive to make
the world a better place. For religious humanism, God is very real, but tends to stay in the
background of things rather than interfering or demanding constant praise.

Humanism and the Millennials

Millennials are highly exposed in a multicultural and digital environment and at the same
time fashioning this environment to work to their advantage. They do not just swallow what their
older generations considered as wisdom but they are also ever critical and choosy of the
knowledge and information that works for them. The idea of humanism is very enticing to their
imagination because it places self-well-being, interests, and happiness as worth striving to their
tastes. Hence, they create their own set of ethics. While it is true that they are tolerant of religious
undertakings, their switch on/off attitude coupled with experimentation of jumping from one
western church to another while being exposed also to eastern spirituality, agnostic ideas,
quantum physics and science fiction, it is their way of finding their unique way of being human.
They are constantly barraged by nauseating perspectives on politics, race, economics, gender,
spirituality and even morality.

The millennials’ exposure to the internet allowed them to breathe diversity in all its form
and hence their unlimited imagination and creativity led them also to create and recreate their
own values. This does not mean, however, that they are naïve in just seeking their own happiness
and interests as the crux of their moral decision making because they openly let others do the
same also.

The Importance of Humanism

Humanism has a deep influence on modern culture. For example, we often object to
something by saying it’s “a violation of human rights.” The idea of human rights is a humanistic
because it emphasizes the worth that is within each individual person. The non-humanist
approach would be to say that the behavior was wrong because it was “against God’s law” or
“contrary to tradition.” These types of arguments still exist in the modern world, but they’re much
less common than they used to be because humanism is so popular.

Some religious people criticize secular humanism because they see it as taking the place
of God. From this point of view, only God has natural value, and morality can only come from
loving God and obeying the scriptures. Of course, religious humanists would object to this. They
would say that loving God and obeying the scriptures is the same as respecting human rights and
valuing individual lives.

3. Individualism

One typical characteristic of millennials is that they value individuality. They follow their
own ideas and feelings about many things, rather than conform to the standards of society. This
reflects in their moral preferences as something “personal, subjective, based on feelings, and
non-transferrable to others” (De Guzman et al., 2018). This depicts an individual who is self-
absorbed and only thinks for his own interest. It points to egoism which holds that choosing one’s
own good is in accordance with morality: it is always moral to promote one’s own good. It is right
to help others because it is usually in your self-interest to help them. For example, many religious
people do good because they believe there is a god, a heaven, a hell, or a moral force like karma
that makes it in their long term self-interest to do good (ethical egoism, n.d.). Overall, millennials
are said to be more individualistic and materialistically motivated. There seems to be a decline in
moral values that is based on a culture of rampant narcissism. Others point to a veritable epidemic
of misplaced overconfidence that has turned millennials into the ‘self-esteem generation’ (De
Guzman et al., 2018).

There is an antidote to this self-absorbed epidemic individualism of millennials and it can

be learned from the experience of an ordinary man just before the age of labeling came into
existence. Aquino (2020) gives us a compelling story of how the self-absorbed “I” is confronted
by the presence of the “Other”.

Me, rather than him…that is the mantra of our selfish age. I am “entitled” to
everything good, and I come ahead of all else…But it was the same thing St.
Maximillian said when he volunteered to take the place of a young father who had
been set apart – together with others – for execution. Me, rather than him…and so
St. Maximillian went to his death, while the young man could still look forward to
the day he would be united with his family…. Selfishness in its most basic sense
is the life of the “I”, the most fundamental characteristic of being “I”. St. Maximillian
was commanded by the misery and the destitution of the young father doomed to
die, but he was even under a more primitive command inscribed into our hearts by
words that could have never arisen from our own selfishness: “Greater love than
this no man can have than to lay down his life for his friend.” It is being ethical,
being human, being responsible for the other – as St. Maximillian showed in a
supremely dramatic manner – that is the antidote to the pervading selfishness that
threatens to destroy us all.

Learning Resources

Aquino, R. C. (2020, August 15). https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_

fbid=3625865954109668&id=100000588976678
Alexander Agati, Holly, (2012) “The Millennial generation: Howe and Strauss disputed”.
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539618810.
https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-gjnp-xz92
Coupland, D. (1991). Generation X: Tales for an accelerated culture. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Ethical egoism (n.d.). https://lucidphilosophy.com/847-2/
Generational Differences Chart (n.d.) http://www.wmfc.org/uploads/Generational
DifferencesChart.pdf
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to
2069. New York: William Morrow & Company. ISBN 978-0-688-11912-6.
____________________ (1993). 13th Gen: Abort, retry, ignore, fail?. Vintage Books.
ISBN 9780679743651.
____________________ (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of history tell us
about America's next rendezvous with destiny. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN
978-0-7679-0046-1.
____________________ (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 9780375707193.
____________________ (2007). Millennials & K-12 schools: Educational strategies for a
new generation. Great Falls: LifeCourse Associates. ISBN 978-0-9712606-5-8.
____________________ (2007), "The next twenty years: How customer and workforce
attitudes will evolve", Harvard Business Review: 41–52, archived from the original
on 2009-12-28.
____________________ (2008). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation
on campus (2nd ed.). Great Falls: LifeCourse Associates. ISBN 9780971260610.
Humanism. (n.d.). In YourDictionary. https://www.yourdictionary.com/Humanism
Jenkins, R. (2017, January 12) .How generations are created, named, and differ across
the world. https://blog.ryan-jenkins.com/2017/01/12/how-generations-are-created-
named-and-differ-across-the-world
Lyons, S. (2020, August 11). Baby boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z labels:
Necessary or nonsense? https://theconversation.com/baby-boomer-gen-x-
millenials-and-gen-z-labels-necessary-or-nonsense-132161
New patterns of renaissance thought: Secularism, humanism & individualism (n.d.)
https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib8/CA01000875/Centricity/Domain
/649/Renaissance%20Chart.docx
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 3: The Role of Religions in Ethics

Nominal Duration: 3 hours

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
1. appraise the compatibility or incompatibility of religion and ethics;
2. identify the role of religions in ethics; and
3. correlate religious fundamentalism and terrorism

Introduction

No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.

No peace among the religions without dialogue between religions
No dialogue between the religions without investigation of the
foundations of the religions. - (Hans Kung, 1996)

In quenching this thirst for knowledge, we have witnessed in human history that the human
person has always sought something more than the daily living, with its pain, pleasure and sorrow;
he has always wanted to find something more permanent. And in his search for this unnamable
thing (force, energy, god and gods), he has built temples, churches, and mosques of all sorts.
Extraordinary things have been done in the name of religion. There have been wars for which
religions are responsible; people have been tortured, burned, destroyed for belief was more
important than truth, and dogma more vital than science. When belief becomes all-important, then
you are willing to sacrifice everything for that; whether that belief is real or has no validity does
not matter as long as it gives refreshment and comfort, security, and a sense of permanency
(Krishnamurti, 2002).

More than that, the tension between the religious old ways of life and the modern fashion
styles and behavior brought the idea of religious fundamentalism into action in all facets of society,
may it be economic, social or political. It placed peoples’ lives in danger and the millennials
became all the more confused as to what it can offer to them. This is just one situation we all find
ourselves hanging into: the impact of religion in our ethical lives.

Another issue that is closely related to religion and religious fundamentalism is terrorism
in a regional and global scale. Raush (2015) observes that citizens worldwide are becoming all
too familiar with the accelerated frequency of terrorist attacks in the 21st century, particularly with
those involving a religious underpinning. She asks these questions just like everyone else: Why,
though, have religiously-affiliated acts of terrorism become such a common occurrence? How has
religious fundamentalism accelerated and intensified terrorism within the modern world? And
why? How do we understand the innate interconnectedness of fundamentalism and terrorism as
a whole?

Religion and Ethics

Ethics studies human behavior and ideal ways of being. As a philosophical discipline, it is
a systematic approach to understanding, analyzing, and distinguishing matters of right and wrong,
good and bad, and admirable and deplorable as they relate to the well-being of and the
relationships among human beings.

Religion is defined as “people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and
worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life. (religion, n.d.).
Referring to the sacred engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality, religion
denotes the belief in, or the worship of, a god (or gods) and the worship or service to God or the
supernatural. The term ‘supernatural’ means “whatever transcends the powers of nature or
human agency” (religion, n.d.). The term ‘religion’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘faith,’
‘creed,’ ‘belief system,’ or ‘conviction.’
 A religion is also viewed as an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and
worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions possess sacred
scriptures, narratives, or sacred accounts that aim to explain the origin, and meaning of life and
the universe. From the religions’ beliefs about the cosmos, and human nature, adherents usually
draw religious laws, an ideal way of living, and detailed rules or ethical or moral conduct (De
Guzman, 2018). Religion can typically be seen as involving various dimensions – myth (or sacred
narrative), doctrine, ritual, social and institutional expression, experience and ethics. For many
people, ethics may be the most important part of religion because of the way it teaches wisdom
as to what is right and wrong. Even secular beliefs have ethical dimension (Smart and Hecht,
1982).

Some submit that the difference between religion and ethics is about the disparity between
revelation and reason. In some measure, religion is based on the idea that God (or some deity)
reveals insights about life and its meaning. These divine insights are compiled in texts (the Bible,
the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and introduced as ‘revelation.’ The role of philosophers is to accurately
try to define and promote ethical concepts based upon logic and reason. A religious person on
the other hand, follows his or her code of conduct because he believes that it is proper behavior
and reaction to the varying challenges and circumstances which arise during the course of life.

From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics, on the other hand, is based on the tenets
of reason. That is, anything that is not rationally provable cannot be deemed justifiable. This
definition of ethics, however, does not necessarily exclude religion or a belief in God, for it is also
subject to ethical discernment. Indeed, many ethicists emphasize the relationship, not the
difference between ethics and religion. (De Guzman, 2018).

Religion and Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups, mainly religious groups, that is

characterized by strict literal adherence and interpretation of certain scriptures, dogmas and
ideologies. Fundamentalism is also marked by promotion of dichotomies and divisions among
those who adhere and those who do not, maintaining a sense and an environment of in-group
and out-group distinctions (Hunsberger 1992) and which advocates impose a return to a previous
ideal for those members who strayed. Fundamentalists put much emphasis on purity and
homogeneous belief, thus, diversity of opinion or interpretation is often discouraged, rejected
outright or severely sanctioned. This intolerance to contrary and opposing views make
fundamentalism a perjorative term that often made synonymous with extremism, fanaticism and
radicalism.

The term religious fundamentalism is used to denote an action of a group which is highly
prejudiced by religious orthodoxy. Fundamentalist movement predominantly emerges from an
urban society and disseminates a set of rules in regard to formation of societal structure, human
behavior and behavior towards other. Almond, Sivan and Appleby (2003) defines religious
fundamentalism as a discernible pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled 'true believers'
attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community,
and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors. Religious fundamentalists
believe that their existence is in a state of serious confusion due to identity crisis. This crisis then
leads to contradiction and a series of contradictions leads to conflicts. This is further intensified
by the growing differentiation in the society.

Analyzing the literatures, it can be deduced that fundamentalism is a mixture of ideological

and organizational variables which is again very dynamic in nature and the definition changes
radically as certain cultural, economic, political and sociological premise change. Therefore,
religious fundamentalism is an outcome of series of interconnected socio-economic issues. The
emergence and aggravation of religious fundamentalism might not be only dependent on the
propensity of conformist attitude of a certain group but might also be dependent on the long history
of ignorance, identity crisis and impoverishment. It is always easy to manipulate the religious
ideology of a section of the society which is socially and economically vulnerable and uncertain
about their legal rights (Chen, 2020).

There is always a debate among social and political theorists on measuring

fundamentalism. Scholars are in serious disagreement while ascertaining the intensity of
fundamentalism. The obvious question was what should be the parameters to determine if a
movement or action can be termed as fundamentalism. Researchers are predominantly
dependent on standardized characteristics (Almond, Sivan and Appleby, 1991). Religious
movements need to be analyzed from the historical perspective in regard to categorize them as
fundamentalist (Emerson and Hartman, 2006).

According to Keddie (1998), "Religiopolitics" has been intensified across the globe due to
unconstrained development in capitalism, disparity in income distribution, employment
insecurities, forced migration, government favoritism towards a section of the society, and
emergence of ideological and cultural clashes between migrants and original inhabitants. Hood
and Morris (1985) asserted, fundamentalists are capable of impacting political preferences. But a
society in a terrible political chaos is also capable to give birth to a fundamentalist movement.
People who are minority in a society are always marginalized from all aspects and for obvious
reasons, they become extremely vulnerable towards fundamentalism. So, political preferences
made by majority may lead to fundamentalist movements as well. Inflexible and biased attitude
of the state towards marginalized section might lead them to be engaged in more pro-
fundamentalist activities as the legal, political, administrative and economic spaces are being
reduced.

To eliminate or mitigate its impact, Wibisono, Louis and Jetten (2019) recommended that
governments should start revamping the policies and procedures in regard to the vulnerable
section of the society. Legislators and policymakers must concentrate on (a) setting the economic
priority for the vulnerable section of the society (b) strengthening the voice and accountability
mechanism (c) enhancing the effectiveness of the government and reducing the biasness (d)
empowering marginalized section to have legal recourse. In brief, they concluded that to eliminate
religious fundamentalism, states should concentrate more on the root cause analysis rather than
debating on the consequences.

Roots of Fundamentalism

Basher (2001) outlines some of the important events tracing the growth of fundamentalism
across some of the world’s major religions.

Christianity and Fundamentalism

Christian fundamentalism grew within the Protestant community of the United States in
the beginnings of the 20th century. The movement started among conservative Presbyterian
theologians and soon spread among Baptists and other denominations in the early 1900s. The
movement’s aim is to defend their religion against the challenges of liberal theology by strict belief
and adherence to the five specific classical theological beliefs of Christianity: a.) biblical inspiration
and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this; b) virgin birth of Jesus; c) belief that Christ's
death was the atonement for sin; d) bodily resurrection of Jesus; and e) historical reality of the
miracles of Jesus.

The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which
defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was prefigured by
The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by
the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart, but coined by Curtis Lee Lawes, editor of The Watchman-
Examiner, who proposed in the wake of the 1920 pre-convention meeting of the Northern Baptist
Convention (now the American Baptist Churches USA) that those fighting for the fundamentals of
the faith be called "fundamentalists." By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around
the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They reject the existence of
commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity,
Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions. In contrast, Evangelical groups (such
as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), while they typically agree on the theology
"fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, are often willing to participate in events with
religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.

Islam and Fundamentalism

Islamic Fundamentalism has been defined as a movement of Muslims seeking to return

to the fundamentals of the Islamic religion and live similarly to how the Islamic prophet Muhammad
lived. Islamic fundamentalists favor a strict literal interpretation of the primary sources of Islam-
the Quran and Sunnah, eliminate what they perceive to be "corrupting" non-Islamic influences
from every part of their lives and see "Islamic fundamentalism" as a pejorative term used by
outsiders for Islamic revivalism and activism.

It goes back to the 7th century to the time of the Kharijites. From their essentially political
position, they developed extreme doctrines that set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and
Shia Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir,
whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of
death. The Shia and Sunni religious conflicts since the 7th century created an opening for radical
ideologues, such as Ali Shariati (1933-77), to merge social revolution with Islamic
fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Islamic fundamentalism has
appeared in many countries; the Wahhabi version is promoted worldwide and financed by Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan.

The Iran hostage crisis of 1979–80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term
"fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and
the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience described it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam"
by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term
Islamic fundamentalist, which became a common use of the term in following years until today.

Buddhism and Fundamentalism

Historic and contemporary examples of Buddhist fundamentalism occur in each of the

three main branches of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. In Japan, a prominent
example has been the practice among some members of the Mahayana Nichiren sect of
Shakubuku - a method of proselytizing involving condemnation of other sects as deficient or evil.

Buddhist fundamentalism has targeted other religious and ethnic groups, as in Myanmar.
A Buddhist-dominated country, Myanmar has seen tensions between Muslim minorities and the
Buddhist majority, especially during the 2013 Burma anti-Muslim riots alleged to have been
instigated by hardline groups such as the 969 Movement and in actions associated with the
Rohingya genocide (2016 onwards).

Buddhist fundamentalism also features in Sri Lanka. Buddhist-dominated Sri Lanka has
seen recent tensions between Muslim minorities and the Buddhist majority, especially during the
2014 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka and in the course of the 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka,
allegedly instigated by hardline groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena.

Hinduism and Fundamentalism

Scholars identify several politically active Hindu movements as part of the “Hindu
fundamentalist family.” One movement is Hindutva founded by Chandranath Basu and later the
term was popularized by Vinayak Damodar Savankar in 1923. It is championed by the Hindu
nationalist volunteer organization Rashtriva Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishva Hindu Parishad
(VHP), Bharativa Janata Party (BJP) and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh
Parivar.

The Hindutva movement has been described by some as a variant of “right-wing

extremism” adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.
Some suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or ethnic absolutism.

Judaism and Fundamentalism

Jewish fundamentalism may refer to militant religious Zionism or Haredi Judaism.

Religious Zionism is an ideology that combines Zionism and Orthodox Judaism. Adherents are
also referred to as Dati Leeumi or National Religious. The community is also sometimes called
Kippah Seruga, literally knitted skullcap, the typical head-covering worn by the men.

Before the establishment of the State of Israel, Religious Zionists were mainly observant
Jews who supported Zionist efforts to build a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. After the Six-Day
War and the capture of the West Bank, a territory referred to in Jewish terms as Judea and
Samaria, right-wing components of the Religious Zionist movement integrated nationalist re-
vindication and evolved into Neo-Zionism. Their ideology revolves around three pillars: the Land
of Israel, the People of Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

Religions’ Role in Ethics

Can we be ethical without being religious? According to Steven Mintz (2012), a

longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most religions have an
ethical component. Ethics encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader
than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. It also deals with ideas such as right,
good and duty and these concepts have always been discussed since ancient times until today
(Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D., 1982).

A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply
satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral codes.
The ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia or happiness. The ancient Greeks believed happiness
was brought about by living one’s life in accordance with virtue – positive traits of character. Virtue
in the highest sense, in an adult who has been brought up well, will not just involve good personal
habits such as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.
The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.

The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a basic
requirement of ethics. We ought to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant believed virtue
should be rewarded by happiness, and it would be intolerable if it were not so. Since it's clear that
virtue often does go unrewarded in the present life, Kant argued that the soul must be immortal.
Virtue must receive its due recompense in a future life, and there must be a God guaranteeing
that it is so rewarded. The existence of God and the immortality of the soul were what Kant called
the postulates of practical reason - the assumptions without which, so he claimed, ethics and a
moral life would not be possible.

Revealed religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do prescribe some
clear and unambiguous rules to follow. If their scriptures were authored or dictated by God, then
the commands in them are God's own commands. They cannot be changed if human
circumstances change or ethical ideas progress.

If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role? In America,
for many individuals, their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of who they are, such that
they would be nearly incapable of making ethical decisions independently of their religious beliefs.

Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to religious
ideology. For example, most people agree that things like murder and adultery are always wrong,
regardless of circumstances. Most major world religions echo these sentiments, and it can be
argued that the ancient codes of conduct these traditions embody are actually the original source
of our social intuitions. At a minimum, we do seem to regard religion as a good source of basic
moral guidance, making it unwise to argue that there ought to be no connection between religion
and ethics.

The link between religion and ethics seems obvious (Tittle and Wlech, 1983; Weaver and
Agle, 2002). Religions, through the values they embody, often build the basis for what is
considered right and wrong (Turner, 1997). Religion produces both formal and informal norms
and provides people with a freedom/constraint duality by prescribing behaviors within some
acceptable boundaries (Fararo and Skvoretz, 1986). Such norms, values, and beliefs are often
codified into a religious code such as the Bible or the Koran. In Christian religions, for instance,
the Ten Commandments provide a broad basis of codified ethical rules that believing Christians
must follow in order to actualize what they believe in (e.g., salvation). In turn, through daily
exposure to norms, customs, laws, scripts, and practices, religions impart societal members with
values and produce expectational bonds or ‘‘reciprocal expectations of predictability’’ (Field, 1979)
that eventually become taken for granted. Such values often provide guides for what are
considered ethical behaviors for most of the world’s religions (Fisher, 2001). Furthermore, in
societies where one or few religions are dominant, the overarching core values of these religions
are likely to be mirrored in secular values of society (codified law or non-codified social norms),
which regulate everyday activity and ethical behavior. (Parboteeah, 2007)

The link between religion and morality is best illustrated by the Golden Rule. Virtually all
of the world’s great religions contain in their religious texts some version of the Golden Rule: “Do
unto others as you would wish them do unto you”. In other words, we should treat others the way
we would want to be treated. This is the basic ethic that guides all religions. If we do so, happiness
will ensue.
Religion Expression of the Golden Rule (Citation)
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you. Do ye so to
them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:1)
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will
be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
(Analects 12:2)
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (dana-
Varga 5,1)
Hinduism This is the sum of duty, do naught onto others what you would not have
not have them do unto you. (Mahabharata 5, 1517)
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which
he desires for himself. (Sunnah)
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as
your own loss. (Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien)
Zoroastrianism Nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is
not good for itself. (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94, 5)

Some people, especially religious people, say that there can be no morality without
religion. They say that without God, ethics is impossible. Ethics or morality is the attempt to arrive
at a view of the nature of human values, of how we ought to live and of what constitutes right
conduct. In order to arrive at a view, it sets goals and assesses actions by the extent to which
they further these goals, e.g. if happiness is a goal then the action which produces most happiness
to all affected is the right one. Revelation too, through the written and oral law, directs people to
an understanding of the nature of human values, of how they ought to live and of what constitutes
right conduct; such teachings and examples are scattered amongst various verses and sources.
Examples of such moral teachings are: you shall do right and good (beyond the call of duty); love
your neighbor; correct behavior between man and man; discipline or training of character under
the law; piety beyond the law; the need to be respectful, earn a living; engage in learning and
culture and so forth. Nevertheless, ethics becomes global that is why Hans Kung (1996) would
offer a “Global Ethic”, where everyone is given the chance to integrate a common understanding
of world religions.

Ethics, Fundamentalism and Global Terrorism

Like globalization, there are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal
agreement about it. Terrorism is therefore a loaded term and concept. It is often used to imply
something that is "morally wrong". Different countries have used the term to justify crackdown on
opposing views hence branding of groups and individuals, often through legislation and
government enactments, are often abused but one thing is very clear: When terrorism is
perpetrated by the nation state or dominant political actors within the state, it is not considered
terrorism by the state or government conducting it, making legality largely a problematic issue
(Teichman, 1989).

The United Nations has condemned terrorist acts since 1994 and came up with a political
description of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the
general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological,
racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

In addition, most scholars, organizations and states agree that terroristic acts are
characterized by:
 a) The use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological
or social objectives,
b) Acts committed by non-state actors (or by undercover personnel serving on the behalf of
their respective governments),
c) Acts reaching more than the immediate target victims and also directed at targets consisting
of a larger spectrum of society,
d) Both mala prohibita (crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (crime that is
inherently immoral or wrong).

Clash of Civilizations

After the end of the Cold War, conflicts between civilizations struggling for influence on a
new world order pose the greatest danger for international stability and peace. This, at least, is
the central tenet of Samuel Huntington’s famous and best-selling book The Clash of Civilizations
(Huntington 1996) and his earlier Foreign Affairs article (Huntington 1993). Huntington’s clash of
civilizations hypothesis has many facets. If there is, however, one central hypothesis in his work
it is this: The dominant source of conflict will shift from the clash of ideologies during the Cold War
period (liberal democracy vs. communism) to the clash between nations and groups of different
civilizations after the end of the Cold War: “…conflicts between groups in different civilizations will
be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same
civilization”. He defines civilizations as the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest
level of cultural identity people have, being differentiated from each other by history, language,
culture, tradition, and, most important, religion. He distinguishes seven, or possibly eight
civilizations – Western, Sinic, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and,
possibly, African. He posits that civilizational differences are the product of centuries and far more
fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes and are therefore
less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
Moreover, such differences are not merely an abstract construction: civilizations are meaningful
entities accords with the way in which people see and experience reality. He then goes on to
argue that the Cold War had artificially plastered over and dampened inter-civilizational conflicts.
The end of the Cold War allowed these conflicts to emerge and gain strength. They also draw
strength from economic modernization, which tends to weaken the nation-state as a source of
identity. This, in turn, leads to a revival of religion as an alternative source of identity. As he puts
it: “In the modern world, religion is a central, perhaps the central, force that motivates and
mobilizes people”. Finally, the declining power of the Western civilization and the rising power of
other civilizations allow the latter to challenge Western hegemony

The Rest against the West

Huntington mentions the use of terrorism as one form of conflict. In the clash between the
Rest against the West, he identifies terrorism (together with nuclear arms) as one of the two
weapons of the conflict. He refers much more explicitly to terrorism in his analysis of the Islamic
civilization. For the clash between Islam and other civilizations, he states that while groups from
all religions have engaged in various forms of violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear
that in the past decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than people of
other religions. He particularly stresses the use of terrorism in relation to the asymmetric clash
between Islam and the West. He argues that following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, an inter-
civilizational quasi war developed between Islam and the West. It is a quasi-war because, apart
from the Gulf War of 1990-91, it has been fought with limited means: terrorism on one side and
air power, covert action, and economic sanctions on the other. Accordingly, in his analysis of
Islam, one should expect a particularly strong clash between Islam and the West given a fourteen
centuries old legacy of conflict. This conflict ultimately stems from similarities in the aspirations of
the two civilizations, e.g. as universalistic and missionary, with simultaneous fundamental
differences in culture and religion. “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic
fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people is convinced of the superiority of
their culture and is obsessed with the inferiority of their power.” The Cold War period plastered
over this conflict to some extent, but “the collapse of communism removed a common enemy of
the West and Islam and left each the perceived major threat to the other.” Though Huntington’s
thesis is not immune to criticisms, events such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the bombings in
Bali, Madrid and London, Boko Haram, the rise of ISIS and the activities of Jamaah Islamiyah
terrorist cells in Southeast Asia with links to Al Qaeda network were interpreted by many as
striking evidence for Huntington’s paradigm.
Trends in Global Terrorism

Clarke (2020) predicted that geopolitical realignments, emerging technologies, and

demographic shifts will all contribute to different manifestations of ideologically and politically
motivated violence. Much of this will continue to have a transnational dimension, with once
seemingly parochial challenges made even more complex as a result of the globalization of
violence. The threat posed by transnational terrorism in the coming years thus presents a complex
mosaic.

Since 9/11, defensive counterterrorism tactics have prevented another large-scale,

foreign-born terrorist attack on U.S. soil. However, since 9/11, offensive counterterrorism tactics
have been largely counterproductive, often creating more challenges than they solve. Today,
there are nearly four times as many jihadist militants as there were on 9/11, signaling that the
Global War on Terror has unintentionally produced more terrorists than it has removed (Thrall,
2017).

One of the most concerning trends in global terrorism is the proliferation of violent white
supremacy extremist organizations and other groups motivated by various forms of right-wing
extremism. Ukraine has served as a growing hub for transnational white supremacy, mostly by
neo-Nazis. These groups appear to be growing stronger and more popular in North America,
Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, attempting to mainstream right-wing ideologies and exploiting
social media to spread propaganda, recruit new members, and finance their organizations and
operations. Shifting demographics in the West, increased migration flows, and the toxic
combination of populism and Islamophobia could all factor into more terrorism by right-wing
extremists in 2020s (Clarke 2020). This is reflected in the growing high profile attacks in the United
States such as those in Pittsburgh, El Paso and Poway and the 2019 Christchurch massacre in
New Zealand.

Sweargin (2019), tracing empirical data, made several conclusions about the history,
status, and future of terrorism. Historically, terrorism has ebbed and flowed, occurred in hotspots,
moved geographically, and been a global problem. However, today’s terrorist activity is more
frequent and lethal than ever before. Terrorism has become highly concentrated in the Middle
East, North Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, but is simultaneously growing in both global
reach and intensity. Moreover, the global trends and trajectories of terrorism demonstrate that in
the 2020s, terrorist activity will continue to evolve, becoming increasingly dangerous, dynamic,
and difficult to defeat.

Today, terrorist organizations are transforming into global networks as they build
international alliances that enable their organizations to share resources and withstand
counterterrorism pressure. Foreign fighters are dispersing across the globe and have the potential
to form new terrorist groups, strengthen existing ones, or carry out lethal attacks of their own.
Terrorists around the world are also pursuing offensive cyber weapons capable of crippling critical
infrastructure. Furthermore, the Global War on Terror will soon enter its third decade, yet the
international community is no closer to defeating twenty-first-century terrorist organizations.
Despite tremendous financial and human resources, the U.S. and its allies’ military victories have
been short-lived. When one terrorist is captured or killed, another simply takes his or her place.
This has largely been the product of misguided counter-terrorism strategy that fights today’s
enemies while unintentionally creating tomorrow’s terrorists (Thrall 2017). Therefore, in the
coming years, according to UN in its review of global counter-terrorism strategy in 2018, this must
absolutely change - International counterterrorism would benefit by addressing the conditions
conducive to the spread of terror, refining the role of law enforcement, delegitimizing the ideology
that fuels modern terrorism, marginalizing terrorists online and crafting measures to ensure respect
for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism.
Thus, only by eroding the mechanisms that sustain terrorist operations, will terrorist groups be
defeated.

Learning Resources

Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of
fundamentalisms around the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (1991). Fundamentalisms observed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Basher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of fundamentalism. New York: Routledge.
Chen, Daniel L. (2020). Economic distress stimulates fundamentalism.
https://users.nber.org/~dlchen/papers/Economic_Distress_Stimulates_Religious_
Fundamentalism.pdf
Clarke, Colin. (2020). Trends in terrorism: What’s on the horizon in 2020? Policy analysis
for US Foreign Policy Research Institute.
https://www.fpri.or/article/2020/01/trends-in-terrorism-whats-on-the-horizon-in-
2020
De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in modern
society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing.
Emerson. M.O. & Hartman P. (2006). The Rise of religious fundamentalism. Annual
Review of Sociology Vol. 32.
https//doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123141
Fararo, T. J. and J. Skvoretz (1986). Action and institutions, network and function: The
cybernetic concept of social structure, Sociological Forum 1, 219–250.
Field, A. J. (1979). On the explanation of rules using rational choice models, Journal of
Economic Issues 13, 49–72.
Fisher, M. P. (2001). Living Religions. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersh, M.A. (2016). Terrorism, human rights and ethics: A modelling approach. Journal of
Socialomics 5:2. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/terrorism-human-rights-
and-ethics-a-modelling-approach-2167-0358-1000148.pdf
Hood, Ralph & Morris, Ronald. (1985). Religiosity, sin and self-esteem. Journal of
Psychology and Theology. Vol 13 No.2.
Hunsberger, Bruce & Aletemeyer, Bob. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. International Journal of Psychology of
Religion. Vol.2 Issue 2.
Huntington, Samuel. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs Vol 72 No.3
Summer.
Huntington, Samuel. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Huntington, Samuel. (2002). Religion, culture and international conflict after Sept. 11.
Center Conversations 14, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington D.C.
Keddie, Nikki R. (1998). The New religious politics: Where, when and why do
fundamentalisms appear? Comparative Studies of Societies and Culture.Vol. 4
Issue 4.
Kent, Michael (n.d.). The difference between ethics and religion.
https://pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-decision-
making/yet-another-test-page/the-difference-between-ethics-and-religion/
Kung, H. (n.d.). Hans Kung Quotes.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/157789-no-peace-among-the-nations-without-
peace-among-the-religions
Parboteeah, P. K., Hoegl, M., et al. (2007). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a
multidimensional model, Journal of Business Ethics, 387-388.
Rausch, C.C. (2015). Fundamentalism and Terrorism. Journal of Terrorism Research,
6(2). DOI: http://doi.org/10.15664/jtr.1153
Sweargin, L. (2019). Terrorism in the 2020s: Examining the global landscape. MA thesis,
Missouri State University, USA.
Religion (n.d.) In Religion.org. http://en.religion.org//Religion.
Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D. (1982). Sacred texts of the world: A universal anthology. NY,
USA: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Teichman, J. (1989). How to define terrorism?. In Philosophy Vol 64 Issue 250.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100044260
Thrall, Trevor. (2017). Step back: Lessons for US foreign policy from the failed war on
terror. Policy analysis for CATO Institute, Washington D.C.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-for-us-
foreign-policy-failed-war-on-terror
Tittle, C. R. and M. R. Welch (1983). Religiosity and deviance: Toward a contingency
theory of constraining effects, Social Forces 61(3), 653–682.
Steven, M. (2012). The Role of Ethics in Religion. Retrieved from
https://www.ethicssage.com/2012/09/the-role-of-ethics-in-religion.html
Turner, J. H. (1997). The institutional order. New York: Addison- Wesley Educational
Publishers.
Wacker, G. (n.d.). The rise of fundamentalism.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm
Wibisono, Susilo, Louis, Winnifred & Jetten, Jolanda. (2019). The role of religious
fundamentalism in the intersection of national and religious identities. Journal of
Pacific Rim Psychology. Vol.13.
Wright, J. D. (2016). Why is contemporary religious terrorism predominantly linked to
Islam? Four possible psychosocial factors. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 10, No.
1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26297516.pdf