Ii 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 coul d 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
 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.
 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
 They hope to be the next great generation  Diversity
& to turn around all the “wrong” they see in  Extreme fun
the world today.  Highly tolerant
 They grew up more sheltered than any  Hotly competitive
other generation as parents strived to  Like personal attention
protect them from the evils of the world.  Self-confident
 Came of age in a period of economic  Social ability
expansion.  Members of global community
 Kept busy as kids  Most educated generation
 First generation of children with schedules.  Extremely techno savvy; Now!
 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.

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.