Religious Codes of Ethics

Over the past few class periods we have discussed the negative effects that organized religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have on our world.  These include religious conflicts and the creation of religious extremists.  We have entertained the possibility that there would be less violent conflicts in our world without these religions.  Although I agree that religion can cause violent conflicts, I believe that if our world were absent of religion, we would live in a chaotic environment with a devastating lack of order.

            The major organized religions contain of a moral code or set of laws that are supposed to guide followers on how to live righteous lives.  These principles and laws are usually found in religious writings that date back thousands of years.  For example, the Ten Commandments describe ten rules which people must live by.  In Christianity, Jesus’ preaching’s said that people should not retaliate in a violent situation.  These laws have laid the foundation for a just society for thousands of years all over the world.  

I would argue that even though adherence to organized religions can result in conflicts, the sets of laws and principles that religions offer keep humans from living in a chaotic society. Humans are not born knowing that murder and stealing is wrong.  They learn these values from being brought up with a code of ethics.  The basis of this system of values is often religious teachings. Even if people don’t go to charge, many of the laws of civil government are also based on the principles found in religious teachings. The morals that keep modern society civilized are extremely influenced by religious teachings

The morals and values that religions teach are what keep humans from living in chaos.  Peoples’ moral compasses usually evolve from religious influences. Even though organized religions can lead to violent conflicts, religion is what keeps the human race civilized.  

Polytheism Can Create Conflict

In the chapter of the Moran Themes textbook titled Ancient Religion, Kirsch explains that a completely polytheistic world could result less violence and extremism than in a monotheistic world. This is because monotheists who believe that their supreme being holds the absolute truth cannot co-exist with individuals who believe otherwise.  This often leads to violent clashes. Kirsch argues that a polytheistic world would allow individuals to be more tolerant of others’ belief systems.  However, I would argue that a polytheistic world could cause just as many conflicts as a world dominated by monotheism.

The first reason that a polytheistic world would not necessarily reduce conflicts is that even though individuals may be more tolerant of others’ gods, disagreements on principles of belief could still arise.  For example, even though individuals might accept the existence of each other’s gods, the practices derived from one god may contradict those of another god.  Polytheistic tolerance simply means that an individual can live with the notion that there are other gods in addition to the ones he or she worships.   This does not necessarily mean that an individual’s beliefs will not contradict another’s. 

The second reason that polytheism may bring as much conflict as monotheism is because polytheism does not provide a dominant moral code for everyone to follow. Polytheism does not require individuals to follow a common moral code or to share similar values.  In this type of society, there is no one absolute truth that states which laws must be followed and what is good and what is evil.  The absence of this means that everyone can have their own moral code, and that value systems can vary widely across society.  Because there is no one supreme power that everyone is supposed to believe in, it can lead to a world of conflict.

One of the main objectives of monotheistic religions is to enforce a code of law supported by a supreme being that knows the absolutely truth.  Because followers of monotheistic religions are expected to believe in this supreme power, they are expected to follow its laws. However, a polytheistic society means that individuals can follow an array of value systems.  If one person believes that murder is acceptable, and another person believes that it is not, there is no one religious code to decide who is right.  This can lead to chaos and possibly increased conflict.

Personalized Religious Observance

Every individual has a different viewpoint about what his or her religion means. Some people believe that being a part of an organized religion means that they have an obligation to accept and embrace its mainstream beliefs.  Others believe that identifying with a religion is more of a process of deciding which values are important to live by and choosing from a pool of ideas.

I believe that one’s relationship with his or her religion is based on the struggle to understand which values, beliefs, and traditions are meaningful to them. In my own experience, I have been brought up in a moderately religious environment where I have been given the opportunity to explore the traditions of my ancestors  and what they mean to me. This ability to choose has played a major role in how I’ve shaped my religious identity and how I believe religions should function in general. I believe that one’s experience with religion should be individual and personal and ideas should not be forced upon religious followers. Religion is meant to give people positive components of their life such as hope and meaning; it is not supposed to be a burden. Having the option to choose what parts of my religion are meaningful has allowed me to find values, beliefs, and traditions that I try to live by and that shape me as a person.  

Though many people like myself value the ability to personalize religious observance, a lot of people are raised to believe that every aspect of their religion contains the absolute truth and needs to be followed. These individuals cannot question values or beliefs or decide what parts of their religion they wish to follow and live by. Furthermore, the certainty of the entirety of a religious code can impede one’s ability to be tolerant of other’s beliefs.  If an individual believes that his or her religion necessarily cannot be right, and must be living against the words of the only truthful god.  This is what causes religious conflicts throughout the world. For this reason, many people despise religion and believe that our world would be better off without it.

I believe that if more people are given the freedom to decide what part of their religions are most meaningful, they will realize that maybe there is not only one truth and not all follows of a different religion are living against the words of absolute truth. There would be more religious tolerance and fewer conflicts. 

Justifications to Hold Power

The Mandate of Heaven is a justification for ruling based on the idea that one is chosen to govern because his or her moral code is aligned with that of a “cosmic all-pervading power.”  Though it may seem unfair to citizens that a leader could claim approval from a higher power, I believe that the Mandate of Heaven was the most morally acceptable justification to rule in lieu of leaders being democratically elected. 

Throughout millennium, leaders have used a variety of justifications to legitimize their power. An example of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven, an idea that a cosmic force concurred with a leader’s moral code. Another example of a religious justification for power was the Divine Right of Kings. Of course, neither of these justifications could have actually been proven true, because as far as people knew, no leader was told by God that he/she had the right to lead.  Despite the manipulation involved, I believe that between the Divine Right of Kings and the Mandate of Heaven, the Mandate of Heaven was the more morally responsible justification for a leader to have. 

When a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason to lead, he claimed that the previous leader did not have the right virtues. The individual with the correct virtues was consequently able to overthrow the morally compromised predecessor. This might have given someone the appearance of being a self-serving, power-hungry individual, but the basis for this reasoning nonetheless influenced individuals to assume leadership with a moral code.  If a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason for leading, then he must have led a life with good virtues. Otherwise, he would look like a hypocrite. A government that was run based off of a moral code and humaneness would have functioned much more smoothly.  In the interest of self-preservation, a government would have had to had to show that its moral code was acceptable so another government could not claim that its virtues were superior.  The competition for power fueled by moral codes ideally might have influenced leaders to strengthen their moral codes.

It was not until the development of democracy that leaders no longer needed justification from a higher power for their right to lead. A leader’s given right to hold power was simple; he or she had been chosen by the people.

All in all, the Mandate of Heaven may have not been a fair claim to leadership, but it was the most morally responsible justification to lead in lieu of a democracy.

The New International Response to Abusive Leaders

In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the leader that stays in power for the longest amount of time is the leader who can strike fear into his/her citizens' eyes so they show respect. He explains that if one’s power is based on friendly relationships and not fear, then one’s “friends” can easily turn against him and he will lose power.  Therefore, a leader’s power should be based on subjects having a measure of fear and respect towards their ruler, so that he/she “can endure very well being feared.”  I agree that this might have been a foolproof method of leading centuries ago, but in current times, this no longer stands true.  

The concept that a leader could hold power for an extended period of time by subjects living under the “dread of punishment,” works if there is no opposition against a leader’s methods, either within or outside of the country. If other nations do not involve themselves in conflicts that are not domestic or relevant to their interests, then leaders can do whatever they want to the people they govern.

However, in the past few centuries our world has become more globally connected.  Technology and globalization allow people from around the world to have access to information about events around the world.  This access to information drives people to care about how other people are being treated around the world. Now, people in other countries and their governments can involve themselves in foreign affairs in countries hundreds of thousands of miles away.  This means that the mistreatment of individuals is now not only a domestic problem, but problem that sometimes involves the whole world.  

A very recent example of the international community getting involved in a domestic human rights violation is the response to Moammar Gaddafi's treatment of Libyan citizens.  For over 40 years, Moammar Gaddafi ruled Libya similarly to how Machiavelli describes a long-lasting leader.  He showed little compassion to his citizens and treated many inhumanely.  Gaddafi was able to maintain is position as because of his ability to strike fear into his citizens.  

However, in 2011, a revolutions sprang up in Tunisia and Egypt, both North African countries like Libya.  The individuals living in Libya saw how the people of a country could overcome a tyrannical leader and decided to proceed with their own revolution.  After months of war between the rebellious revolutionaries and the Gaddafi loyalists, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels took power.  Yet, the rebels’ victory and Gaddafi's death were not accomplished solely by the individuals in Libya.  Most of the funding for the weapons and the support for the rebels were actually given by countries half way around the world.  NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, gave money and weapons to the rebels and also used their own aircrafts to hunt down Gaddafi.  The revolution in Libya that started because citizens felt like their leader was treating them unfairly was funded and supported by countries all over the world.

What is concerning is that there are still cases where abusive leaders continue to lead without opposition from the rest of the world.  Often, the reason that powerful countries such as the United States get involved in domestic conflicts elsewhere over the world is because the land that these nations rest on contains some natural resource that can be useful to powerful nations.  An example of this is oil.  In Libya, America and other powerful nations involved themselves in helping the rebels not only because it was the noble decision, but because there is oil in Libya that many countries would love to profit from.  In cases where abusive leaders rule in countries that do not contain valuable natural resources to powerful nations, the powerful nations are less likely to get involved in those conflicts. 

Therefore, I would argue that Machiavelli's opinion of what allows a leader to maintain power for a long period of time is no longer valid in many cases. In current times, countries from all over the world will intervene if there is a conflict concerning citizens' human rights.   However, there are still areas with abusive leaders where the people are left helpless.  I believe Machiavelli's ideas should be used by powerful nations as guidelines for what kinds of abusive leaders need to be taken out of position. Ideally, even if land may not be able to produce valuable resources, the international community should always come together to help the citizens of a nation with an abusive leader. 

The Evolution of the Right to Lead

Before leaders were democratically chosen to govern, they often times needed to give justification for their legitimacy.  This meant that in order to make sure no one would oppose his or her right to govern, a leader would justify his right to be in power. One of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven.  

The mandate of heaven revolved around the idea that one deserved to lead because his or her virtues were supported and endorsed by a heavenly force.  If one were to overthrow another leader, he or she could claim that the fallen leader was not leading in a virtuous manner and therefore did not deserve to be in power. In the Shu Jing text, Yi Yin tells the heir-king that if he is not “virtuous, be it in large things or in small, it will bring the ruin of [his] ancestral temple.” In other words, if the heir to the throne lived a virtuous life, there was no “rational” justification that could prevent him from holding the position of power indefinitely and passing it on to his descendents.

It was not until the French Revolution that a major shift in political thinking occurred, regarding a monarch’s right to power.  People began questioning the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a justification for leadership that claimed that all kings had god’s stamp of approval. How could mortal monarchs know what god wanted?  As the period of Enlightenment emerged across Europe and the New World, questioning leadership became a trend.  Revolutions in Europe had begun.

When democracies emerged, leaders no longer needed to give divine justifications for their right to govern.  Their reason for leading was that they had been chosen by their citizens.  I believe that this is one reason why democracies are beneficial to the citizens of a nation.  Rather than a leader keeping power for an extended period of time because of a religious justification, a leader can only serve for a set amount of time if he/she is voted to lead by the citizens of a nation.

I agree that voting for leaders is the most rational way of picking someone to lead, however I do not believe that there should be a time limit on how long a leader can lead for.  I believe that in the United States, if a leader is repeatedly reelected, it means the leader is accomplishing enough for the citizens of a nation to keep voting for him/her.  The leader is therefore deserving of his/her leadership position.  I am aware that the reason for a two-term limit is to stop leaders from growing greedy with their power, but if a nation likes the way an individual is leading, I do not understand why he/she cannot lead for a longer amount of time.

A leader's legitimacy to lead is valid if he/she is elected to lead.  I believe that in America, a President should be allowed to lead for as many terms as he/she is elected for.

Pericles' Athens

1. According to Pericles, what precisely makes Athens great?

Pericles, a famous orator, believed Athens was great because of the structure of its government and its peoples’ way of life. The government was “in the hands of many and not few,” a democracy. Because of this, the citizens of Athens were afforded privileges such as equal justice in private disputes, and recognition in society based not completely on one’s background (such as class) but upon one’s personal accomplishments. He insisted that citizens were prevented from doing wrong because of respect for authorities and for the law. Pericles also thought that the citizens of Athens make the state great.  The citizens were able to adapt to the varied forms of action with “versatility and grace.”  They were brave and intelligent. Finally, Pericles believed that the city of Athens was a unique place. Pericles stated that poverty was never an “obstacle” in Athens.   In times of peace and war, businesses thrived and there was no exclusiveness in public life. Throughout the city architecture was beautiful and elegant. The city was filled with recreation for the purpose of balancing hard work and relaxation. The education system in Athens taught kids to be smart and brave. Lastly, Pericles states that because Athens was prominent in the trading world, they were able to enjoy both their goods and the goods of foreign nations.

2. How does Athens compare to other city-states in regard to the above?

Athens compared to the other city-states by being an example to them all. The Athenian government was original in how it structured its democracy. In Pericles’ view, it was model to other city-states. In terms of its citizens, Pericles insisted that Athenians were braver and had more heart than the people of surrounding city-states. Pericles described Athens as having the bravest citizens in times of war. In addition, Pericles marveled at Athens’ military. It was “superior to all of their enemies.” The army did not find difficulty in wars and extended its hand in friendship whenever it could. It was a safer, more prosperous, and more beautiful city than any other.

3. What are some problems you see with Pericles' Athens?

I see that Pericles’ Athens sounds too good to be true.  It seems to me like Pericles had his head in the clouds.  He was so excited about his city that it seems that he was not looked to further progress and improve on what his city had already accomplished.  Second, even though Pericles thought of his government as a democracy, like in any democracy, not everyone could have been represented and happy.  Pericles described everyone in Athens as being respectful and prosperous and living an honest life.  Though this ideally sounds wonderful, I believe that there is no way that Pericles could speak for everyone in Athens. There had to be individuals who didn’t follow the rules and didn’t live the wholesome Athenian life.   What is concerning to me is Pericles’ negligence to any problems in Athens.  I understand the Pericles’ role during that speech was to glorify his city, but his words were perhaps too adoring and not realistic enough.