In fact, however, those vast world conflagrations were manifestations of the dark side of the unique breakthrough in the history of humankind in the modern development of Christendom - become - Western Civilization, now becoming Global Civilization. Never before had there been world wars; likewise, never before had there been world political organizations (League of Nations, United Nations). Never before did humanity possess the real possibility of destroying all human lifewhether through nuclear or ecological catastrophe. These unique negative realities/potentialities were possible, however, only because of the correspondingly unique accomplishments of Christendom/Western/Global Civilizationthe like of which the world has never before seen. On the negative side, from now on it will always be true that humankind could self-destruct. Still, there are solid empirical grounds for reasonable hope that the inherent, infinity-directed life force of humankind will nevertheless prevail over the parallel death force. 

The prophets of doom were correct, however, in their understanding that humanity is entering into a radically new age. Earlier in this century the nay-sayers usually spoke of the doom of only Western Civilization (e.g., Spengler, Sorokin), but after the advent of nuclear power and the Cold War, the new generation of pessimistsas said, not without warrant: "The corruption of the best becomes the worse" (corruptio optimae pessima)warned of global disaster. This emerging awareness of global disaster is a clear, albeit negative, sign that something profoundly, radically new is entering onto the stage of human history. 

In the mid-nineties professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University named a central contemporary reality when he argued that with the fading of the Cold War, in its place is rising of a "Clash of Civilizations,"⁽³⁾ fundamentalisms of all sorts, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, nationalist, ethnic, tribal, are tearing at the fabric of the New World Order even as it is being woven. At least we thought we understood the other side in the Cold War, whether we admired, respected, tolerated or despised it. But in the nineties we entered into a state of cacophonous confusion and consequently are floundering, or even foundering: e.g., Rwanda, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Middle East. And these outbreaks of violence are only the most visible flashpoints of the contemporary malaise. The problems run much deeper. They are cultural, ethical, religious, spiritual. 

A world with clashing, or potentially clashing, cultures, religious, ethnic groupscivilizationsis the world of the End of the Second Millennium. However, that is not all it is. Its very antithesis is likewise a reality, and an increasing one. Humanity is also in the midst of a deep evolutionary shift towards a higher, communal and dialogical way of life. This evolution of religions and cultures points towards a process essential to healing the deep problems that inhere in all aspects of our human cultures and even threaten our very survival, namely: the awakening of human beings to the power of dialogue.⁽⁴⁾ 

There have, in fact, also been a number of more positive signs than world wars that we humans are entering a radically new age. In the 1960s there was much talk of "The Age of Aquarius," and there still is today the continuing fad of "New Age" consciousness. Some may be put off from the idea of an emerging radically new age because they perceive such talk to be simply that of fringe groups. I would argue, however, that the presence of "the crazies" around the edge of any idea or movement, far from being a sign of the invalidity of that idea or movement, is on the contrary a confirmation precisely of its validity, at least in its core concern. I would further argue that if people are involved with a movement which does not eventually develop its "crazies," its extremists, the movement is not touching the core of humankind's concernsthey should get out of the movement, they are wasting their time! 

Moreover, there have likewise recently been a number of very serious scholarly analyses pointing to the emergence of a radically new age in human history. I will deal in some detail with two of them below. The first is the concept of the "Paradigm-Shift," particularly as expounded by Hans Küng.⁽⁵⁾ The second is the notion of the "Second Axial Period," as articulated by Ewert Cousins.⁽⁶⁾ Then, including these two, but setting them in a still larger context, I shall lay out my own analysis, which I see as the movement of humankind out of a multi-millennia long "Age of Monologue" into the newly inbreaking "Age of Dialogue," indeed, an inbreaking "Age of Global Dialogue." Finally, I shall focus on the need for and development of a Global Ethic. 

Of course there is a great deal of continuity in human life throughout the shift from one major "Paradigm" to another, from one "Period" to another, from one "Age" to another. Nevertheless, even more striking than this continuity is the ensuing break, albeit largely on a different level than the continuity. This relationship of continuity and break in human history is analogous to the transition of water from solid to fluid to gas with the increase in temperature. With water there is throughout on the chemical level the continuity of H²O. However, for those who have to deal with the water, it makes a fantastic difference whether the H²O is ice, water, or steam! In the case of the major changes in humankind, the physical base remains the same, but on the level of consciousness the change is massive. And here too it makes a fantastic difference whether we are dealing with humans whose consciousness is formed within one paradigm or within another, whose consciousness is Pre-Axial, Axial-I or Axial-II, whose consciousness is Monologic or Dialogic. 

Creed refers to the cognitive aspect of a religion; it is everything that goes into the "explanation" of the ultimate meaning of life. 

Code of behavior or ethics includes all the rules and customs of action that somehow follow from one aspect or another of the Creed. 
 

Cult means all the ritual activities that relate the follower to one aspect or other of the Transcendent, either directly or indirectly, prayer being an example of the former and certain formal behavior toward representatives of the Transcendent, like priests, of the latter. 

Community-structure refers to the relationships among the followers; this can vary widely, from a very egalitarian relationship, as among Quakers, through a "republican" structure like Presbyterians have, to a monarchical one, as with some Hasidic Jews vis-a-vis their "Rebbe." 

The Transcendent, as the roots of the word indicate, means "that which goes beyond" the every-day, the ordinary, the surface experience of reality. It can refer to spirits, gods, a Personal God, an Impersonal God, Emptiness, etc. 

Especially in modern times there have developed "explanations of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly" which are not based on a notion of the Transcendent, e.g., secular humanism, Marxism. Although in every respect these "explanations" function as religions traditionally have in human life, because the idea of the Transcendent, however it is understood, plays such a central role in religion, but not in these "explanations," for the sake of accuracy it is best to give these "explanations" not based on notion of the Transcendent a separate name; the name often used is: Ideology. Much, though not all, of the following will, mutatis mutandis, also apply to Ideology even when the term is not used. 

We are now poised at the entrance to the Age of Dialogue. We travel all over the globe, and large elements of the entire globe come to us. There can hardly be a U.S. campus which does not echo with foreign accents and languages. Our streets, businesses and homes are visibly filled with overseas products. We constantly hear about the crises of our massive trade deficit and the overwhelming debts third world countries owe us. Through our Asian-made television sets we invite into our living rooms myriads of people of strange nations, cultures and religions. 

We can no longer ignore "The Other," but we can close our minds and spirits to them, look at them with fear and misunderstanding, come to resent them, and perhaps even hate them. This way of encounter leads to hostility and eventually war and death. For example, one of the fundamental reasons why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 was because the Japanese leadership perceived the U.S. moves as a basic economic threat to their wellbeing. The American response eventually was to drop atomic bombs on "the Japs," annihilating hundreds of thousands of human beings in two brief instants. 

Today nuclear or ecological, or other, catastrophic devastation lies just a little ways further down the path of Monologue. It is only by struggling out of the self-centered monologic mindset into dialogue with The Other as s/he really is, and not as we have projected her/him in our monologues, that we can avoid such cataclysmic disasters. In brief: We must move from the Age of Monologue to the Age of Dialogue. 

As noted, what we understand to be the "explanation of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly," is what we call our religionor if that explanation is not based on a notion of the transcendent, we can call it an ideology. Since our religion or ideology is so comprehensive, so all-inclusive, it is the most fundamental area in which The Other is likely to be different from usand hence possibly seen as the most threatening. Again, this is not over-dramatization. The current catalogue of conflicts which have religion/ideology as a constituent element is staggering, including such obvious neuralgic flashpoints as Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Israel, Sri Lanka, Pakistan/India, Tibet, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Armenia/Azerbaijan.... 

Hence, if humankind is to move from the Age of Monologue into the Age of Dialogue, the religions and ideologies must enter into the movement full force. They have in fact begun to make serious progress along this path, though the journey stretches far ahead, indeed. 

When we speak of "dialogue," we do not mean just another discussion, as valuable as that might be. We mean an experience of meeting with people of different fundamental convictions in such a way that each one's assumptions come to light, and that all can move ahead in reciprocal learning. We mean strengthening and affirming fundamental beliefs and practices, and transforming them as well. Most importantly, participants in dialogue will be energized not only for themselves but also to inspire others with a realistic vision of a healthy, humane, just, and prosperous world, and concrete plans for realizing it. 

If I were speaking just to Christians I would use the term "theology" to name what I am largely talking about here. But the dialogical way of thinking is not something peculiarly Christian. Rather, it is a way for all human beings to reflect on the ultimate meaning of life. Regardless whether one is a theist or not, whether one is given to using Greek thought categories, as Christians have been wont to do in their "theologizing," or not, dialogue is ever more clearly the way of the future in "religious and ideological reflection" on the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly. 

I am convinced that it is necessary to try to think beyond the absolutes that I as a Christianand others in their own wayshave increasingly found de-absolutized in our modern thought world. Hence, I would like to reflect with you on the ways all of us humans need to think about the world and its meaning now that more and more of us, both individually and even at times institutionally, are gaining enough maturity to notice that there are entire other ways of integrating an understanding of the world than the way we and our forebears grew up in. 

Beyond the absolute way of understanding the world and its meaning for us, beyond the absolute way of thinking, we have begun to find a much richer, "truer," way of understanding the worldthe dialogical way of thinking. It is this dialogical way of thinking particularly in the area of religion and ideology that I intend to reflect on here. 

My dialogue partners in this new paradigm of understanding the world are all the ways of understanding the world and its meaningthe world's religions and ideologies. And so, we eventually need to engage in dialogue with at least the world's major religions and ideologies, reflecting on what we can learn about and from each other. But beyond all these dialogue partners is the often unconscious but always pervasive dialogue partner for me and an ever increasing number of contemporaries: modern critical thought. 

Precisely those who are open to dialoguethat is, are open to going beyond prior absolutes to learning from each otherlive in a de-absolutized, "relationized," modern critical-thinking thought world, a thought world wherein they no longer can live on the level of the first naivete, but are at least striving to live on the level of the second naivete. On this level they see their root symbols and metaphors as symbols and metaphors, and hence do not mistake them for empirical, ontological realities, but also do not simply reject them as fantasies and fairy tales. Rather, because they see them as root symbols and metaphors, they correctly appreciate them as indispensable vehicles to communicate profound realities that go beyond the capacity of everyday language to communicate. 

In the past, when we encountered those who differed from us in the religious and ideological sphere, we did so usually either to defeat them as opponents, or to learn about them so as to deal with them more effectively. In other words, we usually faced those who differed with us in a confrontationsometimes more openly polemically, sometimes more subtly so, but usually with the ultimate goal of overcoming the other because we were convinced that we alone had the truth. 

But that is not what dialogue is. Dialogue is not debate. In dialogue each partner must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as possible in an attempt to understand the other's position as precisely and, as it were, as much from within, as possible. Such an attitude automatically assumes that at any point we might find the partner's position so persuasive that, if we were to act with integrity, we ourselves would have to change. 

Until quite recently in almost all religious traditions, and certainly very definitely within Christianity, the idea of seeking religious or ideological wisdom, insight or truth through dialogue, other than in a very initial and rudimentary fashion, occurred to very few people, and certainly had no influence in the major religious or ideological communities. The further idea of pursuing religious or ideological truth through dialogue with other religions and ideologies was even less thinkable. 

Today the situation is dramatically reversed. In 1964 Pope Paul VI's first encyclical focused on dialogue: 

Dialogue is demanded nowadays....is demanded by the dynamic course of action which is changing the face of modern society. It is demanded by the pluralism of society and by the maturity man has reached in this day and age. Be he religious or not, his secular education has enabled him to think and speak, and to conduct dialogue with dignity.⁽⁷⁾ 

Further official words of encouragement came from the Vatican secretariat for dialogue with non-believers: "All Christians should do their best to promote dialogue...as a duty of fraternal charity suited to our progressive and adult age."⁽⁸⁾ 

There are the many "external" factors that have appeared in the past century and a half which have contributed constitutively to the creation of what we today call the "global village." In the past the vast majority of people were born, lived and died all within the village or valley of their origin. Now, however, in many countries hundreds of millions of people have left their homes not only once or a few times, but do so frequentlyconsequently experiencing customs and cultures other than their own. Moreover, the world comes to us through the mass media. 

All these externals have made it increasingly impossible for Westerners, and then gradually everyone, to live in isolation. We meed "the other" willy nilly, and after two catastrophic world wars, a world depression and a threat of nuclear holocaust we are learning that our meeting can no longer be in indifference, for that leads to encounters in ignorance and prejudice, which is the tinder of hostility, and then violence. But if this violence leads to World War III, it will be the end of human history. Hence, for the sake of survival, meeting in dialogue and cooperation is the only alternative to global disaster. 

The twentieth century global catastrophic events also had a profound impact on the Christian churches. Stanley Samartha, the first Director of the World Council of Churches' division on interreligious dialogue, noted that, "It is not without significance that only after the second world war (1945), when, with the dismantling of colonialism, new nations emerged on the stage of history and asserted their identity through their own religions and cultures, that both the Vatican and World Council of Churches began to articulate a more positive attitude toward the peoples of other religious traditions."⁽⁹⁾ 

A major paradigm shift in systematic religious reflection, i.e., in "theology," then, means a major change "in the very idea of what it is to do theology."⁽¹¹⁾ Let me give an example from my own Christian tradition: The major Christian theological revolution that occurred at the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, A.D. 325) did not so much resolve the battle over whether the Son and Father were of "the same substance," homoousion, important as that was, but rather that, "by defining `homoousion,' it tacitly admitted that here were issues in theology which could not be solved simply on the basis of recourse to the language of the Scriptures."⁽¹²⁾ In the next several centuries a flood of new answers poured forth to questions being posed in categories unused by Jesus and his first, Jewish, followers in this casein Greek philosophical categories of thought. 

As the paradigm within which the data of what Jesus thought, taught and wrought and how his Jewish followers responded was perceived and understood shifted from the Semitic, concrete biblical thought world to a Hellenistic, largely abstract philosophical one, the questions asked, and the terms in which they were asked, shifted accordingly, and of course so did the answers. As always, when a new major paradigm shift occurs, old answers are no longer helpful, for they respond to questions no longer posed, in thought categories no longer used, within a conceptual framework which no longer prevails. It is not that the old answers are now declared wrong; it is simply that they no longer apply. Aristotle's answers in physics and chemistry in terms of the four elements of air, fire, water and earth, for example, simply do not speak to the questions posed by modern chemists and physicists. Tenth-century Christian theologians answering that Mary remained a virgin while giving birth to Jesus (i.e., her hymen was not broken) were answering a question that no modern critical-thinking Christian theologian would pose, for it presupposed a thought-world which placed a high value on unbroken hymens. That thought world is gone. Hence, the old answer is im-pertinent. 

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the role in religion, that is, in the "ultimate understanding of reality and how to live accordingly," played by the conceptual paradigm or model one has of reality. The paradigm or model within which we perceive reality not only profoundly affects our theoretical understanding of reality, but also has immense practical consequences. For example, in Western medicine the body is usually conceived of as a highly nuanced, living machine, and therefore if one part wears out, the obvious thing to do is to replace the worn parthence, organ transplants originated in Western, but not in Oriental, medicine. 

However, in Oriental, Chinese, medicine, the body is conceived of as a finely balanced harmony: "pressure" exerted on one part of the body is assumed to have an opposite effect in some other part of the bodyhence, acupuncture originated in Oriental, but not in Western, medicine.⁽¹³⁾ Our conceptual paradigms have concrete consequences. 

Furthermore, obviously some particular paradigms or models for perceiving reality will fit the data better than others, and they will then be -- e.g., the shift from the geocentric to the heliocentric model in astronomy. But sometimes differing models will each in their own ways "fit" the data more or less adequately, as in the example of Western and Oriental medicines. The differing models are then viewed as complementary. Clearly it would be foolish to limit one's perception of reality to only one of the complementary paradigms or models. 

Perhaps at times a more comprehensive model, a mega-model, can be conceived to subsume two or more complementary models, but surely it will never be possible to perceive reality except through paradigms or models; hence meta-model, that is, "beyond-model" thinking is not possible, except in the more limited sense of meta-mono-model thinking, that is, by perceiving reality through multiple, differing models which cannot be subsumed under one mega-model, but must stand in creative, polar tension in relationship to each other. Such might be called multi-model thinking. This pattern in fact has been characteristic of physics for decades as it uses both particle and wave descriptions of subatomic matter. 

Let me turn now to the post-Enlightenment epistemological Paradigm-Shift. Whereas our Western notion of truth was largely absolute, static, and monologic or exclusive up to the past century, it has since become deabsolutized, dynamic and dialogic -- in a word, it has become "relational."⁽¹⁴⁾ 

This "new" view of truth came about in at least six different, but closely related, ways. In brief they are: 

• 1. Historicism: Truth is deabsolutized by the perception that reality is always described in terms of the circumstances of the time in which it is expressed. 
• 2. Intentionality: Seeking the truth with the intention of acting accordingly deabsolutizes the statement. 
• 3. Sociology of knowledge: Truth is deabsolutized in terms of geography, culture, and social standing. 
• 4. Limits of language: Truth as the meaning of something and especially as talk about the transcendent is deabsolutized by the nature of human language. 
• 5. Hermeneutics: All truth, all knowledge, is seen as interpreted truth, knowledge, and hence is deabsolutized by the observer who is always also interpreter. 
• 6. Dialogue: The knower engages reality in a dialogue in a language the knower provides, thereby deabsolutizing all statements about reality. 

Before the nineteenth century in Europe truth, that is, a statement about reality, was conceived in quite an absolute, static, exclusivistic either-or manner. If something was true at one time, it was always true; not only empirical facts but also the meaning of things or the oughtness that was said to flow from them were thought of in this way. For example, if it was true for the Pauline writer to say in the first century that women should keep silence in the church, then it was always true that women should keep silence in the church; or if it was true for Pope Boniface VIII to state in 1302, "we declare, state, and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff,"⁽¹⁵⁾ then it was always true that they need do so. At bottom, the notion of truth was based exclusively on the Aristotelian principle of contradiction: a thing could not be true and not true in the same way at the same time. Truth was defined by way of exclusion; A was A because it could be shown not to be not-A. Truth was thus understood to be absolute, static, exclusivistically either-or. 

1. Historicism: In the nineteenth century many scholars came to perceive all statements about the truth of the meaning of something as partially the products of their historical circumstances. Those concrete circumstances helped determine the fact that the statement under study was even called forth, that it was couched in particular intellectual categories (for example, in abstract Platonic or concrete legal language), in particular literary forms (for example, mythic or metaphysical language), and in particular psychological settings (such as a polemic response to a specific attack). These scholars argued that only if the truth statements were placed in their historical situation, in their historical Sitz im Leben, could they be properly understood. The understanding of the text could be found only in context. To express that same original meaning in a later Sitz im Leben one would require a proportionately different statement. Thus, all statements about the meaning of things were now seen to be deabsolutized in terms of time. 

This is a historical view of truth. Clearly at its heart is a notion of relationality: Any statement about the truth of the meaning of something has to be understood in relationship to its historical context. 

2. Intentionality: Later thinkers like Max Scheler added a corollary to this historicizing of knowledge; it concerned not the past but the future. Such scholars also saw truth as having an element of intentionality at its base, as being oriented ultimately toward action, praxis. They argued that we perceive certain things as questions to be answered and set goals to pursue specific knowledge because we wish to do something about those matters; we intend to live according to the truth and meaning that we hope to discern in the answers to the questions we pose, in the knowledge we decide to seek. The truth of the meaning of things was thus seen as deabsolutized by the action-oriented intentionality of the thinker-speaker. 

This is an intentional or praxis view of truth, and it too is basically relational: A statement has to be understood in relationship to the action-oriented intention of the speaker. 
 

3. The sociology of knowledge: Just as statements of truth about the meaning of things were seen by some thinkers to be historically deabsolutized in time, so too, starting in this century with scholars like Karl Mannheim, such statements began to be seen as deabsolutized by such things as the culture, class and gender of the thinker-speaker, regardless of time. All reality was said to be perceived from the perspective of the perceiver's own world view. Any statement of the truth of the meaning of something was seen to be perspectival, "standpoint-bound," standortgebunden, as Karl Mannheim put it, and thus deabsolutized. 

This is a perspectival view of truth and is likewise relational: All statements are fundamentally related to the standpoint of the speaker. 

4. The limitations of language: Following Ludwig Wittgenstein and others, many thinkers have come to see that any statement about the truth of things can be at most only a partial description of the reality it is trying to describe. Although reality can be seen from an almost limitless number of perspectives, human language can express things from only one, or perhaps a very few, perspectives at once. If this is now seen to be true of what we call "scientific truths," it is much more true of statements about the truth of the meaning of things. The very fact of dealing with the truth of the "meaning" of something indicates that the knower is essentially involved and hence reflects the perspectival character of all such statements. A statement may be true, of course -- it may accurately describe the extramental reality it refers to -- but it will always be cast in particular categories, language, concerns, etc., of a particular "standpoint," and in that sense will be limited, deabsolutized. 

This also is a perspectival view of truth, and therefore also relational. 

This limited and limiting, as well as liberating, quality of language is especially clear in talk of the transcendent. The transcendent is by definition that which "goes beyond" our experience. Any statements about the transcendent must thus be deabsolutized and limited far beyond the perspectival character seen in ordinary statements. 
 

5. Hermeneutics: Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur recently led the way in developing the science of hermeneutics, which, by arguing that all knowledge of a text is at the same time an interpretation of the text, further deabsolutizes claims about the "true" meaning of the text. But this basic insight goes beyond knowledge of texts and applies to all knowledge. In all knowledge I come to know something; the object comes into me in a certain way, namely, through the lens that I use to perceive it. 

Some of the key notions here can be compressed in the following mantra (a mantra is a seven-syllable phrase which capsulizes an insight): "Subject, object, two is one." The whole of hermeneutics is here in nuce: All knowledge is interpreted knowledge; the perceiver is part of the perceived; the subject is part of the object. When the object of study is some aspect of humanity the obvious fact that the observer is also the observed "deobjectivizes," deabsolutizes, the resultant knowledge, truth. But the same thing is also fundamentally true of all knowledge, of all truth, even of the natural sciences, for the various aspects of nature are observed only through the categories we ourselves provide, within the horizons we establish, under the paradigms we utilize, in response to the questions we raise, and in relationship to the connections we make -- a further deabsolutizing of truth, even of the "hard" sciences. 

"Subject, object, two is one." Knowledge comes from the subject perceiving the object, but since the subject is also part of its object, as described above the two are in that sense one. In knowing also the object in some form is taken up into the subject, and thus again the two are one. And yet, there is also a radical twoness there, for it is the very process of the two becoming one -- or the two being perceived as one, or, even better, the becoming aware that the two, which are very really two, are also in fact on another level very really one -- that we call knowing. 

This is an interpretive view of truth. It is clear that relationality pervades this hermeneutical, interpretative, view of truth. (It is interesting to note that one dimension of this interpretive understanding of truth can already be found in St. Thomas Aquinas, who states that "things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower."⁽¹⁶⁾) 

6. Dialogue: A further development of this basic insight is that I learn not by being merely passively open or receptive to, but by being in dialogue with, extramental reality. I not only "hear" or receive reality, but I also -- and, I think, first of all -- "speak" to reality. I ask it questions, I stimulate it to speak back to me, to answer my questions. In the process I give reality the specific categories and language in which to respond to me. The "answers" that I receive back from reality will always be in the language, the thought categories, of the questions I put to it. It can "speak" to me, can really communicate with my mind, only in a language and categories that I understand. 

When the speaking, the responding, grows less and less understandable to me, if the answers I receive are sometimes confused and unsatisfying, then I probably need to learn to speak a more appropriate language when I put questions to reality. If, for example, I ask the question, "How far is yellow?" of course I will receive a non-sense answer. Or if I ask questions about living things in mechanical categories, I will receive confusing and unsatisfying answers. 

This is a dialogic view of truth, whose very name reflects its relationality. 

In sum, our understanding of truth and reality has been undergoing a radical shift. This new paradigm which is being born understands all statements about reality, especially about the meaning of things, to be historical, intentional, perspectival, partial, interpretive and dialogic. What is common to all these qualities is the notion of relationality, that is, that all expressions or understandings of reality are in some fundamental way related to the speaker or knower. 

At the heart of this new dialogic way of thinking is the basic insight that I learn not by being merely passively open or receptive to, but by being in dialogue with, extramental reality. I not only "hear" or receive reality, but I also -- and, I think, first of all -- "speak" to reality. I ask it questions, I stimulate it to speak back to me, to answer my questions. In the process I give reality the specific categories and language in which to respond to me. The "answers" that I receive back from reality will always be in the language, the thought categories, of the questions I put to it. It can "speak" to me, can really communicate with my mind, only in a language and categories that I understand. 

When the speaking, the responding, grow less and less understandable to me, if the answers I receive are sometimes confused and unsatisfying, then I probably need to learn to speak a more appropriate language when I put questions to reality. If, for example, I ask the question, "How far is yellow?" of course I will receive an non-sense answer. Or if I ask questions about living things in mechanical categories, I will receive confusing and unsatisfying answers. Thus, I will receive confusing and unsatisfying answers to questions about human sexuality if I use categories that are solely physical-biological; witness the absurdity of the answer that birth control is forbidden by the natural law -- the question falsely assumes that the nature of humanity is merely physical-biological. This dialogic view of truth, like the five other shifts in modern epistemology described above, is relational, as its very name, dia-logos, indicates. 

With the new and irreversible understanding of the meaning of truth resulting from all the above-outlined epistemological advances, culminating in the insight of a dialogic view of truth, the modern critical thinker has undergone a radical Copernican turn. Recall that just as the vigorously resisted shift in astronomy from geocentrism to heliocentrism revolutionized that science, the paradigm or model shift in the understanding of truth statements has revolutionized all the humanities, including theology-ideology. The macro-paradigm or macro-model with which critical thinkers operate today (or the "horizon" within which they operate, to use Bernard Lonergan's term) is, as noted, characterized by historical, social, linguistic, hermeneutical, praxis and dialogic -- relational -- consciousness. This paradigm or model shift is far advanced among thinkers and doers; but as in the case of Copernicus, and even more dramatically of Galileo, there of course are still many resisters in positions of great institutional power. 

At the same time, with the deabsolutized view of the truth of the meaning of things we come face to face with the specter of relativism, the opposite pole of absolutism. Unlike relationality, a neutral term which merely denotes the quality of being in relationship, relativism, like so many "isms," is a basically negative term. If it can no longer be claimed that any statement of the truth of the meaning of things is absolute, totally objective, because the claim does not square with our experience of reality, it is equally impossible to claim that every statement of the truth of the meaning of things is completely relative, totally subjective, for that also does not square with our experience of reality, and of course it would logically lead to an atomizing isolation which would stop all discourse, all statements to others. 

Our perception, and hence description, of reality is like our view of an object in the center of a circle of viewers. My view and description of the object, or reality, may well be true, but it will not include what someone on the other side of the circle perceives and describes, which also may well be true. So, neither of our perceptions and descriptions of reality can be total, complete -- "absolute" in that sense -- or "objective" in the sense of not in any way being dependent on a "subject" or viewer. At the same time, however, it is also obvious that there is an "objective," doubtless "true" aspect to each perception and description, even though each is relational to the perceiver-"subject." 

At the same time that the always partial, perspectival, deabsolutized view of all truth statements is recognized, the common human basis for perceptions/descriptions of reality and values must also be kept in mind. All human beings experience certain things in common. We all experience our bodies, pain, pleasure, hunger, satiation. Our cognitive faculties perceive such structures in reality as variation and symmetries in pitch, color and form. All humans experience affection and dislike. Here, and in other commonalities, we find the bases for building a universal, fundamental epistemology, aesthetics, value system. Although it will be vital to distinguish carefully between those human experiences/perceptions which come from nature and those which come from nurture, it will at times, however, be difficult to discern precisely where the distinction lies. In fact, all of our "natural" experiences are more or less shaped by our "nurturing" because all of our experience and knowledge are interpreted through the lens of our "nurturing" structures. 

But if we can no longer hold to an absolutist view of the truth of the meaning of things, we must take certain steps so as not to be logically forced into the silence of total relativism. First, besides striving to be as accurate and fair as possible in gathering and assessing information and submitting it to the critiques of our peers and other thinkers and scholars, we need also to dredge out, state clearly, and analyze our own pre-suppositions -- a constant, ongoing task. Even in this of course we will be operating from a particular "standpoint." 

Therefore, we need, secondly, to complement our constantly critiqued statements with statements from different "standpoints." That is, we need to engage in dialogue with those who have differing cultural, philosophical, social, religious viewpoints so as to strive toward an ever fuller perception of the truth of the meaning of things. If we do not engage in such dialogue we will not only be trapped within the perspective of our own "standpoint," but we will now also be aware of our lack. We will no longer with integrity be able to remain deliberately turned in on ourselves. Our search for the truth of the meaning of things makes it a necessity for us as human beings to engage in dialogue. Knowingly to refuse dialogue today would be an act of fundamental human irresponsibility -- in Judeo-Christian-Muslim terms, a sin. 

The following are some basic ground rules for authentic interreligious, interideological dialogue; moreover, these rules also largely apply even when the dialogue is not inter-religious or ideological. These are not theoretical rules from an ivory tower. They have been learned from hard experience: to ignore them is to diminish or destroy the dialogue. 

FIRST RULE: The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly. Minimally, the very fact that I learn that my dialogue partner believes "this" rather than "that" proportionally changes my attitude toward her; and a change in my attitude is a significant change in me. We enter into dialogue so that we can learn, change, and grow, not so we can force change on the other, as one hopes to do in debate--a hope realized in inverse proportion to the frequency and ferocity with which debate is entered into. On the other hand, because in dialogue each partner comes with the intention of learning and changing herself, one's partner in fact will also change. Thus the goal of debate, and much more, is accomplished far more effectively by dialogue. 

SECOND RULE: Interreligious, interideological dialogue must be a two-sided project--within each religious or ideological community and between religious or ideological communities. Because of the "corporate" nature of interreligious dialogue, and since the primary goal of dialogue is that each partner learn and change himself, it is also necessary that each participant enter into dialogue not only with his partner across the faith line--the Lutheran with the Anglican, for example--but also with his coreligionists, with his fellow Lutherans, to share with them the fruits of the interreligious dialogue. Only thus can the whole community eventually learn and change, moving toward an ever more perceptive insight into reality. 

THIRD RULE: Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. It should be made clear in what direction the major and minor thrusts of the tradition move, what the future shifts might be, and, if necessary, where the participant has difficulties with her own tradition. No false fronts have any place in dialogue. 

Conversely--each participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerity in the other partners. Not only will the absence of sincerity prevent dialogue from happening, but the absence of the assumption of the partner's sincerity will do so as well. In brief: no trust, no dialogue. 

FOURTH RULE: In interreligious, interideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner's practice, but rather our ideals with our partner's ideals, our practice with our partner's practice. 

FIFTH RULE: Each participant must define himself. Only the Jew, for example, can define what it means to be a Jew. The rest can only describe what it looks like from the outside. Moreover, because dialogue is a dynamic medium, as each participant learns, he will change and hence continually deepen, expand, and modify his self-definition as a Jew--being careful to remain in constant dialogue with fellow Jews. Thus it is mandatory that each dialogue partner define what it means to be an authentic member of his own tradition. 

Conversely--the one interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation. This is the golden rule of interreligious hermeneutics, as has been often reiterated by the "apostle of interreligious dialogue," Raimundo Panikkar. For the sake of understanding, each dialogue participant will naturally attempt to express for herself what she thinks is the meaning of the partner's statement; the partner must be able to recognize herself in that expression. The advocate of "a world theology," Wilfred Cantwell Smith, would add that the expression must also be verifiable by critical observers who are not involved. 

SIXTH RULE: Each participant must come to the dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are. Rather, each partner should not only listen to the other partner with openness and sympathy but also attempt to agree with the dialogue partner as far as is possible while still maintaining integrity with his own tradition; where he absolutely can agree no further without violating his own integrity, precisely there is the real point of disagreement--which most often turns out to be different from the point of disagreement that was falsely assumed ahead of time. 

SEVENTH RULE: Dialogue can take place only between equals, or par cum pari as Vatican II put it. Both must come to learn from each other. Therefore, if, for example, the Muslim views Hinduism as inferior, or if the Hindu views Islam as inferior, there will be no dialogue. If authentic interreligious, interideological dialogue between Muslims and Hindus is to occur, then both the Muslim and the Hindu must come mainly to learn from each other; only then will it be "equal with equal," par cum pari. This rule also indicates that there can be no such thing as a one-way dialogue. For example, Jewish-Christian discussions begun in the 1960s were mainly only prolegomena to inter-religious dialogue. Understandably and properly, the Jews came to these exchanges only to teach Christians, although the Christians came mainly to learn. But, if authentic interreligious dialogue between Christians and Jews is to occur, then the Jews must also come mainly to learn; only then will it too be par cum pari. 

EIGHTH RULE: Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust. Although interreligious, interideological dialogue must occur with some kind of "corporate" dimension, that is, the participants must be involved as members of a religious or ideological community--for instance, as Marxists or Taoists--it is also fundamentally true that it is only persons who can enter into dialogue. But a dialogue among persons can be built only on personal trust. Hence it is wise not to tackle the most difficult problems in the beginning, but rather to approach first those issues most likely to provide some common ground, thereby establishing the basis of human trust. Then, gradually, as this personal trust deepens and expands, the more thorny matters can be undertaken. Thus, as in learning we move from the known to the unknown, so in dialogue we proceed from commonly held matters--which, given our mutual ignorance resulting from centuries of hostility, will take us quite some time to discover fully--to discuss matters of disagreement. 

NINTH RULE: Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one's own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn--which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue--and, indeed, no integrity. 

TENTH RULE: Each participant eventually must attempt to experience the partner's religion or ideology "from within"; for a religion or ideology is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and "whole being," individual and communal. John Dunne here speaks of "passing over" into another's religious or ideological experience and then coming back enlightened, broadened, and deepened. As Raimundo Panikkar notes, "To know what a religion says, we must understand what it says, but for this we must somehow believe in what it says": for example, "A Christian will never fully understand Hinduism if he is not, in one way or another, converted to Hinduism. Nor will a Hindu ever fully understand Christianity unless he, in one way or another, becomes Christian." 

Interreligious, interideological dialogue operates in three areas: the practical, where we collaborate to help humanity; the depth or "spiritual" dimension, where we attempt to experience the partner's religion or ideology "from within"; the cognitive, where we seek understanding and truth. Dialogue also has three phases. In the first phase, which we never completely outgrow, we unlearn misinformation about each other and begin to know each other as we truly are. In phase two we begin to discern values in our partner's tradition and wish to appropriate them into our own. If we are serious, persistent and sensitive enough in the dialogue, we may at times enter into phase three. Here we together begin to explore new areas of reality, of meaning, of truth -- aspects which neither or us had even been aware of before. We are brought face to face with these new, still unknown dimensions of reality through questions, insights, probings produced in the dialogue. We will experience for ourselves that dialogue patiently pursued can become an instrument of new "re-velation," a further "un-veiling" of reality -- on which we must then act. 

The 1960s were a momentous turning-point decade for the entire world: 1) American Catholics broke out of their ghetto in the election of President Kennedy; 2) the American civil rights movement began a transformation of the Western psyche; 3) the anti-war, environmentalist, anti-Establishment and related movements in the West brought the transformation to a fever pitch; 4) through Vatican Council II (1962-65) the Catholic Church leapt into modernity, and edged even beyond. 

The Copernican turn that occurred in the Catholic Church at Vatican II took place in five major ways: 

a) The turn toward freedom 

The image Catholicism projected at the end of the 1950s was of a giant monolith, a community of hundreds of millions who held obedience in both action and thought as the highest virtue. If the pope said, "have babies," Catholics had babies; if he said, "don't associate with Protestants and Jews," Catholics avoided them like the plague; if he said, "believe in papal infallibility, in Marian dogmas," they believed. For a hundred years (but really not much more than that!) Catholics were treated like children in the Church, acted like children, and thought of themselves as children. 

With the Second Vatican Council, however, this very unfree image, and reality, was utterly transformed. Suddenly it seemed humanity, including Catholics, became aware of their "coming of age," hence, their freedom and responsibility. This was clearly expressed in many places, but perhaps nowhere clear than in the "Declaration on Religious Liberty." 

b) The turn toward the historical/dynamic 

For centuries the thinking of official Catholicism was dominated by a static understanding of reality; it resisted not only the democratic and human rights movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also the growing historical, dynamic way of understanding the world, including religious thought. 

That changed dramatically with Vatican II where the historical, dynamic view of reality and doctrine was officially fully embraced (unfortunately the present leadership largely resists that radical turn).⁽¹⁷⁾ 

c) The turn toward inner reform 

Since the sixteenth century, inside the Catholic Church even the word "reform" was forbidden, to say nothing of the reality (there were periods of notable exception,⁽¹⁸⁾ but they were largely obliterated -- even from Catholic church history textbooks!). At the beginning of the twentieth century Pope Pius X, leapfrogging back to his prior predecessor, Pope Pius XI (pronounced in Italian, "Pio No-no"), launched the heresy-hunting Inquisition of Anti-Modernism, crushing all creative thought in Catholicism for decades. In the middle of the twentieth century leading theologians were again censured and silenced (e.g., Jean Danielou, Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, John Courtney Murray, Karl Rahner). 

But Pope Saint John XXIII (so canonized by the traditional method of popular acclamation by the "Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church -- ARCC) burst those binding chains and called the Second Vatican Council. He spoke about "throwing open the windows of the Vatican" to let in fresh thought, about Aggiornamento, about bringing the Church "up to date." 

Indeed, the Vatican II documents even used that neuralgic word "reformation": "Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need"; "ALL [Catholics] are led to...wherever necessary, undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform," and insisted that ALL Catholics' "primary duty is to make an honest and careful appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and achieved in the Catholic household itself" (Decree on Ecumenism). 

d) The turn toward this world 

Until very recently the term "salvation" was understood exclusively to mean going to heaven after death; its root meaning from salus of a "full, healthy life" was largely lost in Christianity after the third century.⁽¹⁹⁾ Marx was not far from the mark when he claimed that Christianity (and religion in general) was mainly concerned about "pie in the sky bye and bye." But that focus shifted radically with Vatican II, especially as reflected in the document "The Church in the Modern World," which in effect, though without the name, launched Liberation Theology. 

e) The turn toward dialogue 

For centuries, especially since the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has been largely trapped in a kind of solipsism, talking only to itself, and shaking its finger at the rest of the world. When, e.g., a committee of Protestant churchmen shortly after World War I visited Pope Benedict XV to invite the Catholic Church to join in launching the Ecumenical Movement to work for Church reunion, he told them that he was happy they were finally concerned about Church unity, but that he already had the solution to the problem of Christian division: "Come home to mama!" The forbidding of Catholic participation in dialogue was subsequently constantly repeated (e.g., 1928 Mortalium animos, 1948 "Monitum," 1949 "Instructio," 1954 barring of Catholics at the Evanston, IL World Council of Churches World Assembly).⁽²⁰⁾ 

Again, Saint John XXIII and Vatican II changed all that navel-staring radically. Ecumenism was now not only not forbidden, but was said to"pertain to the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike. It extends to everyone" (Decree on Ecumenism). As noted above, Pope Paul VI issued his first encyclical (Ecclesiam suam, 1964), specifically on dialogue, stating that "Dialogue is demanded nowadays...." 

This turn toward dialogue naturally was directed toward the first obvious dialogue partners for Catholics: Fellow Christians, Protestants and Orthodox. But this turn from an inward gazing outward had its own inner dynamic: why stop at talking with Protestants and Orthodox; why not continue on to dialogue with Jews, and then Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and even non-believers? And so it is now happening in an explosion of interreligious-interideological dialogue of exponentially increasing magnitude. One need only look at the flood of books now appearing in the field. 

Moreover, this dimension of the Copernican turn will be at least as radical in its creative transformation of Catholic, Christian, self-understanding as the other four, and hence will profoundly affect all aspects of Christian life. For example, since in this new Age of Dialogue we Christians understand that our Jewish or Muslim neighbors can be "saved" without becoming Christian, our relationship to them ceases being one of "convert-making," and becomes one of dialogue and cooperation. 

What is this structure of consciousness and how does it differ from pre-Axial consciousness? Prior to the Axial Period the dominant form of consciousness was cosmic, collective, tribal, mythic, and ritualistic. This is the characteristic form of consciousness of primal peoples. It is true that between these traditional cultures and the Axial Period there emerged great empires in Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia, but they did not yet produce the full consciousness of the Axial Period. 

The consciousness of the tribal cultures was intimately related to the cosmos and to the fertility cycles of nature. Thus there was established a rich and creative harmony between primal peoples and the world of nature, a harmony which was explored, expressed, and celebrated in myth and ritual. Just as they felt themselves part of nature, so they experienced themselves as part of the tribe. It was precisely the web of interrelationships within the tribe that sustained them psychologically, energizing all aspects of their lives. To be separated from the tribe threatened them with death, not only physical but psychological as well. However, their relation to the collectivity often did not extend beyond their own tribe, for they often looked upon other tribes as hostile. Yet within their tribe they felt organically related to their group as a whole, to the life cycles of birth and death and to nature and the cosmos. 

The Axial Period ushered in a radically new form of consciousness. Whereas primal consciousness was tribal, Axial consciousness was individual. "Know thyself" became the watchword of Greece; the Upanishads identified the atman, the transcendent center of the self. The Buddha charted the way of individual enlightenment; the Jewish prophets awakened individual moral responsibility. This sense of individual identity, as distinct from the tribe and from nature, is the most characteristic mark of Axial consciousness. 

From this flow other characteristics: consciousness which is self-reflective, analytic, and which can be applied to nature in the form of scientific theories, to society in the form of social critique, to knowledge in the form of philosophy, to religion in the form of mapping an individual spiritual journey. This self-reflective, analytic, critical consciousness stood in sharp contrast to primal mythic and ritualistic consciousness. When self-reflective logos emerged in the Axial Period, it tended to oppose the traditional mythos. Of course, mythic and ritualistic forms of consciousness survive in the post-Axial Period even to this day, but they are often submerged, surfacing chiefly in dreams, literature, and art. 

Following the lead of Ewert Cousins, if we shift our gaze from the first millennium B.C.E. to the eve of the twenty-first century, we can discern another transformation of consciousness, which is so profound and far-reaching that he calls it the Second Axial Period.⁽²⁴⁾ Like the first it is happening simultaneously around the earth, and like the first it will shape the horizon of consciousness for future centuries. Not surprisingly, too, it will have great significance for world religions, which were constituted in the First Axial Period. However, the new form of consciousness is different from that of the First Axial Period. Then it was individual consciousness, now it is global consciousness. 

In order to understand better the forces at work in the Second Axial Period, Cousins draws from the thought of the paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.⁽²⁵⁾ In the light of his research in evolution, he charted the development of consciousness from its roots in the geosphere and biosphere and into the future. In a process which he calls "planetization," he observed that a shift in the forces of evolution had occurred over the past hundred years. This shift is from divergence to convergence. When human beings first appeared on this planet, they clustered together in family and tribal units, forming their own group identity and separating themselves from other tribes. In this way humans diverged, creating separate nations and a rich variety of cultures. 

However, the spherical shape of the earth prevented unlimited divergence. With the increase in population and the rapid development of communication, groups could no longer remain apart. After dominating the process for millennia, the forces of divergence have been superseded by those of convergence. This shift to convergence is drawing the various cultures into a single planetized community. Although we have been conditioned by thousands of years of divergence, we now have no other course open to us but to cooperate creatively with the forces of convergence as these are drawing us toward global consciousness.⁽²⁶⁾ 

According to Teilhard this new global consciousness will not level all differences among peoples; rather it will generate what he calls creative unions in which diversity is not erased but intensified. His understanding of creative unions is based on his general theory of evolution and the dynamic which he observes throughout the universe. From the geosphere to the biosphere to the realm of consciousness, a single process is at work, which he articulates as the law of "complexity-consciousness" and "union differentiates." 

"In any domain," he says, "whether it be the cells of a body, the members of a society or the elements of a spiritual synthesis -- union differentiates."⁽²⁷⁾ From subatomic particles to global consciousness, individual elements unite in what Teilhard calls center to center unions. By touching each other at the creative core of their being, they release new energy which leads to more complex units. Greater complexity leads to greater interiority which, in turn, leads to more creative unions. Throughout the process, the individual elements do not lose their identity, but rather deepen and fulfill it through union. "Following the confluent orbits of their center," he says, "the grains of consciousness do not tend to lose their outlines and blend, but, on the contrary, to accentuate the depth and incommunicability of their egos. The more `other' they become in conjunction, the more they find themselves as `self.'"⁽²⁸⁾ At this point of history, because of the shift from divergence to convergence, the forces of planetization are bringing about an unprecedented complexification of consciousness through the convergence of cultures and religions. 

In the light of Teilhard's thought, then, we can better understand the meeting of religions on the eve of the twenty-first century. The world religions are the product of the First Axial Period and the forces of divergence. Although in the first millennium B.C.E., there was a common transformation of consciousness, it occurred in diverse geographical regions within already differentiated cultures. In each case the religion was shaped by this differentiation in its origin, and developed along differentiated lines. This produced a remarkable richness of spiritual wisdom, of spiritual energies and of religious-cultural forms to express, preserve, and transmit this heritage. However, now that the forces of divergence have shifted to convergence, the religions must meet each other in center to center unions, discovering what is most authentic in each other, thereby releasing creative energy toward a more complexified form of religious consciousness. 

Such a creative encounter has been called the "dialogic dialogue" to distinguish it from the dialectic dialogue in which one tries to refute the claims of the other.⁽²⁹⁾ This dialogic dialogue has three phases: 

(1) The partners meet each other in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other. 

(2) The partners are mutually enriched, by passing over into the consciousness of the other so that each can experience the other's values from within the other's perspective. This can be enormously enriching, for often the partners discover in another tradition values which are submerged or only inchoate in their own. It is important at this point to respect the autonomy of the other tradition: in Teilhard's terms, to achieve union in which differences are valued as a basis of creativity. 

(3) If such a creative union is achieved, then the religions will have moved into the complexified form of consciousness that will be characteristic of the twenty-first century. This will be complexified global consciousness, not a mere universal, undifferentiated, abstract consciousness. It will be global through the global convergence of cultures and religions and complexified by the dynamics of dialogic dialogue. 

This global consciousness, complexified through the meeting of cultures and religions, is only one characteristic of the Second Axial Period. The consciousness of this period is global in another sense, namely, in rediscovering its roots in the earth. At the very moment when the various cultures and religions are meeting each other and creating a new global community, our life on the planet is being threatened. The very tools which we have used to bring about this convergence -- industrialization and technology -- are undercutting the biological support system that sustains life on our planet. The future of consciousness, even life on the earth, is shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty. 

Cousins is not suggesting a romantic attempt to live in the past, rather that the evolution of consciousness proceeds by way of recapitulation. Having developed self-reflective, analytic, critical consciousness in the First Axial Period, we must now, while retaining these values, reappropriate and integrate into that consciousness the collective and cosmic dimensions of the pre-Axial consciousness. We must recapture the unity of tribal consciousness by seeing humanity as a single tribe. And we must see this single tribe related organically to the total cosmos. 

This means that the consciousness of the twenty-first century will be global from two perspectives: 

(1) from a horizontal perspective, cultures and religions must meet each other on the surface of the globe, entering into creative encounters that will produce a complexified collective consciousness; 

(2) from a vertical perspective, they must plunge their roots deep into the earth in order to provide a stable and secure base for future development. This new global consciousness must be organically ecological, supported by structures that will insure justice and peace. The voices of the oppressed must be heard and heeded: the poor, women, racial and ethnic minorities. These groups, along with the earth itself, can be looked upon as the prophets and teachers of the Second Axial Period. This emerging twofold global consciousness is not only a creative possibility to enhance the twenty-first century; it is an absolute necessity if we are to survive. 

As the 20th century drew to a close, however, all of those ways of relating become increasingly impossible to sustain. For example: What happened in other cultures quickly led young men and women of the West to die on the volcanic ash of Iwo Jima or the desert sands of Kuwait. But more than that, the "West" could no longer escape what was done in the "First World," such as the production of acid rain, in the "Second World," such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident, or in the "Third World," such as the mass destruction of the Amazon rain forest, "the world's lungs." 

At the same time the world has been slowly, painfully emerging from the millennia-long Age of Monologue into the Age of Dialogue. As noted above, until beginning a century or so ago, each religion, and then ideology -- each culture -- tended to be very certain that it alone had the complete "explanation of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly." Then through the series of revolutions in understanding, which began in the West but ultimately spread more and more throughout the whole world, the limitedness of all statements about the meaning of things began to dawn on isolated thinkers, and then increasingly on the middle and even grass-roots levels of humankind: The epistemological revolutions of historicism, pragmatism, sociology of knowledge, language analysis, hermeneutics, and finally dialogue. 

Now that it is more and more understood that the Muslim, Christian, secularist, Buddhist, etc. perception of the meaning of things is necessarily limited, the Muslim, Christian, secularist, etc. increasingly feels not only no longer driven to replace, or at least dominate, all other religions, ideologies, cultures, but even drawn to enter into dialogue with them, so as to expand, deepen, enrich each of their necessarily limited perceptions of the meaning of things. Thus, often with squinting, blurry eyes, humankind is emerging from the relative darkness of the "Age of Monologue" into the dawning "Age of Dialogue" -- dialogue understood as a conversation with someone who differs from us primarily so we can learn, because of course since we now growingly realize that our understanding of the meaning of reality is necessarily limited, we might learn more about reality's meaning through someone else's perception of it. 

More than that, however, I am persuaded that what humankind is entering into now is not just the latest in a long series of major paradigm-shifts, as Hans Küng has so carefully and clearly analyzed. I am also persuaded that it is even more than the massive move into the consciousness transforming Second Axial Period, as Ewert Cousins has so thoroughly demonstrated. Beyond these two radical shifts, though of course including both of them, humankind is emerging out of the "from-the beginning-till-now" millennia-long "Age of Monologue" into the newly dawning "Age of Dialogue." 

The turn toward dialogue is, in my judgment, the most fundamental, the most radical and utterly transformative of the key elements of the newly emerging paradigm, which Hans Küng has so penetratingly outlined, and which Ewert Cousins also perceptively discerns as one of the central constituents of the Second Axial Age. Something remarkable happens when we experience the depth of personal and communal dialogical awakening. There is a profound shift in how we perceive our selves, our lives, our priorities, our relationships, our world. The dialogical awakening removes obstructions that tend to cloud our global vision as it releases passionate moral energy, intensified social responsibility, and a deepened spirituality. Such intensive encounters provide participants with the vision and energy to translate this dialogical potency and passion into socially responsible action. 

However, this shift from monologue to dialogue constitutes such a radical reversal in human consciousness, is so utterly new in the history of humankind from the beginning, that it must be designated as literally "revolutionary," that is, it turns everything absolutely around. 

Up until almost the present just about all were convinced that they alone had the absolute truth. Because all were certain that they had the truth -- otherwise they wouldn't have held that position -- therefore others who thought differently necessarily held falsehood. But with the growing understanding that all perceptions of and statements about reality were -- even if true -- necessarily limited (the opposite of "ab-solute," that is, literally "un-limited"), the permission, and even the necessity, for dialogue with those who thought differently from us became increasingly apparent. 

Thus dialogue -- which is a conversation with those who think differently, the primary purpose of which is for me to learn from the other -- is a whole new way of thinking in human history. 

I say ethic in the singular rather than ethics in the plural, because what is needed is not a full blown global ethics in great detail -- indeed, such would not even be possible -- but a global consensus on the fundamental attitude toward good and evil and the basic and middle principles to put it into action. Clearly also, this ethic must be global. It will not be sufficient to have a common ethic for Westerners or Africans or Asians, etc. The destruction, for example, of the ozone layer or the loosing of a destructive gene mutation by any one group will be disastrous for all. 

I say also that this UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF A GLOBAL ETHIC must be arrived at by consensus through dialogue. Attempts at the imposition of a unitary ethics by various kinds of force have been had aplenty, and they have inevitably fallen miserably short of globality. The most recent failures can be seen in the widespread collapse of communism, and in an inverse way in the resounding rejection of secularism by resurgent Islamism. 

That the need for a global ethic is most urgent is becoming increasingly apparent to all; humankind no longer has the luxury of letting such an ethic slowly and haphazardly grow by itself, as it willy nilly will gradually happen. It is vital that there be a conscious focusing of energy on such a development. Immediate action is necessary: 

• 1) Every scholarly institution, whether related to a religion or ideology or not, needs to press its experts of the widest variety of disciplines to use their creativity among themselves and in conjunction with scholars from other institutions, both religiously related and not, in formulating a Global Ethic. 
• 2) Every major religion and ethical group needs to commission its expert scholars to focus their research and reflection on articulating a Global Ethic from the perspective of their religion or ethical group -- in dialogue with all other religions and ethical groups. 
• 3) Collaborative "Working Groups," of scholars in the field of ethics which are very deliberately interreligious, interideological need to be formed specifically to tackle this momentous task, and those which already exist need to focus their energies on it. 
• 4) Beyond that there needs to be a major permanent Global Ethic Research Center, which will have some of the best experts from the world's major religions and ethical groups in residence, perhaps for years at a stretch, pursuing precisely this topic in its multiple ramifications. 

After the initial period, which doubtless would last several years, the "Global Ethic Research Center" could serve as an authoritative religious and ideological scholarly locus to which always-new specific problems of a global ethic could be submitted for evaluation, analysis and response. The weightiness of the responses would be "substantive," not "formal." That is, its solutions would carry weight because of their inherent persuasiveness coming from their intellectual and spiritual insight and wisdom. 

a) Principles of a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic 

Let me first offer some suggestions of the general notions that I believe ought to shape a UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF GLOBAL ETHIC, and then offer a tentative draft constructed in their light: 

• 3. The affirmations should be dynamic in form in the sense that they will be susceptible to being sublated (aufgehoben), that is, they might properly be reinterpreted by being taken up into a larger framework. 
• 4. The Declaration needs to set inviolable minimums, but also open-ended maximums to be striven for; but maximums may not be required, for it might violate the freedom-minimums of some persons. 
• 5. It could well start with -- though not limit itself to -- elements of the so-called "Golden Rule": Treat others as we would be treated. 

 

Excursus: the "Golden Rule" 

A glimpse of just how pervasive the "Golden Rule" is, albeit in various forms and expressions, in the world's religions and ideologies, great and small, can be garnered from this partial listing: 
• a) Perhaps the oldest recorded version -- which is cast in a positive form -- stems from Zoroaster (628-551 B.C.E.): "That which is good for all and any one, for whomsoever -- that is good for me...what I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal is true Law" (Gathas, 43.1). 
• b) Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.), when asked "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" said: "Do not to others what you do not want done to yourself" (Analects, 12.2 & 15.23). Confucius also stated in a variant version: "What I do not wish others to do to me, that also I wish not to do to them" (Analects, 5.11).
• c) The founder of Jainism was Vardhamana, known as Mahavira ("Great Hero -- 540-468 B.C.E.); the various scriptures of Jainism, however, derived from a later period: "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated" (Sutrakri-tanga 1.11.33). "One who you think should be hit is none else but you.... Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so" (Acarangasutra 5.101-2).
• d) The founder of Buddhism was Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha ("Enlightened One" -- 563-483 B.C.E.); the various scriptures of Buddhism also derived from a later period: "Comparing oneself to others in such terms as `Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I,' he should neither kill nor cause others to kill" Sutta Nipata 705). "Here am I fond of my life, not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose someone should rob me of my life.... If I in turn should rob of his life one fond of his life.... How could I inflict that upon another?" (Samyutta Nikaya v.353). 
• e) The Hindu epic poem, the 3rd-century B.C.E. Mahabharata, states that its "Golden Rule," which is expressed in both positive and negative form, is the summary of all Hindu teaching, "the whole Dharma": "Vyasa says: Do not to others what you do not wish done to yourself; and wish for others too what you desire and long for for yourself -- this is the whole of Dharma; heed it well" (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8). 
• f) In the biblical book of Leviticus (composed in the fifth century B.C.E., though some of its material may be more ancient) the Hebrew version of the "Golden Rule" is stated positively: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19: 18). 
• g) The deuterocanonical biblical Tobit was written around the year 200 B.C.E. and contains a negative version -- as most are -- of the "Golden Rule": "Never do to anyone else anything that you would not want someone to do to you" (Tobit 4:15).
• h) The major founder of Rabbinic Judaism, Hillel, who lived about a generation before Jesus, though he may also have been his teacher, taught that the "Golden Rule" -- his version being both positive and negative -- was the heart of the Torah; "all the rest was commentary": "Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself" (Btalmud, Shabbath 31a). 
• i) Following in this Jewish tradition, Jesus stated the "Golden Rule" in a positive form, saying that it summed up the whole Torah and prophets: "Do for others just what you want them to do for you" (Luke 6:31); "Do for others what you want them to do for you: this is the meaning of the Law of Moses [Torah] and of the teachings of the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). 
• j) In the seventh century of the Common Era Mohammed is said to have claimed that the "Golden Rule" is the "noblest Religion": "Noblest Religion is this -- that you should like for others what you like for yourself; and what you feel painful for yourself, hold that as painful for all others too." Again: "No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."⁽³⁰⁾
• k) The "Golden Rule" is likewise found in some non-literate religions: "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts"⁽³¹⁾ 
• l) The eighteenth-century Western philosopher Immanuel Kant provided a "rational" version of the "Golden Rule" in his famous "Categorical Imperative," or "Law of Universal Fairness": "Act on maxims which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws of nature.... Treat humanity in every case as an end, never as a means only."⁽³²⁾ 
• m) The late nineteenth-century founder of Baha'ism, Baha'ullah, wrote: "He should not wish for others that which he doth not wish for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfill."⁽³³⁾ 
• n) In 1915 a new version of Buddhism, Won Buddhism, was founded in Korea by the Great Master Sotaesan. In the teachings he left behind are found variants of the "Golden Rule": "Be right yourself before you correct others. Instruct yourself first before you teach others. Do favors for others before you seek favors from them." "Ordinary people may appear smart in doing things only for themselves, but they are really suffering a loss. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas may appear to be stupid in doing things only for others, but eventually they benefit themselves."⁽³⁴⁾ 

Authentic egoism and authentic altruism then are not in conflict with each other; the former necessarily moves to the latter, even possibly "giving one's life for one's friend." This, however, is the last and highest stage of human development. It is the stage of the (w)holy person, the saint, the arahat, the bodhisattva, the sage. Such a stage cannot be the foundation of human society; it must be the goal of it. The foundation of human society must be first authentic self-love, which includes moving outward to loving others. 

Not recognizing this foundation of authentic self-love is the fundamental flaw of those idealistic systems, such as communism, that try to build a society on the foundation of altruism. A human and humanizing society should lead toward (w)holiness, toward altruism, but it cannot be built on the assumption that its citizens are (w)holy and altruistic to start with. Such an altruism must grow out of an ever developing authentic self-love; it cannot be assumed, and surely it cannot be forced (as has been tried for decades -- with disastrous dehumanizing results). 

6. As humans ineluctably seek ever more knowledge, truth, so too they seek to draw what they perceive as the good to themselves (that is, they love). Usually this self is expanded to include the family, and then friends. It needs to continue its natural expansion to the community, nation, world and cosmos, and the source and goal of all reality. 

7. But this human love necessarily must start with self-love, for one can love one's "neighbor" only AS one loves oneself; but since one becomes human only by inter-human mutuality, loving others fulfills one's own humanity, and hence is also the greatest act of authentic self-love. 

8. Another aspect of the "Golden Rule" is that humans are always to be treated as ends, never as mere means, i.e., as subjects, never as mere objects. 

9. Yet another implication of the "Golden Rule" is that those who cannot protect themselves ought to be protected by those who can. 

10. A further ring of the expanding circles of the "Golden Rule" is that non-human beings are also to be reverenced and treated with respect because of their being. 

11. It is important that not only basic but also middle ethical principles be spelled out in this Declaration. Although most of the middle ethical principles that need to be articulated in this Declaration are already embedded in juridical form in the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is vital that the religions and ethical traditions expressly state and approve them. Then the world, including both adherents and outsiders of the various religions and ethical traditions, will know what ethical standards all are committing themselves to. 

12. If a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic is to be meaningful and effective, however, its framers must resist the temptation to pack too many details and special interests into it. It can function best as a kind of "constitutional" set of basic and middle ethical principles from which more detailed applications can be constantly be drawn. 

b) A Plan of Action 

Such general suggestions need to be discussed, confirmed, rejected, modified, supplemented. Beyond that, it is vital that all the disciplines contribute what from their perspectives ought to be included in the Declaration, how that should be formulated, what is to be avoided -- and this is beginning to happen. The year 1993 was the 100th anniversary of the 1893 World Parliament of Religions which took place in Chicago and marked the beginning of what became world-wide interreligious dialogue. As a consequence, a number of international conferences have been taking place and in the center of them has been the launching and developing of a UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF A GLOBAL ETHIC. 

The first was held in New Delhi, India in February, 1993; the second in August of the same year in Bangalore, India and the third that year in September in Chicago. For that huge (over 6,000 participants) September 1993 Chicago "Parliament of the World's Religions" Professor Hans Küng drafted a document entitled "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic," which the Parliament adopted.⁽³⁶⁾ 

Beyond that, the text given below, after having been commissioned by the January 1992 meeting in Atlanta, Georgia of the "International Scholars' Annual Trialogue-ISAT" (Jewish-Christian-Muslim) was drafted by Professor Leonard Swidler and submitted to and analyzed at the January, 1993 meeting of ISAT in Graz, Austria; it was focused on during the spring 1993 semester graduate seminar Leonard Swidler held at Temple University entitled: "Global Ethics-Human Rights-World Religions"; it was also a major focus of the "First International Conference on Universalism" in August, 1993, in Warsaw; a Consultation of the American Academy of Religion in November, 1993, in Washington D.C. was devoted to the topic; the sixth "International Scholars' Annual Trialogue" in January, 1994, concentrated for a second year on the Universal Declaration; in May, 1994, it was the subject of a conference sponsored by the "International Association of Asian Philosophy and Religion -- IAAPR" in Seoul, Korea; the "World Conference on Religion and Peace -- WCRP" in part focused on it in its fall, 1994 World Assembly in Rome/Riva del Garda, Italy; and on June 20-21, 1995, it was the subject of a conference in San Francisco in honor of the "Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of the United Nations," entitled: "Celebrating the Spirit: Towards a Global Ethic." 

At the same time it is imperative that various religious and ethical communities and geographical regions work on discussing and drafting their own versions of a possible text for a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic. The draft given below and the one drawn up by Hans Küng should certainly be made use of in this process. But all communities and regions need to make their own contributions to the final Declaration, and in the process of wrestling with the issue and forging the wording they will make the concern for a global ethic their own, and will thus better be able to mediate it to their "constituents" and enhance the likelihood of the Declaration in fact being adhered to in practice. 

What needs to be stressed as well, however, is that such a project cannot be carried out only by the scholars and leaders of the world's religious and ethical communities, though obviously the vigorous participation of these elements is vital. The ideas and sensitivities must also come from the grassroots. 

Moreover, it is also at the grassroots, as well at the levels of scholars and leaders, that, first, consciousnesses must be raised on the desperate need for the conscious development of a Global Ethic, and then conviction of its validity must be gained. The most carefully thought out and sensitively crafted Declaration will be of no use if those who are to adhere to it do not believe in it. A Global Ethic must work on all three levels: scholars, leaders, grassroots. Otherwise it will not work at all! 

As a stimulus to this discussion, I offer the following tentative draft of a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic, already revised many times after consultation with scholars and grass-roots from many religious traditions, including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs and Bahais. 

I. RATIONALE 

We women and men from various ethical and religious traditions commit ourselves to the following Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic. We speak here not of ethics in the plural, which implies rather great detail, but of ethic in the singular, i.e., the fundamental attitude toward good and evil, and the basic and middle principles needed to put it into action. 

We make this commitment not despite our differences but arising out of our distinct perspectives, recognizing nevertheless in our diverse ethical and religious traditions common convictions that lead us to speak out against all forms of inhumanity and for humaneness in our treatment of ourselves, one another and the world around us. We find in each of our traditions: 

• a) grounds in support of universal human rights, 
• b) a call to work for justice and peace, and 
• c) concern for conservation of the earth. 

We are convinced that a just global order can be built only upon a global ethic which clearly states universally-recognized norms and principles, and that such an ethic presumes a readiness and intention on the part of people to act justly -- that is, a movement of the heart. Secondly, a global ethic requires a thoughtful presentation of principles that are held up to open investigation and critique -- a movement of the head. 

Each of our traditions holds commitments beyond what is expressed here, but we find that within our ethical and religious traditions the world community is in the process of discovering elements of a fundamental minimal consensus on ethics which is convincing to all women and men of good will, religious and nonreligious alike, and which will provide us with a moral framework within which we can relate to ourselves, each other and the world in a just and respectful manner. 

In order to build a humanity-wide consensus we find it is essential to develop and use a language that is humanity-based, though each religious and ethical tradition also has its own language for what is expressed in this Declaration. 

Furthermore, none of our traditions, ethical or religious, is satisfied with minimums, vital as they are; rather, because humans are endlessly self-transcending, our traditions also provide maximums to be striven for. Consequently, this Declaration does the same. The maximums, however, clearly are ideals to be striven for, and therefore cannot be required, lest the essential freedoms and rights of some thereby be violated. 
 

II. PRESUPPOSITIONS 

As a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic, which we believe must undergird any affirmation of human rights and respect for the earth, this document affirms and supports the rights and corresponding responsibilities enumerated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. In conjunction with that first United Nations Declaration we believe there are five general presuppositions which are indispensable for a global ethic: 

• a) Every human possesses inalienable and inviolable dignity; individuals, states, and other social entities are obliged to respect and protect the dignity of each person. 
• b) No person or social entity exists beyond the scope of morality; everyone -- individuals and social organizations -- is obliged to do good and avoid evil. 
• c) Humans are endowed with reason and conscience -- the great challenge of being human is to act conscientiously; communities, states and other social organizations are obliged to protect and foster these capabilities. 
• d) Communities, states and other social organizations which contribute to the good of humans and the world have a right to exist and flourish; this right should be respected by all. 
• e) Humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature; ethical concerns extend beyond humanity to the rest of the earth, and indeed the cosmos. In brief: this Declaration, in reflection of reality, is not just anthropo-centric, but cosmo-anthropo-centric. 

We propose the Golden Rule, which for thousands of years has been affirmed in many religious and ethical traditions, as a fundamental principle upon which to base a global ethic: "What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others," or in positive terms, "What you wish done to yourself, do to others." This rule should be valid not only for one's own family, friends, community and nation, but also for all other individuals, families, communities, nations, the entire world, the cosmos. 

IV. BASIC PRINCIPLES 

1. Because freedom is of the essence of being human, every person is free to exercise and develop every capacity, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of other persons or express a lack of due respect for things living or non-living. In addition, human freedom should be exercised in such a way as to enhance both the freedom of all humans and due respect for all things, living and non-living. 

• 2. Because of their inherent equal dignity, all humans should always be treated as ends, never as mere means. In addition, all humans in every encounter with others should strive to enhance to the fullest the intrinsic dignity of all involved. 
• 3. Although humans have greater intrinsic value than non-humans, all such things, living and non-living, do possess intrinsic value simply because of their existence and, as such, are to be treated with due respect. In addition, all humans in every encounter with non-humans, living and non-living, should strive to respect them to the fullest of their intrinsic value. 
• 4. As humans necessarily seek ever more truth, so too they seek to unite themselves, that is, their "selves," with what they perceive as the good: in brief, they love. Usually this "self" is expanded/transcended to include their own family and friends, seeking the good for them. In addition, as with the Golden Rule, this loving/loved "self" needs to continue its natural expansion/transcendence to embrace the community, nation, world, and cosmos. 
• 5. Thus true human love is authentic self-love and other-love co-relatively linked in such a way that ultimately it is drawn to become all-inclusive. This expansive and inclusive nature of love should be recognized as an active principle in personal and global interaction. 
• 6. Those who hold responsibility for others are obliged to help those for whom they hold responsibility. In addition, the Golden Rule implies: If we were in serious difficulty wherein we could not help ourselves, we would want those who could help us to do so, even if they held no responsibility for us; therefore we should help others in serious difficulty who cannot help themselves, even though we hold no responsibility for them. 
• 7. Because all humans are equally entitled to hold their religion or belief -- i.e., their explanation of the ultimate meaning of life and how to live accordingly -- as true, every human's religion or belief should be granted its due freedom and respect. 
• 8. In addition, dialogue -- i.e., conversation whose primary aim is to learn from the other -- is a necessary means whereby women and men learn to respect the other, ceaselessly to expand and deepen their own explanation of the meaning of life, and to develop an ever broadening consensus whereby men and women can live together on this globe in an authentically human manner. 

 

The following "Middle Ethical Principles" are in fact those which underlie the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally approved by almost every nation in the world. 

1. Legal Rights/Responsibilities: 

Because all humans have an inherent equal dignity, all should be treated equally before the law and provided with its equal protection. 

At the same time, all individuals and communities should follow all just laws, obeying not only the letter but most especially the spirit. 

2. Rights/Responsibilities Concerning Conscience and Religion or Belief: 

Because humans are thinking, and therefore essentially free-deciding beings, all have the right to freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religion or belief. 

3. Rights/Responsibilities Concerning Speech and Information: 

Because humans are thinking beings with the ability to perceive reality and express it, all individuals and communities have both the right and the responsibility, as far as possible, to learn the truth and express it honestly. 

At the same time everyone should avoid cover-ups, distortions, manipulations of others and inappropriate intrusions into personal privacy; this freedom and responsibility is especially true of the mass media, artists, scientists, politicians and religious leaders. 
 

Because humans are free-deciding beings, all adults have the right to a voice, direct or indirect, in all decisions that affect them, including a meaningful participation in choosing their leaders and holding them accountable, as well as the right of equal access to all leadership positions for which their talents qualify them. 

At the same time, all humans should strive to exercise their right, and obligation, to participate in self-governance as to produce maximum benefit, widely understood, for both themselves and their fellow humans. 
 

Because women and men are inherently equal and all men and women have an equal right to the full development of all their talents as well as the freedom to marry, with equal rights for all women and men in living out or dissolving marriage. 

At the same time, all men and women should act toward each other outside of and within marriage in ways that will respect the intrinsic dignity, equality, freedom and responsibilities of themselves and others. 
 

Because humans are free, bodily and social in nature, all individual humans and communities have the right to own property of various sorts. 

At the same time, society should be so organized that property will be dealt with respectfully, striving to produce maximum benefit not only for the owners but also for their fellow humans, as well as for the world at large. 
 

Because to lead an authentic human life all humans should normally have both meaningful work and recreative leisure, individuals and communities should strive to organize society so as to provide these two dimensions of an authentic human life both for themselves and all the members of their communities. 

At the same time, all individuals have an obligation to work appropriately for their recompense, and, with all communities, to strive for ever more creative work and re-creative leisure for themselves, their communities, and other individuals and communities. 
 

Children are first of all not responsible for their coming into existence or for their socialization and education; their parents are. Where for whatever reason they fail, the wider community, relatives and civil community, have an obligation to provide the most humane care possible, physical, mental, moral/spiritual and social, for children. 

Because humans can become authentically human only through education in the broad sense, and today increasingly can flourish only with extensive education in the formal sense, all individuals and communities should strive to provide an education for all children and adult women and men which is directed to the full development of the human person, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the promotion of understanding, dialogue and friendship among all humans -- regardless of racial, ethnic, religious, belief, sexual or other differences -- and respect for the earth. 

At the same time, all individuals and communities have the obligation to contribute appropriately to providing the means necessary for this education for themselves and their communities, and beyond that to strive to provide the same for all humans. 
 

Because peace as both the absence of violence and the presence of justice for all humans is the necessary condition for the complete development of the full humanity of all humans, individually and communally, all individuals and communities should strive constantly to further the growth of peace on all levels, personal, interpersonal, local, regional, national and international, granting that 
a) the necessary basis of peace is justice for all concerned; 

b) violence is to be vigorously avoided, being resorted to only when its absence would cause a greater evil; 

c) when peace is ruptured, all efforts should be bent to its rapid restoration -- on the necessary basis of justice for all. 

At the same time, it should be recognized that peace, like liberty, is a positive value which should be constantly cultivated, and therefore all individuals and communities should make the necessary prior efforts not only to avoid its break-down but also to strengthen its steady development and growth. 
 

Because things, living and non-living, have an intrinsic value simply because of their existence, and also because humans cannot develop fully as humans, or even survive, if the environment is severely damaged, all individuals and communities should respect the ecosphere within which "we all live, move and have our being," and act so that 
a) nothing, living or non-living, will be destroyed in its natural form except when used for some greater good, as, for example, the use of plants/animals for food; 

b) if at all possible, only replaceable material will be destroyed in its natural form. 

At the same time, all individuals and communities should constantly be vigilant to protect our fragile universe, particularly from the exploding human population and increasing technological possibilities which threaten it in an ever expanding fashion. (June 14, 1995 Revision⁽³⁷⁾)
 

On March 25-28, 1997 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), headquartered in Paris, held the first meeting of a Committee of philosophers representing a wide range of religious, ethnic, ethical and philosophical traditions to produce a Declaration providing a philosophical basis for a global ethic. At present there is only an initial tentative draft circulating among the Committee members. If accepted at all, it doubtless will be modified to a greater or lesser degree. Nevertheless, it will be useful to present it here -- even though it is extremely tentative -- for it will indicate the direction of the thought of at least a substantial portion of the Committee. 
 

Preamble 

Whereas a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of human beings is that they alone never cease asking "why?"; they inevitably and unquenchably seek the meaning of things, and then strive to live accordingly, 

Whereas humans are capable of knowing both particular things and general abstractions; because they can then consequently make comparisons, they also are capable of free, and therefore likewise responsible, choices, 

Whereas because both the human search for meaning and the human ability fundamentally to make choices freely and responsibly are "in-finite," that is, their horizons stretch out endlessly, the dignity of the human being is correspondingly "in-finite", 

Consequently these reflections on the human reality provide a reasonable basis for the affirmation by the UN 1948 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" of "the dignity and worth of the human person", 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family - which is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world - presupposes and implies certain obligations or responsibilities, 

Whereas the exclusive insistence on rights can result in self-opinionated and self-righteous attitudes, 

Whereas neglect of responsibilities can lead to arbitrariness, lawlessness and chaos, 

Whereas both the rule of law and human rights depend on the readiness of men and women to act justly, because rights without the corresponding commitment to responsibilities cannot long endure, 

Whereas global problems such as poverty, underdevelopment, environmental pollution, population explosion, disease, crime, nuclear proliferation, corruption and fanaticism demand global solutions, and therefore ideas, values and norms valid across all cultures and societies, 

Whereas all human beings, to the best of their knowledge and ability, are responsible for a better global order, which cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone, 

Whereas the aspirations for progress and improvement of the human race on planet earth cannot be safeguarded without a minimal fundamental consensus concerning binding values, irrevocable standards, and fundamental ethical attitudes which apply to all human beings and institutions, 

Now, therefore, 

The General Assembly, 

Proclaims this "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" as a common standard of commitment by all peoples and all nations to the end that every individual and organ of society shall contribute to the authentic autonomy of every individual and the justified requirements of communities. 

We hereby confirm and deepen on the level of an ethic of responsibility what has already been formally proclaimed on the level of rights, namely: the full realization of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, solidarity with each other, and the interdependence of all sentient beings. 

Consciousness of these responsibilities of individuals and institutions are to be founded by education and teaching as well as strengthened and promoted by progressive measures, national and international. 

We further recognize that dialogue - i.e., conversation whose `primary' aim is to learn from the other - is a necessary means whereby women and men learn to respect the other, expand and deepen their understanding of the meaning of life, and develop an ever broadening consensus whereby men and women can live together on this globe in an authentically human manner. 
 

Article 1 

Every human being, regardless of social origin, sex, property, color, language, nationality or religion, ought to be treated humanely. 

All human beings should oppose all forms of inhumanity, especially fanaticism, hate, and social exclusion, and work for greater humaneness. 

No individual human or group of humans, including the state, social class, pressure group, police or military agency stands above the ethical dictates of good and evil. All should behave in a genuinely human fashion, that is: Do good and avoid evil. 

All human beings, endowed with reason and conscience, should act towards one another in a spirit of sisterhood/brotherhood. Therefore, there should be applied to all human beings, both individuals and groups, including among others families, communities, races, nations, and religions, the long-standing principle of so many ethical and religious traditions: What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others. 

Every human being is always to be treated as an end, never as a mere means, always as a subject of rights, never as a mere object, whether in business, politics, communication, scientific research or other areas of life. 

No one, except in the case of self-defense, has the right to injure or to kill. Every human being ought rather to have respect for life. 

Although every human person is infinitely precious and must be unconditionally protected, the lives of animals and plants which inhabit this planet with us likewise deserve protection, preservation, and care. That is, we humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature. Hence, as beings with the capacity of foresight we bear a special responsibility - especially with a view to future generations - for the air, water, and soil, that is, for the earth, and even the cosmos. 

Conflicts ought to be resolved without violence. This principle is valid for all institutions, especially states, as well as for individuals. Particularly public officials are obliged to work within a framework of a just order and to commit themselves, whenever possible, to non-violent, peaceful solutions.