On ethics

After having read what Michel Onfray, Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell had to say on religion and the fragmented moral universe in which we life, I have to say my views on international collaboration and globalisation have suffered.

At one point in the 1980’s I assumed secularisation would continue unbounded but the clashes in various part of the world between the mainstream religions, terror attacks and other tensions around immigration of recent times have put paid to that.

Is is plausible to suggest that distributed networks may be one avenue to seek headway? Is it possible to envisage the articulation of global social and ethical norms that might one day bridge existing chasms will arise from sharing knowledge about cultural norms and practices, and from the fostering of dialogue inhibited by institutions and hierarchies?

More on philosopy

In the History of Western Philosophy Bertrand Russell observed that “modern definitions of truth, such as those of pragmatism and instrumentalism, which are practical rather than contemplative, are inspired by industrialism as opposed to aristocracy” (page 42). The absence of strategic thinking (contemplation) in many contemporary organisations appears to be due to the dominance of pragmatisim, and in my view incrementalism – products of the industrial age. Consequently those that are in effect destitute of the long-term view are comfortable in judging those that articulate foresight as foolish.

And on Protagoras, “man is the measure of all things; of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not” (page 83). So each man in the measure of all things. There is no objective value in truth. There is no objective value in foresight.The absence of objectivity makes the majority – or at least those that dominate – the arbiters of what to believe. Foresight must be expressed in ways that are of practical value to the majority – or to the dominant – to be influential.