With the advent of the industrial age, environmental pollution began to emerge. On the one hand, water, air, and soil were polluted by industrial waste; on the other, natural resources were treated carelessly and squandered without responsibility. Although technological developments have brought many benefits to humanity, they have also given rise to serious harms, including environmental degradation. Through their own actions, human beings have disrupted the balance on land and at sea. As the Qur’an states, “Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what people’s hands have earned” (Surah ar-Rum, 30:41).

As the damage inflicted upon nature began to affect human beings themselves, people gradually came to realize the gravity of their mistakes. In this context, movements aimed at protecting the environment emerged, particularly through the efforts of those who were sensitive to environmental issues. Scientific research revealed that all beings in nature are closely interconnected, and the vital importance of ecosystems for life became more clearly understood. This growing awareness made a significant contribution to the development of environmental consciousness.

Activities carried out under the banner of environmentalism generally aim to restore the disrupted natural balance, prevent pollution, and remedy the corruption and destruction caused thus far. For this reason, such efforts deserve appreciation and support. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that environmentalism has, in some instances, taken on an ideological or political character. In certain cases, environmental concerns may be exploited as a means of confronting those in power or advancing particular political objectives.

Human beings as God’s vicegerents

The issue of the environment is directly connected to humanity’s position in this world. God created human beings as His vicegerents and granted them the authority to intervene in and benefit from created things. However, by virtue of this role, human beings are obliged to act within the framework of God’s commands. Accordingly, they may intervene in existence only in God’s name; they possess no right to arbitrary or self-centered intervention. Just as a person’s own existence does not belong to them, the beings with which they interact are not their property either.

From this perspective, human beings cannot dispose of existence as they wish. They cannot disrupt the order and balance that God has established on earth, nor can they corrupt the harmony of the universe, which has been created in perfect measure. Their duty is to use things in accordance with the purpose for which they were created. Just as they must properly understand and follow divine legislative commands, they must also read correctly the laws in nature commanded by creation and act in line with the purposes for which God has instituted them. Moreover, they bear the responsibility of restoring damaged aspects of nature in a manner faithful to their original state.

God has created everything within a perfectly functioning order and balance, placing each thing in its proper position. With its inherent beauty, the world is almost like a corridor leading to Paradise. Indeed, in various verses, the Qur’an draws attention to these beauties and invites reflection upon them. However, to fully grasp the magnificence present in existence, one must view it through a comprehensive and holistic lens. Those who are able to do so experience profound wonder when observing nature and are overwhelmed by its unique beauty. In his “Discourse of the Stars” (Seventeenth Word), Bediuzzaman masterfully depicts the beauty of the “lights” and “lamps” that God has kindled in the heavens.

A person who can perceive this order, harmony, and balance will act with far greater care when intervening in existence and will refrain from all forms of destruction and corruption. Such a person reflects on how disturbing the ecosystem or interfering with the natural order can cause grave harm to humanity and may even darken the future of the world. With this awareness, they strive to preserve everything in its proper place. Knowing that everything God has created and set in order is ideal, they will also design the world they build according to these divine measures.

Instilling such awareness—so that people do not pollute their environment or damage nature—is of vital importance. Achieving this from the outset is the easiest and most effective approach. Once the atmosphere, water, soil, and the resources derived from them have been polluted, restoring them to their original state becomes far more difficult. Today, we witness how enormous efforts and vast financial resources are required to rehabilitate polluted rivers and return them to their former condition. Similarly, reclaiming destroyed forests is by no means easy. Cleaning polluted seas, oceans, air, and soil is even more challenging and, in some cases, may not be fully possible.

The world as a reflection of divine beauty

From a believer’s perspective, all of existence consists of manifestations of God’s names and attributes. Preserving the balance inherent in creation is therefore an expression of reverence for God and respect for the divine attributes. A believer who views existence through this lens approaches every being—animate or inanimate—with deep respect and affection. Seeing each entity as a book written by the pen of divine power, such a person feels a sincere and enduring concern for everything. Far from harming nature, this outlook leads one to refrain even from injuring an ant. Unless compelled by necessity, a believer does not deprive any living being of its right to life.

The depictions of Paradise presented in the Qur’an offer important clues about how an ideal world should be established, implicitly reminding humanity to design the world accordingly. From a believer’s perspective, Paradise represents an ideal realm that surpasses all utopias. The Qur’an and the Sunnah describe its waters, rivers, flowing streams, palaces, trees, shaded areas, and fruits as possessing breathtaking beauty. Accordingly, the responsibility that falls upon us is to take Paradise as a model, beautify our world in its light, and entrust future generations with a world that is pure and unspoiled.

The Qur’an draws attention to the resemblance between the blessings of Paradise and those of this world with the verse, “They will be given things resembling one another” (2:25). In other words, the blessings of this world are samples of those in Paradise. If the face of the world is darkened, polluted, and rendered uninhabitable, this resemblance disappears. To the extent that this beautiful exhibition of divine gifts is transformed into a place of filth and pollution, it moves further away from resembling Paradise.

Moderation, cleanliness, and prophetic guidance

Islam’s emphasis on moderation and the avoidance of waste is a foundational principle that shapes humanity’s relationship with existence. The Qur’an states that God does not love those who are wasteful (6:141). Likewise, the Messenger of God instructed believers to avoid wasting water even while performing ablution beside a flowing river. This teaching highlights the need to transform moderation into a moral disposition. A person who internalizes this ethic reflects it in every aspect of life, from eating and drinking to the use of natural resources and personal abilities.

From the practices of the Prophet, significant principles for environmental protection can be derived. The designation of the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina as protected zones—where cutting trees or harming animals is forbidden—represents an early model of conservation. Likewise, the Prophet’s sensitivity toward animals, his insistence on cleanliness, and his prohibition of actions that inconvenience others underscore the ethical dimension of environmental responsibility. He taught that removing harmful objects from the road is a branch of faith.

Just as God continuously brings about purity in the universe, human beings are likewise required to maintain cleanliness and harmony in their surroundings. Despite constant change and transformation in nature, order and purity prevail. In the same way, it is inconceivable for a believer to act in a manner that is disorderly, imbalanced, or devoid of harmony.

Our modern society has gone astray during much of the past several centuries. While every person is in pursuit of one thing or another, we are searching for our own soul. If we can persist on this search on a sustainable path then we can hope that the days in which we will be revived as our true selves are very close; the days when we will turn towards our true nature and win back our best values.

Enduring a most unfortunate period, the last couple of generations have renounced their warm, cozy homes and embarked upon peculiar pursuits; they either took refuge in a world of “matter,” or rather machines. They fell prey to different fantasies, let themselves fall into the maddest of delusions, and spent their lifetimes amidst insanity. At times they turned into wild mad men, and their thoughts were stained with blood. This disorder has continued up to our days and these brutal and unrelenting sins are no more bearable.

Nowadays, however, they are growing more and more aware of the void they happen to be in and have started to open the doorways for alternative thoughts – even if only a little. They have started speaking about faith; they have even started to accredit some value to the past and its wisdoms. Indeed, though it was only yesterday that they made no mention of God or His Messengers, and that they insulted believers and cursed at our historical values, today they are adorning many of their thoughts with soul and meaning, weaving their words with the silk threads of the metaphysical. For this change to hold ground with this color and harmony we want, it is important that these divine days continue uninterrupted for another quarter century. Afterwards, perhaps we can be hopeful for a prosperous future.

To this day, those who have lost their spiritual power have gone to waste just like seeds that have decayed in infertile soil. Indeed, whatever has happened to this day cannot be undone, and many have been sacrificed, honor has been destroyed, decency has been tattered, and our innocence and purity have been shaken as a punishment for misinterpreting history. From now on, we must review our intentions and wish for the best. We must always be alert and awake not to leave any voids in our feelings, thoughts, or logic that may prevent us from serving others so that our future will not become soaked in blood and tears. We must take advantage of all possible opportunities when the hurricanes subside to some extent, and where signs appear on our horizon in order to breathe life into even the most lifeless points of time so that they become the voice of common sense. We have just started to gain a feeling of the mystery, magic, and endlessness of this “book of existence” and all of its contents that are put on exhibition in the universe. We must practice active patience, remain alert, and be prudent so that we are not held back and pushed further away from what is close at hand until the day the meaning and wisdom found in this “book of existence” become evident with the help of the sciences and allow us to learn the purpose of our lives. We must be careful to not suffer any spiritual or moral loss on what seems to be a winning path.

Indeed, in this apparently calm yet active period, as the promised divine days have started to break with their colorful flow, we must knead the dough of spirit and meaning that will shape the enlightened generation that represents the future. They will bear this spirit on their shoulders with their own coat of arms made of hues and patterns unique to them. We must knead that dough in our safe basins and in the best form we can so that our society will be able to step onto new lively formations with a rich heritage of thought and consciousness of history. While we, as a society, strive to realize this very significant task, there will be those who either knowingly or not will try to object to these vital efforts, not to mention those who will underestimate, belittle, and even reject the efforts altogether. In response to all of these hindrances, on one hand, we will make a great effort to strengthen our free will by starving the roots of our evil inclinations while uplifting our capacity to do good; on the other hand, we will exhibit a sensitivity to not allow any intellectual or logical voids in our plans and projects as we strive to advance with a purity of intention. We believe that because our ultimate goal is the consent of God and our provisions along the way are faith and sincerity, God will raise us with advances of mercy and favor along the way. No matter where we happen to be, we will be nurtured through His manifestations.  

Yes, as we close our eyes and fill ourselves with the exhilaration of serving God Almighty, the seeds we scatter throughout the four corners of the world will, through His Divine will, certainly find life one day. Even those we think have been lost will sway like ever-blooming ears of grain, and they will sing the melody of their good fortune when the season is right.

With favor and mercy from God, we will walk into the future with “faith and knowledge” taking the lead as “thought and worship” will be closely knit together. We will do our best to conform to “causes” and submit to God with a tight embrace in full acceptance of His will (tawakkul). Our hope will be the source of our action, and our patience will follow right behind like a trusted companion. Even retributions will be considered a blessing, and each blessing – just like an unexpected advance – are references to the reliability of the true source of everything.

We will walk, and He will always guide and protect us and will never abandon us throughout our journey. We will walk, as the light from the waves of the eternal worlds will manifest in our eyes, while our ears will have the ability to receive the truest of words without error, and our hearts will beat with inspirations of wisdom. This can be possible if we can maintain our relationship with Him as our Creator and us as the created, and do not forsake His kind favors to “familiarity” and monotony, for this may fade away “colors and freshness” like the winds of autumn.

We will walk away from today’s lethargic masses to discover the enlightened generations who offer much promise for a brand-new world. We will walk away from them without tarnishing the image of, or slandering, anyone by planning our thoughts according to our actions and carrying out our actions as lifeguards do so that others may live. We will do this to prove that there really are passengers who can be void of blood and grime, and void of revenge and hatred. We will keep walking without stumbling on our path and will not be obstructed by any obstacles along the way. We do not, and cannot, claim to pardon the thousand and one incidents of murder and brigandage that we have been witnesses to. When the laws and rights of the public are the matters at hand, the feeling of forgiveness and pardoning transforms into a feeling of justice, and the style of living closes off to inhumane behavior of any kind. Yes, it is requisite of one’s respect for humanity to transform goodness – and the bridges leading to goodness – into avenues and to award those who want to go on this destination. Likewise, respect for the human being also requires the prevention of evil and stopping those who engage in evil. Indeed, goodness must always be recognized and praised, and, at the same time, people must be warned against sins so that no one avoids accountability by saying, “The fault is not ours; we were driven to these ways.”

Those who think in this manner are actually trying to take refuge in such inconsistent excuses in order to escape the responsibility of their present wretchedness and misery. In fact, they can be described as disoriented and decayed souls that have been unable to appreciate and comprehend the distinction of being human. It is a fact that those who carry the spirit of true humanity have no other choice than to assume part of the responsibility that belongs to the society in which they too have risen and flourished. Such a sense of responsibility is the requisite of a humane spirit, comprehension, and thought – not to mention the command and will of the One who has equipped the human being with such dynamics. Provided that their conscience has not decayed completely, become atrophied, or that understanding has not died, it is unthinkable for a human being to be negligent of such a responsibility.

In terms of the contemplation of being truly human, we hold ourselves accountable for current mishaps and for the sake of the peace and security of tomorrow’s world. When we say “the human being” and “culture” we wish to underline once more the priority of “faith,” which is the first stage of true liberty and the only source of light to guide us to the final destination.

Indeed, the first phase and the highest priority in reviving out-of-control generations to their true human form is by embedding faith and all that it promises into the depths of their nature and character, and to ensure their continuity. Explaining to generations and feeding their souls with both the apparent and hidden aspects of existence by imbuing them with the culture of faith and making it possible for them to embrace all things with compassion will serve to liberate the generations who we have failed to keep under control and whose disintegration we have been unable to prevent. A spirit that is not cleansed through faith cannot be pulled completely away from savagery, avoid aggression, love or compromise with other people, and, above all, cannot begin to reach towards the heavens. It is inevitable for such a person to be tainted by greedy ambitions and to live a life full of grudges and hatred, and to have their heart be blackened with grime. Truly, faith enables the human to hear, listen, and interpret existence in a completely different way by imbuing knowledge and love of the eternal, building a connection with all of existence, and by moderating hatred and flaws. It saves a person from the misery of disorientation.

At the present time, generations from every walk of life who have reached such deep levels of faith, and thus – though weak at the present moment – hold promise and hope for the future, must be imbued with a zeal for service to humanity and a feeling of responsibility and duty free from the promise of fame, fortune, or status. They must be nurtured to have no expectations for recompense so that they neither dive into thoughts of gaining support from any government, from the public, or centers of power so that they will not raise their hopes for future prosperity. In this way, strong structures that flourish with knowledge and wisdom will light the lanterns of our thoughts in every corner, and we will not be held back by certain desires and ambitions. Instead, we will continue on with feelings of altruism, purity in our souls, seeking God’s good will and consent, and always aware that He is the one who employs us in this service.

The fact that a love for Divine Truth holds great importance, in itself, is also something that should certainly be underlined. The power that forms when reading, contemplating, studying, and researching are united with a love of connecting to the truth – for the sole fact that it is the truth – would, I believe, be enough to open the doors for the whole universe. For centuries, while certain nations have been lifted towards the skies through a love of the truth, even if only in certain fields, others have always been the ones to watch from afar with a desire and longing to imitate their success. They have taken it in with a sigh, watching like paralyzed spirits that are bound by the chains which enclose our feelings and thoughts. Nowadays, even if we can appreciate the fact that this important matter is at least being articulated, syllable by syllable by a certain group of people, it is still difficult to say that it is being handled in the mindset of true scientific thinking. We are in need of true scientific thinking that has, with its cultural and ethical dimensions, settled over the blockade of belief in the truth and will awaken in our souls a thought of physical and spiritual transformation towards the heavenly realms. The constant development of thought, the transformation of theory into practice, and the promise of advancement that such a transformation holds have, so far, only been possible, and will only be possible, through the push of such scientific thinking. True scientific thinking is what is fundamental; science and technology, on the other hand, are merely products derived from it. We are witnesses to the many high caliber individuals, to the heroes of determination, to such great performances, and lifetimes dedicated to this cause.

Those who will reconstruct the future will come from among these heroes. They will turn around this narrow, contaminated world, won over by adversities, to construct a wider, purified and more harmonious world that will remind us of heavenly beauties. They will do this to the extent that we are able to teach them love for the truth, the spirit of research, and the nuance of renewal. This will raise them to a level where they are able to distinguish between what does and does not belong to the roots of spirituality and meaning.

While the generations that have been connected with these dynamics and have reached a love for truth are considered the heroes of their own people, the disoriented masses who have lost their souls and meaning will always be considered a source of shame and dishonor and will darken the future of our society.

We foster the hopes that our intellectuals who stand in a position of influence will take advantage of the opportunities at hand, prepare future generations to the throne of hearts, and turn the pits of failure into zeniths of victory.

Respect for life is more than a religious value; it is a constituent dimension of faith found in every major religion of the world. One cannot have faith in a creator God (or an all-embracing transcendent reality) and cavalierly exclude any part of creation—the whole natural and cosmic world are worthy of respect. To affirm the inviolability of the person is to affirm the sacredness, the mystery of the cosmos. Creation is inseparable from the dignity of the cause of its being. While the story of Creation in the Hebrew Scripture has been interpreted in many Christian circles as permission for humans to exploit creation, Genesis’ first chapter express a relationship of respect and responsibility for all that God has brought about. And Muslims affirm: “Indeed, God is the cleaver of grain and date seeds. He brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living” (Qur’an 6:95).

Respect for life, especially among certain radical Christian groups, is viewed by a broader public as an almost exclusive preoccupation with abortion and medically assisted death. The Christian maxim, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5: 44), is often ignored by both the advocates of capital punishment in North America and the perfunctory trials and death sentences currently being meted out in Iraq. It is not difficult to understand how the obscene presence of evil in the world alienates religious people from the demands of “true goodness, true responsibility, true justice, a true sense of things—all [of which] grow from roots that go much deeper than the world of our transitory earthly schemes. This is the message that speaks to the very heart of human religiosity” (Vaclav Havel).

Human religiosity must have its concrete embodiment in the everyday lives of people. Religious truths ring hollow and defy belief, when they remain concepts outside the day to day hopes and fears, joys and anxieties of experience. The true believer is not one who assents to a series of propositions, no more than one can be labelled an infidel, because a religious teaching seems irrational. In fact, the divine—Yahweh, Allah, or the Father—is imminently beyond comprehension and the communication of the divine reality is always conditioned by the lives of those who embrace one or the other religious traditions.

The United States, Israel, Islamic nations, and lately even Russia are laying claim to their religious roots. But their vision of religion and faith seems more polytheist and politicized. They all acknowledge “one” God, yet fail to recognize that God in the putative enemies. What does a message of peace—Shalom, Islam, and the beatitudes—sound like when so much violence and disrespect for life are evident in daily confrontations? Rationalizations relying on national interest or national security appeal to general bias and reduce rich religious realities to icons of more primitive human insecurity and mistrust. The will to violence, in fact, reveals the religious bankruptcy of many of these powers.

As a practicing Christian I am conscious of the disconnect between the clarity of the Gospel teachings and the political and cultural agendas of many of my co-believers who often take their religious “truths” out of context, then use these truths as ideologies, without exploring the impact of their choices on the core message of Jesus. Often what it means to be Christian is reduced to the vehement insistence on single issues as the touchstones of orthodoxy. Abortion, the fate of the city of Jerusalem, or support for our troops (whoever we are, whatever their mission) have become in many quarters stand-alone issues, without regard for the context and consequences. Legitimate concern for the safety of their family members too often confuses faith with patriotism and blinds Christians to the destruction war brings to the lives of the “enemy” and the millions of civilians whose lives are daily being taken by death or by hopelessness.

Westerners can “reclaim” their Christian heritage and Jews demonstrate moral integrity by figuring out what Yahweh meant when he reminded them: “You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20). Muslims, Jews, and Christians can share a stronger hope for achieving peace and affirming human dignity, through reviewing their own religious commitments from the perspective of God the Creator, of Allah, the beneficent and merciful.

As a Catholic I find hope in the attitude and actions of Pope Francis. In a most public fashion the Pope has welcomed asylum seekers and reminded Europe of its obligation to receive them. He has promoted an environmental morality that ties the fate of human life and wellness with the fate of our natural environment. He continually stresses that there is no such thing as less worthy and more worthy human beings. But this willingness to hear the cry of desperation in the voices of asylum seekers and to seek social and ecological justice is not limited to religious groups—an indication of the universality of humankind that religious particularism too easily ignores.

At the same time, there are growing movements in Europe that refuse to welcome these quasi-stateless persons, who have lost their homeland. Often they express fear that the predominantly Muslim refugees threaten Europe’s Christian culture, without realizing that integral to that culture are the works of mercy, the care for the marginalized, the victims of decisions of the powerful and mighty of this world. Nations and businesses continue to disrupt the ecology. They are unable to resist the allure of the wealth, which they believe regulation will prevent them from achieving. Morality and faith are two sides of the same coin. Faith brings one into the dynamic movement of divine compassion and creativity. Morality is allowing God’s being to become compassion and creativity in our own lives. We do not hold God to a “higher standard,” as if there are situations in which humans have the right to unleash the violence and blood-shed of war, to irreparably violate the environment, or to destroy the soul of another. “Do not forget your share of the world. And do good as God has done for you. And desire not corruption in the land” (Qur’an 28:77). The Golden Rule may seem on the surface to be a formula for self-protection (if you don’t want to get hurt, avoid hurting others). Yet, in fact, it captures the interconnectivity of all creation. The gift of life underscores responsibility for life, for all life is interconnected. “…whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind” (Qur’an 5:32).

Religion in public life can, at its worst, lead to oppressive theocracy, social hypocrisy, and disregard for the dignity of persons and groups of people. It easily obscures the loving compassion of the God, whose will it claims to honor. Yet, religion—humbly lived and with a consciousness of its own failures—has a right and a duty to speak openly about the values that make human life together a pursuit of the common good, rather than the survival of the fittest. But if religion is to play a constructive role in the public sphere, it will be necessary to find areas where the adherents of different religions share common goals, values, and beliefs. Polarization within and between religions readily cedes its rightful place in the public sphere to divisive ideology and needlessly blocks working together for the common good. In fact, it becomes false religion by fostering a self-referential morality that narrows the universalism of the original creation and selectively ignore some of the most challenging, yet ennobling, teaching of the most sacred scriptures available to humankind. Religion is not about a vague “more than life,” as if life were something less than what humanity and nature really yearn for. Religion is about life itself and the duty of every believer is to protect and nurture life. That is true worship, for all life is the presence of God in our midst.

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

Scientific psychology corroborates these truths and lays bare the inescapable responsibility to know and manage the self (C.G. Jung, 1957). Knowing and accepting realities about ourselves positively offers a platform for personal growth and development, and further permits cathartic motivations for transcending flaws. While religions approach the path to transcendence differently (e.g. based on organic time and place), each testifies to human dignity that is capable of finding safe passage through the contradictions of life without compromising the safety of others.

Religious and secular histories reveal tragic outcomes for humanity when these responsibilities are ignored. The current neoliberal, capitalist ideology, which was systemized by economic theorist Milton Friedman, externalizes, or factors out, human and environmental damage, for these interfere with the profit principle. His open defiance of social responsibility not only shows a separation between the rational mind and rational heart, but clears the way for nullification of the universal human rights principle and bows to nefarious economic warfare waged between groups.

Within earlier historical memory, power’s unwillingness to analyze the subjective and blame the objective played-out on the global stage with catastrophic consequences. Between 1914 and 1945, the world was at war with itself. Yet, national leaders and their people denied their own failed-policies, and chose to violently project responsibility onto others (Fromm’s, 1973). Analyses of Europe’s part in the atrocities of WWII illuminate a reoccurring historical fact: non-defensive wars are often complicated and motivated by un-dealt with personal projections of a nation’s leaders and its peoples. At the heart of humanity’s violent history lie legions of self-denials and self-failures, too colossal to list. Perhaps more ironic than the irresponsible projections themselves is the denial of responsibility, as expressed in the question: where was God?

With the beginning of the West’s wars in the Middle East, in 2003, human rights experts recognized that the topic of human rights was off the table, a frightening but conscious decision that reconfirms the warnings of sages and prophets: human history is a history of choice.

A catharsis for the events of 1914 – 1945 was the establishment of the Bretton Accords, which established international institutions aiming to prevent future crimes against humanity. The sets of principles laid out in the accords sought to mandate individual rights of vital protections, by humanizing finances, employment, and governance. Rights of human security were embedded within a constellation of personal, social, economic, and political rights. The United Nations, which signed the 1948 Convention on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to this universal principle, and applied it clearly to the subjugated children and women of the global patriarchy by creating the special conventions: Rights of the Child and The Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

While many nation-states embrace moral responsibility to ratify conventions for universal human rights, many UN representatives continue to face non-ratification resistance at home. While the new, global power-brokers of trade and finance systemically and tactically block universal human rights, the global under-privileged are taking their arguments to the streets. Taking responsibility to occupy their own policies is a response validated by scholar Noam Chomsky (Occupy, 2012, p.89) and reflects the Jeffersonian idea of democratic action. Taking possession of rights far exceeds passive verbalization.

A watershed of responsible self-action is being witnessed around the globe: workers are organizing to buy-back their closed factories; students organize to undermine dictatorships and corrupt governments; sexually exploited children are naming criminal-priests; women are fighting the slave-trade; independent journalists air photos of government backed genocides and externally organized coups; neighbors take video of real-time police brutality; independent filmmakers document corporate damages; veterans bow to their own shame and expose military atrocities; whistle-blowers expose mass government fraud; and high-ranking bank officials make tragic, but telling testimonies against system-exploitation by committing suicide. While these examples reflect an existing depth of global darkness, self-responsible action affirms our awareness of our right to live change and change living.

Considering our ever changing universe and the human capacity to re-imagine new life, it is possible to more clearly understand the discreteness of the great religions which direct responsibility to each individual. By means of self-awareness, self-responsibility and self-regulation, we each hold the best possibilities for peaceful co-existence and the preservation of human rights.

June Dayle Jelm, PhD in International Relations, is a Professional Mediator specializing in Domestic Violence in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Every blessing of God is an opportunity given to human beings that calls for a corresponding responsibility.

Health is a blessing that should be used to fast, to pray, and to strive on God’s path so that one can express gratitude for this blessing. If a person gives this gratitude, God will return that body in the next world for eternity and without flaw, and with all its potential revealed.

Intelligence is one of God’s favors. If the horizon of one’s mind has been enlightened by the lights of revelation, and he is therefore distanced from inappropriate things and makes decisions according to the true path, intelligence is a source of inspiration. If he uses the blessing of his mind appropriately and introduces Truth to those who have strayed, he is giving the mind its due. On the contrary, if he only uses intelligence for worldly or evil tasks, he is being ungrateful for that blessing.

Power of expression is one of the greatest blessings that God has given humanity—so much so, that the name of the Qur’anic chapter where this is explained is called Rahman (Mercy). Al-Rahman is one of the Exalted Names of God. Some of the manifestations of God’s Mercy are giving means of subsistence in a broad circle to everyone even if they are not believers, and nourishing creation with various blessings, including human’s power of expression. This ability makes them eligible to be an addressee to God. They may understand God’s words and at the same time express their thoughts to Him. God says, “Come, pray to Me and bow in My presence.” Then they can say, “praise be to God” and with faithful and obedient devotion they can stand in God’s presence. In one sense, this is understanding God and speaking with Him. One of the Successors (the generation after the Companions of the Prophet) said, “If a person who reads the Qur’an says that he spoke with God, it would not be a lie.” Therefore one who says, “praise be to God” can be considered to have spoken with God.

The prayers that believers recite every day actually reflect a conversation with God:

You are the Most Beneficent and the Most Compassionate: You first gave me consciousness and then the ability to express this consciousness. This is a manifestation of Your Mercy.

You are the Master of the Day of Judgment: I am preparing for that day within the framework of Your commands.

I serve only You and I seek help only from You: I do so in order not to be smashed under the weight of servanthood.

Most people probably never really ponder the prayers in this way, but if they were to reflect, the prayers allow them to rise to a very honorable station.

If a person went and spoke with a head of state, he would talk about it everywhere; he would find an opportunity in every environment to mention that conversation. Therefore, if a person views talking with a head of state as this important and mentions it everywhere, then he should think deeply about what it means to have the privilege of addressing God.

A sacred saying from the Prophet (hadith qudsi) is stated as follows:

“I share the recitation with my servant in prayer; half belongs to Me and half to him and what My servant wants will be given to him. When the servant says, ‘Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds,’ Exalted and Glorious God says, ‘My servant praised Me!’ When he says, ‘Most Glorious, Most Merciful,’ God says, ‘My servant glorified Me.’

“When he says, ‘Master of the Day of Judgment,’ God says, ‘My servant exalted Me.’ When he says, ‘You do we worship and Your aid we seek,’ God commends him: ‘This is a pledge between Me and My servant. I gave him what he wanted.’

When the servant says, ‘Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed Your grace, Those whose portion is not wrath, and who go not astray,’ God says, ‘This belongs to My servant and he has been given what he wants.’”

In recitation, the chapter al-Fatiha is divided between the servant and God—some is spoken by the servant, and some is answered by God. In a sense, this is nothing other than a conversation with God. Consequently, the power of expression is a great blessing from God, and its greatest right is to praise God, who honored human beings with the power of expression.

Like a town crier, we must speak of our Lord, who gave us the capability of expression, everywhere we go. If you give a crier a little money, he will promote his wares from morning till evening in the marketplace. Salesmen do the same thing; they go to houses, fawn on people and try to sell their goods. In the end, what they will sell is one or two pots and pans. In the same way, Heaven will be given to us for doing very easy tasks. We are in a position to be made worthy of seeing God’s Beauty by using, in the best way, the power of expression bestowed upon us by God. Even if no one remained on earth to hear us, then we have the responsibility to climb the mountains to the skies and live for the excitement of talking of God to the jinn and demons. As a friend of truth said, even if one is imprisoned and there is no one around, then he should try and teach the demons about God to fulfill his responsibility.

The subject is the importance of a person returning a favor given by God by making the best use of the ability bestowed. Only by means of this kind of reciprocation can gratitude for that blessing be fully shown. God will continue bestowing that blessing here and in the next world. If a person only gives the right of property, but does not give the right of his mind, health, or power of expression, then he still will have been ungrateful. If a person cannot speak, he has a pen. If he does not give the due of the pen, then he will have shown ingratitude before God. If one who has strong mental abilities does not use them for God, then he will have been unjust. Whatever God has given a person should be used on the path of God to teach others about Him.

If a person does not give gratitude for his other blessings, but only gives financial aid when his financial situation is favorable, then at least he has performed a large part of his responsibility. If he gives help beyond the alms tax, financial aid is a serious sacrifice, and voluntary acts and altruism within this framework is great, because it is the virtue of giving for God’s sake. In fact, our Prophet said, “Generosity is like a tree. Its roots are in Heaven and its branches have hung down to this world. Whoever lives under that tree and behaves generously, sooner or later he will hold on to one of the branches and rise to Heaven where the tree’s roots are.” It can be understood from this that a generous person, even if he is a sinner—God willing—will eventually enter Heaven. If a sinner does not deny God, and he is generous, it is said that he will enter Heaven. Saying, “A stingy person is closer to Hell,” our Master used an expression of warning for miserliness. We can infer that since generosity is one of God’s attributes, He will not put a person with that attribute into Hell.

Attributes are very important; people must give what is due to the attributes God blessed them with. In this way, one’s work should be arranged according to God’s blessings. Worldly tasks should not be forgotten and neglected. Regardless of where he is, a believer should always be at the forefront of those living in his own time. Doing this, he will always be avant-garde—but while doing this, he should put his life in order and never neglect God’s rights. In short, a believer should use all the abilities God has bestowed upon him, and use them in such a way that he has given those blessings their due.

There is one moral law that forms the corner stone of all of the world’s religions: “Thou shall not kill.” But does this law apply only to human beings? What about our involvement in the steady decline and death of our ecology and its many plants and animals all of which contribute to our complex and interdependent eco system that sustains human life. Are we not morally responsible to protect the lives of all of these living creatures and systems and even the Earth itself? Is there a correlation between our environmental crisis and spiritual crisis? Matter&Beyond discussed this correlation with Mary Evelyn Tucker who is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where she has appointments in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. Tucker is a co-founder and co-director with John Grim of the Forum on Religion and Ecology. Together they organized a series of ten conferences on World Religions and Ecology at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. They are series editors for the ten volumes from the conferences distributed by Harvard University Press.

M&B: What is the ecosystem? And when you say that the ecosystem is in trouble what do you mean by that?

An ecosystem describes the tremendous, intricate, complex relationship between all of the elements; literally the soil, water, air, and then the plant life and even the breathing of the plants. This includes the presence of insects pollinating, the soil being moved around by worms, and so on. Then you get into the mammalian life, and the bird life, which work within a complex system, and the parts of which we are only beginning to understand. We barely understand how migration patterns work; [e.g.] the sandpiper that migrates from South America to the James Bay region of Canada. This migration means that these birds are able to comprehend an ecosystem that stretches over thousands of miles. So ecosystems, we realize, have this microscopic dimension of complex elements; the flora and fauna interact with it. But at the same time, we can also see an ecosystem that is as large as the migration patterns of animals and birds. Thus, we begin to see that the way in which we read and understand ecosystems is the key to understanding this complex community of life.

M&B: What are some of the problems faced by ecosystems today?

The planet as a whole is facing a variety of environmental problems of immense proportions and complexity. We, as human beings, are only beginning to realize the full impact of our presence on the planet. The population has risen from 2 billion to 6 billion people in the last century; this population explosion, as well as the technological explosion, is grinding the earth into a pulp, destroying the forests and the life in the oceans …, with this enormous presence we could be compared to an octopus that has wrapped itself around the planet; in short, we have caused very serious environmental problems.

Right now, climate change is apparent to many, many people around the globe; this was not the case 10 years ago, nor even 5 years ago. We are profoundly changing the air and the atmosphere. This change is reflected in the ecosystems in shifting migration patterns, in fluctuating agricultural patterns, and in changes in the life of the seas. Therefore, there is one huge macro-scale problem that right now has an enormous presence, and we are aware that human beings are the primary cause; this was stated at the international panel on climate change in its report of January 2007.

M&B: You speak about visible problems, but aren’t there any deeper problems?.

20,000 to 30,000 species are becoming extinct every year around the globe. This era has been called an extinction period, and it is the sixth extinction period. Probably the last extinction period was after a meteor hit the earth, 65 million years ago; this ended the era of dinosaurs. And now we are the cause of a new extinction, because we are reducing the habitats, we are creating the pollution problems, we are using chemicals that birds and insects cannot deal with. Rachel Carson wrote about this in her book “Silent Spring” and alerted people to the decimation of birds and the ensuing silence because their songs could no longer be heard. This is a problem that we need to address, and we need to understand what such a loss means; there is a sadness for the voices of the natural world that are disappearing from our midst.

We can also talk about a whole range of problems in bioregions, such as the pollution of the Great Lakes or invasive species that are occurring in them and elsewhere. We can also speak about the loss of tropical forests in Thailand, for example. Even 30 or 40 years ago, 75% of Thailand was forested. Now the area is only 15%. Clear cutting is still happening in our own western forests. But we also have clear cutting in the oceans. Huge nets, some of them measuring 20 to 30 miles long in the Pacific and the Atlantic, sweep up not only fish, but all kinds of life, such as turtles, dolphins and life forms from the coral reefs. We must have not only a land ethic to preserve our resources, to preserve our water, and our air and our soil, we also need an ocean ethic, an ethic for the great waters. These two kinds of ethics need to emerge in the human community if the entire community is to survive into the future.

M&B: In your opinion, what are the underlying human problems that are the root cause for this environmental destruction?

Human beings have not realized how completely we are in nature. We go to the super market and we buy meat wrapped up in plastic, sitting on Styrofoam, or we buy apples that are out of season or peaches and oranges that are imported from elsewhere. We have lost our sense of connection to food, where it comes from, to all of these complex bioregions that support the life, of food and of agriculture. That’s just one example. But I think we have profoundly alienated ourselves by thinking we can dominate, we can control nature, or even that we can manage it. Sometimes we think we can manage forests or fisheries, and yet we still don’t understand how intricate and complex these systems really are. Earlier peoples had very primitive instruments, not huge machines that can go in and decimate a forest in a day. So, our technology has grown beyond our ability to set limits. We simply don’t know limits.

I think another factor here is that the growth mentality the economic driver, even of our capitalist system and our neoliberal economics says, economic growth is good. In growth we trust, so to speak. And this fetish with growth, this preoccupation that if we don’t grow our economy is going to falter, has set us on a course that is destroying communities, it is creating endless consumerism, is creating all kinds of alienation, sadness, even addictions of all kinds because the emptiness of modern consumer life is just suffocating the human soul, and the human spirit, that doesn’t know where to find itself in materialism gone mad.

M&B: When I look at the indigenous people in any tradition, these people had much more respect for food.

It is true that indigenous peoples had, and in many parts of the world continue to have, a profound sense of the interconnection in life systems that the human needs to carry out life. I don’t want to over idealize the indigenous peoples by any means, rather only in the sense that they are in a reciprocal relationship, that when hunting there was gratitude for the life of the animal taken, or when a bird was killed, there was a reciprocal sense of thanksgiving, of prayer, as part of their culture. Even in agricultural indigenous peoples, for example, with the growing of corn for the Hopi, there is a sense that you sing for the corn to grow.

M&B: Although the root cause of the problem still continues, there are certain things that we should be doing. Such as endangered species protection programs etc.

I think there is a growing sense in human beings that we have a new responsibility for the future of the planet, for other species and ecosystems. We know that many animals will only be preserved in zoos, or in nature preserves. If we’re talking about the right to life, the right to habitat, the right to be part of a larger community, are we the ones who are to determine this? And what does that mean? This is an extension of our ethical, moral sensibility to the larger community of life, with which we share this planet. So there is an immense sense of responsibility for this period when other life forms are undergoing extinction. And if this is not fundamentally a religious issue, I don’t know what is.

M&B: What is the reaction of the younger generation? You are also a professor who teaches at Yale and you’ve been to other universities as well. Can you tell us about your experiences?

There were two students as Bucknell University where I was teaching, and they exemplified, I think, what we’re all going through. In a class on religion and ecology, we were talking about the loss of species and the sense of wide-spread extinction that is taking place in our own lifetime. And one student turned to the rest of the class and said: Why should I care if 20,000 species become extinct every year? I’m going to Wall Street, I’ll get my job I’ll have my family and life in the suburbs around New York. Why should I care? This question sent a ripple throughout the class, and many, who were biologists and ecologists, immediately responded by talking about the intricacy of ecosystems and the web of life and the interdependence of life systems. But even that didn’t sway this student, and it was almost as if he was thinking, I can get my food from the supermarket, I just don’t care. This, to me, was a huge wake-up call. So there is this sense on the one hand of indifference, of disconnection, and even of denial.

On the other hand, there was a student who read some essays by Thomas Berry, who has been an immense inspiration and teacher to both my husband, John Grimm, and myself. This student read them over the weekend, and was so overwhelmed by the size, scale, and complexity of the environmental problems that we are facing, that he just had to close his door and couldn’t go out for the weekend; he didn’t want to see his friends. On Monday when he came back to talk to us, he said I am just paralyzed by these problems and I feel such immense despair.

We need to find a way forward between these two extremes of despair on the one hand and denial on the other. We need to find a way of empowering and inspiring scientifically grounded, ecologically sound, restoration projects that are in coordination with the ecosystems; we need to train people along these lines. But we need to ground them in a sense of wonder, hope, and possibility for a sustainable future; we need to teach them that their actions, that their lives, will matter, that they’re not just a speck in a meaningless universe, but rather that their actions and their life journey will contribute to a larger planetary civilization, which is emerging on the horizon; that is, a multi-form planetary civilization. That is the goal that we need to place in front of them.

M&B: So both science and religion can take on these issues?

Both religion and science can help us with this, but there have also been problems with science and religion. Science sometimes has objectified the natural world, creating a sense of distance with the scientific method that we use to study things, making them distanced from us. And yet, science is also helping us to recover both great knowledge about the environmental problems that we’re surrounded by, climate change and the extinction of species, as well as pollution issues. Scientists are studying these things and providing us with information on a daily basis. And many of these scientists are deeply committed to what are being called sustainability sciences; to have this at colleges and universities, and to be able to think through problems with a sense of creating solutions. So I think it’s an immensely inspiring moving, sustainable sense of well-being that is emerging from the sciences.

Religions hold a lot of promise for the area of ecology and sustainability, and even sustainable development. Religious people have been reluctant to get involved and they have been late in getting involved. Many religious people are often concerned with an other-worldly salvation, or with personal salvation, and not necessarily with involvement in the world, the environment, and issues of social justice. However, I think that one of the most exciting and promising movements within the environmental field is that the religions are awakening to their ecological aspect, to their commitment to life, its aesthetic beauty, and the intrinsic value of other species; they are taking on a sense of commitment for the future generations of all species. This possibility, that religious communities will awaken to an increased ethical sensibility to people in other countries, to species in different countries around the globe, as well as to future generations, is vital. This is something that religions can offer. Moreover, they can help to stimulate a critical component to our environmental and ecological sensibility, and that is a wonder; religions awaken us to a sense of gratitude and awe in the face of the great mystery of life. And that particular component of wonder, such as the wonder of the Monarch butterfly, the sense of beauty in these creatures, is something that religions can reignite for us, just as science can. And this is where they join, I think. Science awakens our sense of wonder, religion confirms the wonder with the great mystery of life systems. And finally, I think that religions can offer a sense of hope, because more than anything, I think we all need to imagine a future that is sustainable. We are interacting with the next generation who are dealing with their own sense of paralysis, with a lack of hope, even despair. And we need to acknowledge that this is a very critical moment for humans. We have never faced anything like this before; where is our sense of hope and the possibility for creating a viable, sustainable, and flourishing future for the planet? I think the religious communities that have dealt with loss, sorrow, death, and despair can help to regenerate this sense of possibility, of sustainable hope for the next generation, and even for ourselves, as we deal with this daily onslaught of saddening bad news. More than anything, I think we need these two components of wonder and hope to make it into the future.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli and MaryLynn Schiavi for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond. For more information and the full episodes visit http://www.ebru.tvenp.fullepisode.html

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2009/issue-70-july-august-2009/fethullah-gulen-inspirer-of-multi-disciplinary-studies/ Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2009/issue-70-july-august-2009/fethullah-gulen-inspirer-of-multi-disciplinary-studies/

“The work of Gulen’s followers in Turkey shows that Islam-as taught by Gulen-seeks tolerance, not conflict; it aims for a better society, not political power; and it manifests itself in prayer and concrete local action.”

“As early as the eighteenth century, Goethe knew that the East and the West were inseparable. However, today’s society has not been able to fulfill Goethe’s dream, although plenty of time has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Societies remain trapped in prejudices and stereotypes that strengthen the view of a separate East and West. European enlargement has made this even more pronounced and overwhelming. But fortunately, today there are voices in the world which inspire courage; voices which are not given due attention, voices which, nevertheless, have for years promoted a different world view and have successfully served people and the public good,” read the invitation to a Potsdam University conference about the renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gulen and the movement named after him. The conference, titled “Muslims between tradition and modernity-the Gulen Movement as a bridge between cultures,” was jointly organized by the University of Potsdam’s Institute of Religion and the Forum for Intercultural Dialogue, Berlin and was supported by the German Orient Institute, Abraham Geiger College, and the Protestant Academy of Berlin.

Attended by thirty-two academics who presented papers and about 500 observers from all over the world, the conference was the first of its kind in that it had no Turkish or Muslim scholars on its editorial board, which instead featured academics such as Professor Karl-Josef Kuschel from Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Professor Christina von Braun from Berlin’s Humboldt University, and Professor Markus Witte from the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt. Judging by this fact only, it may be said that the conference was a platform of outsiders looking at and discussing the Gulen Movement.

An outsider’s observations are always fruitful for a social movement, both when they are affirming and when they are critical. An outsider’s eye is the mirror where a social entity, whether it be an individual self or a collective personality, watches and re-defines its self. There were both admiring and critical presentations in the Potsdam Conference. Participants in the Gulen Movement must have recorded both the “commendations and condemnations” and will probably act to strengthen the former and correct the latter.

Strikingly there was a common point between the laudatory and critical presentations: both groups believed that the Gulen Movement offers the Western world a series of opportunities that should not be missed. Both affirmed that the principles of the Gulen Movement may help the Western world to deal with its problems, not only when they relate to Muslims, but also when they relate to the very roots of Western civilization. This point necessitates further discussion and may even open new “zones of activity” for the Gulen Movement and other similar Muslim social entities.

Professor Dr. Leonid R. Sykiainen, a professor of Islamic law and comparative legal studies as the State University–Higher School of Economics in Moscow, suggested, for example, that the Gulen dialogic approach should be adopted to the comparative study of Islamic and Western legal systems. Sykiainen claimed that at developed levels of dialogue the universal language of law should be utilized. “A comparative study of Islamic jurisprudence, which is on its own a magnificent art, should be one of the topics of a future Gulen conference,” he said. This call was important in the sense that it digressed from the established conference mode of “speaking about Fethullah Gulen and the Gulen Movement” and suggested “speaking about a legal issue through the Gulen paradigm.”

A similar suggestion came from Professor Dr. Reverend Simon Robinson, a professor of applied and professional ethics at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, who underlined that the work of Gulen provides a basis for expanding the theory and practice of corporate responsibility. Robinson related the Gulen Movement’s sense of responsibility to the strong creation theology that develops a complex view of responsibility in terms of accountability, imputability, and moral liability. He observed how this core view of responsibility reinforces and validates plural responsibilities, including civil and global responsibility. “Hence, a conceptual bridge is established between religion, corporate responsibility, citizenship, and sustainability,” he said. Robinson called on the Gulen Movement to become involved more explicitly in the ongoing dialogue about global responsibility and to extend further the dialogue and practice of responsibility in business beyond its present networks to include, wherever possible, other faith networks and secular corporations.

Dr. Sylvia Powels-Niami, a lecturer in the Religious Studies and Jewish Studies departments of Potsdam University, claimed in her paper that with its focus on intercultural and interfaith dialogue, the Gulen Movement has assumed the important task of continuing the ancient Islamic dialectical tradition that gave birth to the development of Kalam as speculative theology by bringing reason and religion into harmony. Powels-Niami observed that the Gulen Movement’s activities are not only building bridges between the East and the West, faith and science but they have also the potential to revive the abandoned religious sciences of Islam and even develop new ones.

A suggestion for furthering Muslim–Christian–Jewish scholarly contacts and thus facilitating the emergence of new multi-disciplinary studies came from Professor Dr. Admiel Kosman, an organizer of the conference from Abraham Geiger College. Urging that the findings of the conference should be conveyed to the general public, Kosman suggested that a “joint study house” should be founded in either Berlin or in Istanbul where Muslim, Christian and Jewish texts and traditions can be studied and a new generation of imams, priests and rabbis can be educated with the kind of openness and tolerance Gulen promotes. Kosman was also the person who read the greeting letter which Fethullah Gulen sent to the conference.

In his letter Gulen reaffirmed his conviction that dialogue will bring about universal peace and the good nature of the human being is going to come to the fore sooner or later. “What we need to do in order to reach this hopeful day is to set off on the journey. In this journey, every single step is important and is worth respect and praise. On this way, each step has to be based on mutual respect and understanding and this is not true only for states and nations, but also for individuals. Leading this dialogue is not a duty that falls only on the shoulders of governments or governmental organs. In order to light this torch of respect and peace, voluntary services run by civil society and individuals are at least as important as official ones. Humanity needs people that will carry that torch,” Gulen wrote in his letter.

A paper that received much applause from the audience was that of Dr. Rainer Hermann, an academic and a journalist with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Dr. Hermann has been observing the Gulen Movement for more than ten years. He was the very first western intellectual to realize that the Gulen Movement did not offer an alternative to the secular-democratic system, but to the politicization of Islam. At Potsdam, Hermann skillfully placed the Gulen Movement on the social map of modern Turkey: “The Republic of Turkey is not a secular state with a separation between religion and state, but rather a laicist state whose elites have long attempted to banish religion from society. Indeed, the ruling Kemalist elites still believe that the moment a religion expands beyond the private domain, it must necessarily become political and impose a theocratic order upon the state and society. Fethullah Gulen deserves the credit for overturning these prejudices. Gulen has made Islam into a social force that has fuelled much of Turkey’s democratization and modernization. People, and not politics, form the focus of his sermons and ideas… All this is new for Turkey, where the official discourse has never focused on the individual, but rather on the perceived need to fight the motherland’s inner and outer foes to preserve national security,” he told the conference. “Gulen’s work has fostered a form of Islam in Turkey that lives in harmony with the West and modern ideas without sacrificing any precepts of its faith. The work of Gulen’s followers in Turkey shows that Islam-as taught by Gulen-seeks tolerance, not conflict; it aims for a better society, not political power; and it manifests itself in prayer and concrete local action,” he said.

Dr. Rainer Hermann focused on the activities of the Movement in Turkey only. Hermann had seven points for the audience: (1) the Gulen Movement is a social and apolitical movement; (2) Gulen is a modern Muslim who looks for a synthesis of Islam and science and of Turkish culture, a culture of dialogue and tolerance, and Western civilization; (3) Gulen has promoted science as a means to understand the creation and as a means to prosperity; (4) Gulen leaves no doubt that Islam and democracy are compatible; (5) Gulen’s interpretation of Islam fits to Europe; (6) Gulen owes his success to various reasons, including the elevated social position of preachers; (7) Fethullah Gulen makes a crucial contribution to the modernization of Turkey.

Hermann was not the only one who expressed appreciation of the work of the Gulen Movement. Dr. Bekim Agai of Halle University, Germany, told the audience that thanks to the activities of the Gulen Movement, Turkish migrants in Europe are no longer a part of the problems of Europe, but are problem solvers, and not only on issues relating to the migrants themselves. Ercan Karakoyun, a PhD candidate at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, and a participant in the Gulen Movement himself, informed the audience about the activities of the Movement in Germany and the contribution these activities have made to the integration of Turkish migrants into the general German society.

A controversial paper was presented by Swedish academician Dr. Klas Grinell. Though he accepted that the Gulen Movement is not engaged in party politics and is not attempting to gain political power, Grinell claimed that the Movement has a political stance: “This Movement supports democracy, human rights and EU membership for Turkey. This is a political position,” he said. Grinell said that having studied Gulen textually he regards Gulen as a conservative leader. But on the other hand he named Gulen as a perfect match for decolonial political theory. “Gulen is looking for dignity from within and not from outside when it comes to producing knowledge,” he said. This is a revolutionary position in epistemology indeed. Grinell had no explanation for labeling Gulen as both a conservative and a revolutionary, but his contribution underlined the fact that the Gulen Movement should not be studied in reference to the Jesuits, Opus Dei, or the Focolare Movement. If decoloniality is a party of Gulen’s revolutionary epistemology, it should be studied in reference to its own dynamics only. This should be the theme of a future conference.

Thus, the conference ended with the clear conviction that further studies need to be done on the Gulen Movement and on the solutions it proposes for the problems of the modern world. Though several questions were left untouched, the conference was a great success in the sense that it not only clarified certain reservations of the participants, but it also managed to reach the general public through media attention to the issue.

Kerim Balci is a columnist at Today’s Zaman, a leading English newspaper published in Turkey. He is also a PhD candidate on Philosophy of Language, Durham University, UK.

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2009/issue-69-may-june-2009/because-of-me/ Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2009/issue-69-may-june-2009/because-of-me/ Question: What are the matters that believers should always keep in mind with regard to the fact that both individual and collective misfortunes and disasters are results of their sins?

Answer: By courtesy of belief, all living and non-living things smile into people’s faces as if they change their color, shape, pattern, nature, and therefore transform and fly into the hearts of believers to become spirit and meaning. Stone and soil, tree and leaf, rose and flower, bird and insect-everything, yes every single thing, whispers something to the souls of believers from the horizon of the heart. Moreover, all the laws ordained in nature, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, turn into a significant message and make feelings and consciousness listen to the most effective sermons that do not have letters or words.

The real reasons for disasters

In fact, the laws in nature take effect, sometimes at individual and other times at social level, in accordance with people’s spiritual life and their relations with God Almighty. Unfortunately, when the reasons for floods, earthquakes, catastrophes, and even the corruption of whole ecosystems cannot be fully understood, they are considered to be natural events, and consequently the message that they are to convey cannot be interpreted properly.

Humans, however, are a conscious and intelligent fruit of the universe. Looking into the connection between the universe and humankind, we can consider two perspectives. From one perspective, humankind has been created in the context of the natural world, and we have developed and attained our present level in relation to nature; from another perspective, the general circumstances of the universe have been shaped to be suitable for them. In the former perspective, the universe is the cause and humans are the effect, and in the latter perspective, people are the cause, while the laws in nature and the universe are the effect. Understood in this way, the laws in nature and human beings are closely interconnected. Thus, an earthquake, for instance, is strongly linked to a tremor in people; yet this can only be seen by the eye of a believer.

In one’s individual and social life, as in the laws in nature, experiences of failure or the occurrence of undesirable events are themselves closely connected to spiritual well-being. Almost all misfortunes begin within one’s inner self; then, being nourished in the earth of the self’s weakness, they gradually develop and appear in existence. Hence, the true cause of disasters is humankind, and it is impossible to make realistic comments on the cause–effect mechanism until this very particular relationship is understood.

In this sense, the first step toward searching out and finding the real cause is to question oneself. To say, “This misfortune occurred because of me; my inconsistencies and my disconnection from God caused these things happen!” and to recognize the connection between the disaster and failure to manage one’s free will, and consequently to seek forgiveness is the attitude of a true believer. Indeed, when an individual sees himself or herself as the source of problems, this manner becomes indirect remorse, penitence, and repentance.

Regarding this issue, the Holy Qur’an states, “Whatever affliction befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned; and yet, He overlooks many (of the wrongs you do)” (42:30). Therefore, troubles that target believers are penance for them. Nevertheless, some disasters are not the direct results of sins. For instance, the troubles of one who strives to serve on the path of God cause him or her to attain higher levels of righteousness. Thus, when other people are involved, thinking that their sins are the source of disasters is an erroneous belief. Believers, who are enjoined to think well of others, should suppose that other people, through disasters, attain the splendor of God’s closeness. On the other hand, they should think critically about themselves thus: “Drought and famine are occurring; it’s because of me! Things are not going right; it’s because of me! That issue ended up as a fiasco; it’s because of me!”

Do not destroy my nation because of my sins!

As is widely known, during the era of noble Umar’s caliphate, a great famine took place. The famine was so severe that new regulations for the rationing of provisions were instigated and people were supplied with limited food and drink. Noble Umar (may God be pleased with him) said that his standard of living should have been the standard of the poorest person in Medina. When he learned that the majority of the people were eating bread dipped in olive oil, he did the same thing, too. As someone who had always lived in a humble way, the great caliph was very sensitive about obeying the new rules on rationing. As long as the famine continued, he never put a delicious dish such as meat or fish into his mouth; moreover, he thought that the common disaster was his own fault. He offered supplications such as, “O God! Do not destroy the nation of Muhammad by famine because of my own sins!”

Noble Aslam, who never left noble Umar’s side, reports, “If the famine had lasted a little while longer, the Leader of the Believers would have died of his sorrow! I often saw him prostrating. He was always offering supplications and weeping. Sometimes, he was totally drowned in tears. He kept moaning, “Oh, God! I think that the famine and drought are the results of my sins. Please, do not destroy the nation of Muhammad because of me!” and shaking with sadness.

This example above is an expression of perceiving things with the eye of the heart and a sign of being connected to God. It is only those who are detached (from the true path) who, when some bad incident happens, always impute sin to others, and seek different reasons to blame, and accuse others. They never ever say, “This problem happened as a result of my fault.” They do not see events from this perspective. Consequently, they do not feel a need to repent (for their sins), to try hard to compensate their fault, or to plead with God. They cannot find the real culprit since they do not link the incident to themselves. They cannot be saved from the fault of blaming others.

Today, how many people consider themselves responsible even for changes in the laws in nature, run to their prayer rugs, and mourn as in, “Please, O God! Do not destroy the nation of Muhammad because of me”? How many people are in tears of repentance considering themselves as the cause of deprivation from the help and mercy of God. Indeed, the number of real believers in this world is equal to the number of the individuals who believe that some misfortune happening in their country is because of their sins and feel sad to think of their share in Islam’s unsolved problems.

It is narrated that in a time when misfortunes rained down on people, Salim ibn Qasim, a pious person, visited Muhammad ibn Muqatil, a great scholar of the time. He said, “There is a severe storm of disasters; earthquakes are happening one after another, and people are exhausted by poverty. You are our leader; please, for the sake of God, pray for us!” The humble scholar responded, “Indeed, how I wish that I were not the reason for your destruction! I am afraid that the storm rose because of me, the earthquakes never cease because of me, and my sins hinder Glorious Mercy from coming and embracing you.”

Next morning, Salim ibn Qasim once again, ran to Muhammad ibn Muqatil’s door. This time, however, Salim was smiling with great pleasure. He exclaimed, “Last night, in my dream, I saw our master the Messenger of God, the honor of the universe, saying, ‘God the most Glorious, released dreadful disasters and misfortune upon people. Yet, for the sake of Muhammad ibn Muqatil, who despises himself, prays, and begs humbly, God the Almighty turned the disaster away from your country!’”

Do you see how considering oneself responsible becomes great repentance and supplication in God’s view? On the one hand, think about how God’s servant sees himself or herself; on the other hand, look at his or her value in God’s view. Do you understand how judging the self (nafs) to be the cause of disasters and asking for forgiveness with a sense of shame can raise people?

Assuming responsibility

Some people may think, “What sins have we committed so that we should blame ourselves for disasters?” Actually, the thought, “What sins have I committed?” is a major sin in itself; one who think in this way commits a major lapse. A very sinful person will be on the way of forgiveness if he or she asks for pardon with very deep regret, while one who thinks, “What sins have I committed?” will be considered to be falling into the pit of catastrophe due to this question. For, individuals who are aware of their sins always have the chance of purification by repentance, whereas it is inevitable that those who suppose themselves to be pure will be crushed under the full consequences of their overlooked minor sins. Yes, indeed, “What sins have I committed?” expresses a lack of knowledge of what sin is. Nonetheless, for those individuals, not establishing a relationship with God in accordance with God’s blessings on them, not understanding the great value of being Muslim-by preferring it even over the leadership of the world-and not doing their best to obtain the pleasure of God means that they are poor ones who have closed their eyes to the Glorious bestowal, and therefore it is unnecessary to search for any other sin for one who is sunk in ingratitude up to the neck.

On the other hand, some people admit their sins, but they say, “Who am I that there should be changes in the sky, famine should appear, or rain should fall because of me?” Since they do not attribute any value to themselves, they never imagine that they have a share in causing misfortunes and disasters. This way of thinking can be seen as a sign of modesty and poverty from one point of view; however, it can be a temptation to escape from responsibility at the same time. In this manner, it is possible that a person who says “because of me!” for all kinds of disasters, whether major or minor, might become arrogant through a hidden channel under responsibility, since that kind of person assumes that many incidents happening in the universe are linked to him or her. “I am such a sinful person that everyone is afflicted with disaster because of me!” expresses feelings of shame at first; however, if proper limits are not drawn, and if Satan’s tricks are not defeated, this expression can be transformed into a claim that “I am such an important person that events in the heavens and the earth are shaped in relation to me!” Consequently, it is essential to find the middle path and maintain the balance.

Yes, indeed, it is huge heedlessness for those not to consider that there can be their own share in collective disasters; this negligence can be a result of not comprehending how God Almighty values human beings. On the other hand, while saying, “All these events are related to me, I am the reason for things that do not go right,” hidden arrogance can enter one’s heart. There is a danger of veiled arrogance in the thought, “God Almighty pays attention to me; if I am in good shape, He administers events in a good manner; but if I have a bad attitude, he ruins the balance of events,” since one is imagining one’s ego as the ruler of vast realms.

From this angle, every believer, as part of a larger community, should feel the responsibility for every disaster to a certain extent. Also, with regard to responsibility, every believer should always be committed to the following criterion: If I were involved in all the areas that are relevant to Islam and had decision-making power, I would certainly have to assert that “Today, all the troubles in Muslim communities and all that hinders the nation of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is happening because of me.” Yet, I am not a strong agent in all areas; therefore, I am primarily responsible for the hindrances that are somehow relevant to me. I should see every negative occurrence in my area from the “because of me” point of view and approach general disasters with the idea that “I have a share, too.”

The following hadith of our noble master, the Truthful Messenger of God, peace be upon him, draws attention to the criteria by which we should judge ourselves: “Beware. Every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The ruler is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects. A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be questioned about them. A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them. A servant is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it.”

From this perspective, since Umar was the caliph of the noble Messenger of God and Leader of Believers, it is natural that he thought himself responsible for the whole nation. One who leads a country takes on the great responsibility for a whole nation; similarly, the head of an institution or an association is particularly responsible for his or her area. Everyone should believe that his or her own mistakes could result in negative occurrences, especially mistakes connected with their own duty and responsibility; thus, they should be scared of this danger and live carefully.

In this sense, Sultan Alparslan’s example is noteworthy, showing how one should behave in accord with a wide area of responsibility: on the Manzigert plain, when the Muslim soldiers were all anxious, the Sultan came in front of them in his white clothes, which he called his shroud, prostrated to God, and wept, begging, “O my God! Make our army victorious; do not let them be defeated because of my sins.”

Collective repentance

Yes, indeed, it is veiled repentance for those individuals to identify their limits, positions, responsibilities and areas of responsibility, to ask forgiveness of God the Almighty after relating the problems in these areas to their own mistakes, and to revive their dormant enthusiasm in order to eradicate their mistakes. This kind of repentance is more sincere since it is not revealed, unlike that spoken aloud; this kind of repentance is more heartfelt than one that everyone testifies to. Hence, those individuals who judge their self as responsible for every disaster burn inside with great agony, but no one sees the fire; and they do not reveal their secrets. All alone, expressing penitence without letting anyone hear, they ask for forgiveness thousands of times, remembering their sins, and continue, “O my God! It is not enough to ask for forgiveness once for my sins, I repent millions of times!” seeking numbers that can express infinity in order to show regret at the fear of having broken with the Almighty Lord.

In fact, if salvation is desired at the level of society, all members of the society should repent together and look for ways of atoning for their own sins. This is because regret for an individual mistake should be felt individually; sorrow for a sin in a family should be felt by every family member; likewise, a nationwide sin requires nationwide repentance. Hence, for the salvation of a society, every individual in the society should be purified from the dirt of rebellion.

It is narrated that Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, performed the ritual prayer for rain with his tribe. Although they prayed for several days, it did not rain. Then he asked of the Wisdom of God, “My Lord! You told us to pray for an end to drought, but You have not made it rain though we begged You with open hands.” God Almighty said, “There is a sinful person among you who has not repented yet!” When Moses asked for the name of that person who was an obstacle to the mercy of God, God Almighty said, “I am the Veiler (Sattar), and I veil the sins of my servants. I do not disclose their mistakes and make them ashamed. Repent together so that this individual will be purified from sins, and thereafter your prayers will be answered.”

In brief, we should think that the troubles that confront us are because of our sins. To avoid these troubles, we should repent for our mistakes, faults, sins, rebellious actions and every time we have overstepped the limits, whether in a major or minor way. In addition, we should keep in mind that although repentance from the heart is enough for sins at an individual level, for the faults of society there is a need for deeper trembling, and a more sincere awakening and social repentance. Yes, we should not forget that success in attaining prosperity and peace in our society depends on the repentance of people who are connected to the destiny of this society in a material and spiritual way, especially the repentance of those who have dedicated themselves to the prosperity of their people.

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2003/issue-41-january-march-2003/sharing-responsibility-in-communities/ Wed, 01 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2003/issue-41-january-march-2003/sharing-responsibility-in-communities/ Does community membership affect its members’ responsibility? Can people be responsible for their attitudes even when those attitudes might not be fully within their control? Groups, whether minimally or highly structured, have a strong influence upon their members’ attitudes and behavior. Part of this influence takes the form of members’ transforming each other’s attitudes and values, at the end of which comes shared attitudes and values. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that people who belong to groups that harm others bear some of the responsibility for that harm.

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

]]>