Appiah's discussion about the Golden Rule really made me think about how it takes so much more than following the formula to do to others what you would want done if you were in their place to. He gives examples to explain what is truly necessary in order to uphold the Golden Rule. One of them is a seemingly simple situation where a Jehovah's Witness needs a blood transfusion in order to live. The complication is that she doesn't want one because, as a Jehovah's Witness, she believes it is against God's will to take blood that is not her own into her body. The dilema is whether to give the blood transfusion against her will in order to save her life. If you do not believe that it is against God's will to have a blood transfusion and that if you were dying of blood loss that you would like someone to save your life via transfusion, then it is obvious to go against her "incorrect" wishes and save her life (universal concern). But, if you were to think about her position as a choice between dying and going to heaven or living and being condemned to hell with all of the religious connotations therein, then it would be obvious to comply with her wishes and let her pass on (respect of individual difference). Which way one choses to look at it depends on one's individual values. For example, an Atheist who does not respect religious values or fears may be more likely to operate based on the universalism that life is better than death no matter what beliefs an individual may have about the afterlife. While I, as someone who is familiar with and sympathetic towards religious beliefs, would chose to operate based on the universalism that upholding religious beliefs is more important that living at times. The trick is to communicate in order to judge "why" an individual thinks/acts in a different way rather than judge their actions alone.
I believe that everyone is entitled to live based on his/her own values and traditions up until the point where another's freedom is infringed upon because of his/her beliefs. This means that, in a perfect world where everyone's voice is expressed and heard equally, as long as no one get's hurt, anything goes. Unfortunately, the world does not operate this way. Resources are distributed unequally across the world and within each society. For me, the answer is to walk down the middle path of respect for all humans based on the fact that they are alive, knowing that I will make many mistakes along the way. For me, being a cosmopolitan is operating under the assumption that there is reason and goodness in all people and that it is possible to passably understand another's point of view if we are both willing to open that conversation towards understanding. The solution always starts with communication and respect. I use the term, middle path, because of its reference to Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism makes the general point that it isn't good to go too far in anything. Knowing your individual values and how you fit within the two extremes of universalism and cultural relativism. I have spent some time studying the Buddhist religious beliefs and feel that there is a strong parallel between their beliefs and cosmopolitanism as Appiah defines it. One of my favorite aspects of the Buddhist belief system is that one should first start with love and compassion for oneself, then love and compassion for other individuals, and then love and compassion for the collective or group. It is the same process to interact with the world around you in a cosmopolitan way. In the Buddhist sense, love can be understood as respect, and compassion can be understood as acting in such a way that understanding and kindness are apparent. Appiah explained that each individual first needs to discover his/her own values and understand where they came from. Then, building upon self-knowledge, we could spread that attitude of open-minded curiosity and understanding to other individuals and, eventually, to other cultures. I believe that the only way I can be open-minded and tolerant towards other cultures is if I am first comfortable with and accepting of my own values. The Dalai Lama really sums up what I feel is the cosmopolitan attitude and answers the question of where to begin.
"I think that this is the first time I am meeting most of you. But to me, whether it is an old friend or new friend, there’s not much difference anyway, because I always believe we are the same; we are all human beings. Of course, there may be differences in our cultural background or way of life, there may be differences in our faith, or we may be of a different color, but we are human beings, consisting of the human body and the human mind. Our physical structure is the same, and our mind and our emotional nature are also the same. Whenever I meet people, I always have the feeling that I am encountering another human being, just like myself. I find it is much easier to communicate with others on that level. If we emphasize specific characteristics, like I am Tibetan or I am Buddhist, then there are differences. But those things are secondary. If we can leave the differences aside, I think we can easily communicate, exchange ideas, and share experiences."
No comments:
Post a Comment