Title "Engaged Ethics and Democracy Vs. the Total Society and the Rule of Arbitrary Law : Examples and References" ( from Tribe Ethics and Morals )

NB PVT: the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi are pagans, and they matter.

Keywords : universal human rights and "well-ordered societies", John Stuart Mill, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and related treaties, Total Society ( Medieval Christianity, Radical Islam, Stalinism, Fascism, etc. ), internationally oriented democracy, Nobel Peace Laureates HH the Dalai Lama and Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, Rio Earth Summit, Dr. Vandana Shiva and sustainable environmental democracy, prosocial behavior, Aquarian Conspiracy.

Summary: This is an brief overview of some of the main principles in universal human rights as related to Total Societies, with some key references to significant people and books. It is based on the concept that arbitrary and oppressive social order, whether politically or religiously based, is self-contradictory, unstable and irresponsible by definition, and that history shows Total Societies to be inherently dangerous and destructive, and that they can and must be fought when overly aggressive.

A counterpoint is outlined in terms of John Stuart Mill, key United Nation treaties and the necessity of balancing shared human and social concerns based on global interdependence and "inalienable" human rights ( as advanced primarily by references and citations to be followed up by interested readers ). The basic ideas of universal rights and responsibilities and "sustainable environmental democracy" are then put forward together. These are promoted as a necessary alternative to any and all total societies and as an alternative to advancing social and cultural destruction throughout the planet.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759; (b1706 - d1790)

"Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power."
Aung San Suu Kyi, elected leader of Burma ( presently imprisoned by military junta ), Nobel Pease Laureate

"No defeat baby, no surrender."
Bruce Springsteen

"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi


"Today's world requires that we accept the oneness of humanity. . . In the context of our new interdependence, considering the interests of others is clearly the best form of self-interest." HH the Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Laureate and Mahayana Buddhist teacher


Re TMIbo on Tribe Ethics and Morals:
"Evil is as evil does. I would define evil as that which seeks chaos over order. Or destroys order to create chaos, take your pick."

K T answers
Democracy is a kind of "social chaos", compared with Fascism, Stalinism, Medieval Roman Catholicism, and "Radical" Islam ( e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban ), and the People's Republic of China. Those latter systems are all about social control of the many by the few, and their capabilities for crushing human rights are renowned throughout the world and throughout history. They also don't work, as history has shown again and again by the collapse of totalitarian regimes.

Know this: where books are burned or banned, individuals and groups are or will be jailed or banned or tortured or even burned to death. The Christian Middle Ages were also known as the Dark Ages, and a lot of the history represented the subjugation of pre Christian beliefs and lifeways, including the Burning Times, and also official Ex Cathedra opposition to scientific thought and research.

Thus, there is an obvious and inherent set of problems in elevating social order AS SUCH over AND ABOVE basic human freedoms such as democracy and freedom of speech, and that clearly includes so called moral or idealistic systems of belief or "faith based societies". . . even though basic freedoms are also problematical in practice.

So, a social system based on psychological or cultural control of private persons, one which opposes freedom of thought or belief( intellectual anarchy etc. ), will eventually progress towards tyranny unless opposed. It has happened all over the world in different ways. This is a now a major problem in the world today, with the rise of broadly based low-intensity to medium intensity paramilitary attacks on democratic societies and institutions worldwide.

We all have to pay attention to this, or eventually humanity can lose much or most that has been gained in progressive human culture and society, because progressive society and culture can be restricted or banned outright, as happens in one party or one religion states and social orders.

The first problem is
What is the social recourse for mistakes or bias or unlawful behavior by a ruling social order?
The second problem is
Who shall decide which kind of social order shall prevail?
The third problem is
What shall be done when a ruling social order determines to make war on another, outside social order?

After all, every one can see that Fascism, Stalinism, Medieval Roman Catholicism, and Sunni Islam, and Post-Marxist Chinese "Communism" are all fundamentally incompatible! Who then is to rule? "There can be no agreement on the basis of exclusivist dogmas. Each excludes the other." ( K T )

So to this we can add a fourth problem: Isn't it true that while claiming to support and maintain order, totalitarian systems actually create massive chaos and destruction?
This is clearly demonstrated in Cambodia under Pol Pot, in Afghanistan under Mullah Omar and the Taliban, in Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich, in Russia and Eastern Europe under Stalin, and in China under Mao during the Cultural Revolution.

And that is why the United Nations, following World War II, in 1948 approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( See www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm ) This reads in part,

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. . ."

The "order over chaos" social alternatives to democratic society and human freedom, whether derived from religious or nationalist or internationalist dogma, ALL fully fit the definition of Total Society, in which the individual has few or no rights, and the state claims basically arbitrary control over the most essential aspects of human life and freedom.

This is a crucial point : absolutist or primarily one-sided social control is a form or mechanism that can be "religious", or "nationalist", or "internationalist". The *process* is what matters, *not* the dogmatic content per se. Such a process is what distorts and even destroys human society, specifically and especially while claiming to promote "coherence" and "order" and "harmony". Violent and arbitrary oppression of many diverse people both near and far is by definition the opposite of those claimed values.

That is, an authoritarian-leaning society or Total Society, to the extent that it is authoritarian or Total in practice, is
a) NOT well-ordered society
b) NOT designed to advance the good of its members and
c) NOT effectively regulated by a ( truly ) public conception of justice.

"Justice" means "rights" and the balancing of rights through corresponding responsibilities among people. This is well developed in the writings of John Stuart Mill. But a Total Society is one in which rights are arbitrarily abridged. It was not so long ago that the Civil Rights movement ( 19th and 20th C. ) brought upheaval to the American South.

Ironically, it was a broad and ever larger set of American citizens who worked for peace and freedom for blacks in the Southern states for blacks ( often illegally or under direct attack by police ), and many blacks were Christian but still oppressed by a basically Christian society / slave system that was clearly worse than Imperial Rome. In Rome, slaves could read and write, and some were Greek scholars. In the American South, black Christian slaves were not allowed to learn to read and write ( the Bible, etc. ) by their Christian masters. So that is an example of a Total Society in recent American history, and one that was conclusively overthrown.

In the above example, it is clearly unfair and therefore unreasonable that some Christians were allowed to go to school and some were not. That's arbitrary abridgement. Basic rights means no arbitrary abridgement, i.e. that the laws and basic rules of fairness apply throughout society, to all human beings.

The main point here is that laws and social systems are always distorted in total Societies, that basic rights are arbitrarily abridged so that the few apply law to the many, while basically remaining above the law. And that is the opposite of a reasonable civil society, whether it is Medieval Catholicism or Nazi Germany or black slavery in the American South or Stalinist control of Eastern Europe.

Rights fundamentally opposed by large scale religious and political organizations can include some or all of the following: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and Assembly, Freedom of Worship, Freedom of Political Self-Determination through Elected Representation. ( In fact, the Vatican did not formally acknowledge the legitimate rule of democracy until 1962. )

A key example of abridged rights is the "establishment" of Nazi rule in Germany. This was *not* authorized in the national German legislature, as many think. In fact, the National Socialist regime came to power in significant part by literally holding the German legislature hostage until that body resigned to Nazi rule. It was a state coup. How is that so called "order" IN ANY WAY legitimate? Since it is not, we can all agree that order and law are *not* the same thing as legitimacy, and can in fact promote the opposite.

Thus, a total society can be established by a social force that works like organized crime, and since large scale crime is inherently antisocial, this is contradicts the most basic notions of a well-ordered society.

When TMIbo ( on Tribe Ethics and Morals ) says "I would define evil as that which seeks chaos over order", this is a deep self contradiction. Clearly, the National Socialists sought "order", and their appeal to the German people was to lead the people from economic chaos and national weakness to strength and power. The Nazis represent an evil will to power, a power that claimed to protect the people from weakness and anarchy, but evil and self-defeating because universally destructive.

Historical perspective matters greatly in this discussion, and so do the perspectives of those who have worked long term and very effectively for peace and freedom, such as Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein.

Dr Einstein said:
"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions."
"The unlimited desire for ever greater power seeks to become active and aggressive wherever and whenever the physical possibility offers itself."
"Democratic institutions and standards are the result of historic developments to an extent not always appreciated in the lands that enjoy them."

TMIbo publically and clearly elevates "order" over "chaos", and we can all agree that the problem is not limited to Nazi Germany or to any one specific time or place. Feudal Totalitarian Christianity, Total Society in many Islamic Nations, National Socialism and Stalinist Dictatorship of the Proletariat emphasize "order" over "chaos" ( i.e. non-Christians or Freethinkers, the so-called "International Jewish Conspiracy", feminists and those who seek freedom from Islamic rule or jihad, etc. ).

We know this because all these institutions historically have emphasized war and bloodshed to subjugate or completely eliminate opposing positions, individuals, groups and even whole societies. Up through and including wholescale genocide. The Twentieth Century was largely largely dominated by Total Societies and their massive efforts to reshape the world into their own images, up through and including unlimited warfare ( along with contervailing forces such as the Allies in World War II ).

A casual, rough estimate of the 20th Century destruction of unarmed civilians under Communist rule ( in Russia, China, Cambodia ) runs from fifty million lives to eighty million lives, perhaps more. How is that "well-ordered" ? Yes, there is a strong sense of "order" in Marxist Stalinist rule, but the cost is astonishingly severe. And Communism still failed in Russia, throughout Eastern Europe, and so forth.

The same is true of Fascism in Spain and Germany. Yes, the Fascists ruled ( established and maintained complete "social order" ), but The Third Reich fell most spectacularly, even after amazing efforts to establish control over all of Europe, and so forth. Even after all the bloodshed of World War II, which claimed over thirty million lives.

Thus we can see the repeatedly demonstrated truth of Gandhi's statement that tyrants eventually fail. This means, more generally, that no Total Society ( such as Medieval Roman Catholicism, or Fascism, or Stalinism, or Radical Islam ) is inevitable, stable, or unassailable.

I argue the reverse: I will argue that all total societies, including Post Marxist Chinese Communism and Radical Islam, are inherently unstable and are doomed to failure. One basic reason for this is very simple: the more a violent social order succeeds, the more other societies will become concerned and seek to counterbalance naked aggression.

Another fundamental reason is that oppressive social orders fail to develop the potential of many or most of their members. For example, about 51% of the world's population is female, yet women are oppressed by Total Societies. ( See "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith", by Irshad Manji, and "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. )

That total societies are inherently unstable is demonstrated by much historical evidence. This is true of Ancient Rome and Medieval Spain, which were based on continuous conquest, which cannot always proceed. It is structurally true today becasue of fundamental ( and basically unresolvable ) problems within Post Marxist Communism and within Islam ( e.g. the Sunni Shia divide as seen historically, as well as in present day Lebanon, Iraq, and so forth ).

It has never been shown that any culture based on war or conquest is ever really sustainable as a whole. Although Sunni Islam and Shia Islam are both quite powerful today, they are not unified, and for many centuries they have fought each other. Thus to a significant extent, they weaken themselves and each other in overall terms.

Devolution of imperial power is well demonstrated in major cases, with the development of near democracy or effective democracy asa replacement. Witness the development of self-rule in India and the many countries which became free of 16th century Spanish rule ( see encarta.msn.com/media_4615...empire.html ), or free of the British Empire and so on.

It is quite clear that the overall progression of human societies from the time of the Protestant Reformation to today is characterized by several trends:
1) the breakdown of large scale total societies, such as Medieval Catholism and royalist rule;
2) the breakdown of colonialism and international imperial rule;
3) the tremendous and widespread development of human rights efforts and organizations ( including nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs ) and progress towards universal human rights as principle, as model, and as main priority for large scale societies.

This is due to many major economic, cultural, and international factors, including the global rise of literacy and freer more powerful forms of communication and networking ( e.g. the internet ). It is also based on tested working models of democracy that balance rights and responsibilities through transparent and equitable means. These social models are in turn based on well developed definitions of "social contracts" as advanced by John Stuart Mill and others.

The point is to find and uphold a balance based on freedom and responsibility, consciously and mutually addressed. The claim is not that people and groups will in general come to "mutual understanding and consonance with other people" ( Einstein ), but rather all will have to come to terms with fair and reciprocal standards of rights and responsibilities which favor nor one group and which are as little arbitrary as possible, paricularly in terms of negative rights ( non-interference ).

But Non-interference is the opposite of social control as defined by any Total Society. Therefore it is in the interest of the many to seek the opposite of any one model for a total society. When the many can and do work together effectively, or at least begin to work together, then movement towards a total society can be slowed, or reversed, and basic freedoms strengthened or reestablished.

This means negotiated rights and responsibilities through a civil order that
a) accords equal rights to all individuals by default as a matter of course;
b) is negotiated through a system of law that is always independent of any specific political party ( e.g. the US Bill of Rights and the US Supreme Court );
c) is always independent of any specific religious system ( separation of church and state ), i.e. that fundamentally rejects Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. as foundational to society and social agreements;
d) actively promotes peace and co-operation and democracy in all parts of the world
( e.g. the United Nations and interventions by democracy-backed peacekeeping forces - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping ).

Furthermore, it also means, in our time,
e) the basic idea of "sustainable environmental democracy" as an alternative to any and all total societies based on squandering resources needed for future generations. This basic concept is called "intergenerational equity", or equity between generations. This has been developed by for example the Rio Earth Summit ( 1992 ) and environmental democracy has been advanced in particular by Dr. Vandana Shiva ( see following references ).

"Universal responsibility" and "universal human ethics" have been well communicated by for example HH the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist teacher awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He says
"Human beings by nature want happiness and do not want suffering. With that
feeling everyone tries to achieve happiness and tries to get rid of suffering, and everyone has the basic right to do this. In this way, all here are the same, whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, Easterner or Westerner, believer or non-believer ... and so on. Basically, from the viewpoint of real human value we are all the same."-- His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from "Kindness, Clarity, and Insight."

( See also The Global Community & the Need for Universal Responsibility - by H.H. the Dalai Lama, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1990. )

The point is that this kind of ethic is strongly prosocial, it actively seeks peace and freedom for all, not just this group or that. The alternative, isolationist viewpoint fails, just as failing to address the Nazi threat would have been a tragic failure for the US and others, just as failing to address the threat of Taliban style Islamic rule can become a major problem for any and all democratic societies.

HH the Dalai Lama belives in and works for peace. But peace is very different than pacifism. The Dalai Lama makes it very clear that he definitely supports the war effort that destroyed National Socialism in Germany. So did Dr. Albert Einstein.
Peace therefore is not the absence of war per se, it is the active promotion of freedom and democracy, including sometimes, acts of defensive warfare.

This is acceptable by definition at the United Nations, and it is only fair. It is universally agreed theat there is a need to fight for peace and freedom. This has major implications today in dealing with long-term aggressive and expansionist social orders that develop by swiftly or incrementally burying human rights. These must be dealt with using "scalable response".

There are several principal sets of documents that frame and illuminate the issues of negotiation based civil society. These include
1) "On Liberty and Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill
( see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill and plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/ ) ;
2) the founding documents and historical development of democracy in the American Colonies, esp. the sources of American style democracy in the Iroquois Confederacy;
3) the founding documents and historical development of the United Nations
( see www.unhchr.ch/map.htm );

To these I would add several additional current sources:

1) information on Nobel Peace Prize Winner Aung San Suu Kyi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
see also the book "Freedom From Fear and Other Writings", by Aung San Suu Kyi
www.amazon.com/Freedom-Fe.../0140253173

2) information on the Nobel Peace Prize Winner HH the Dalai Lama
( e.g. "The Global Community" www.dalailama.com/page.75.htm )

3) The Rio Earth Summit documents and process
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit

4) information and books related to Dr. Vandana Shiva
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

5) Aquarian Conspiracy, by Marilyn Ferguson
www.amazon.com/Aquarian-C.../0874774586

But politics is not something that happens "out there". Professor Todd Gitlin famously pointed out that "politics isn't where you stand on the issues, politics is how you live your life". And that necessarily involves personal principles, models and priorities, not mere acknowledgement of social "realities" and "concerns". This is why I claim that the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi are relevant. I will offer some words from Aung San Suu Kyi and Marilyn Ferguson on the inner ethic of progressive social change.


Freedom From Fear Speech, by Aung San Suu Kyi
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Burm....html

". . .Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear ofdeath, fear oflosing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure.

"A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.

"The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.

"At the root of human responsibility is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments. It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power."


. . . . this is . . . For All Our Relations, and not least for the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi. Sarva mangalam.

K T

"Our past is *not* our potential. In any given hour, with all the stubborn teachers and healers of history who have called us to our best selves, we can re-choose, to awaken. Awakening brings it's own assignments, chosen by us, unique to each of us. But whatever you have thought about yourself, and however long you may have thought it, you are not just "you". You are a seed, a silent promise. You are the conspiracy."
Marilyn Ferguson, the Aquarian Conspiracy