It's a Long Way to a Global Ethic: A Response to Leonard Swidler

Abstract

My first reaction, as I considered Dr. Swidler's proposal, was to be overcome by a sense of historical weariness. As an active dialogue participant in the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, I have had occasion to ponder the overall differences between the worldviews of Buddhism and Christianity-in particular, their overall differences with respect to ethics. Viewed historically with respect to their engagement with the social dimension of humankind, it often seems to me that Buddhism has done too little and Christianity far too much. When I look at Swidler's proposal, I must confess that I see another, and very typically Christian, error of commission. Forgive me, but I see a document riddled with imperialism. I am sure I am not the first to say this. This document, with the Golden Rule at its center, is unabashedly a Christian document attempting to speak for the religions of the world. Granted, others are invited to respond. But why should others respond to a Christian document pretending to be a global document? This is not to say that I, or anyone else, would necessarily disagree with the Golden Rule. The point is that there is no hope of arriving at real global consensus from a starting point within one tradition. How much better it would be to call for a dialogue toward the articulation of a global ethic, to invite eminent representatives of the worlds' religions to such a parley, and to hear how each would put the matter. Undoubtedly, the very terms of the discussion, the very structure of the issue, would be put very differently in each case. Then and only then would it become just praxis to invite all to search for common ground. To make a second, and related, point, I have suggested that global representatives of the world's religions should be involved in the effort from day one. Just as urgently, in this country, we liberals need to search for some kind of common ground with religious conservatives, if they will even talk to us. What is the point of discussion on a global level if we cannot talk across the fence in our own backyard? Indeed, it is the urgent need of intrareligious dialogue between liberals and conservatives in the same religion that leads me to be sympathetic to the intention of this project, despite my serious reservations concerning its