FWU logo

Chapter 6: Ethics

When we look at the world today, we cannot but feel appalled by the rapid disappearance of the sense of moral and ethical consciousness. At the same time, anti-moral ways of thinking are rapidly increasing. It is now becoming quite acceptable to think that people are free to do whatever they wish. As a result, various kinds of social crimes are committed repeatedly, social order is chaotic, and society is in great confusion.

One of the causes of this social confusion is that the human pattern of thinking has fallen into materialism; another cause is that the traditional values and norms of ethical behavior have collapsed. In order to free society from such social chaos and to rebuild social order, we must establish a new perspective on ethics.

This chapter is an attempt at presenting such a perspective.

Also, in order to prepare for the coming ethical society, a new theory of ethics is required. In such an ethical society, the values of trueness, goodness, and beauty, centered on God's love, will be actualized in daily life. In order to practice goodness, which is one of the values of the ethical society to come, a theory of ethics is necessary.

In the coming ethical society, all human beings will be brothers and sisters, centering on God as the parent of' humankind, and people will love one another centering on God's love. It is ethics that provides the guidelines for the practice of love. Since the coming ethical society is concerned not only with this earthly world but also with the spirit world, the norms presented by the new theory of ethics must be able to solve not only the confusion of this earthly world, but also the confusion of the spirit world. Thus, an eternal ethical society will be realized, where the earthly world and the spirit world will be united.

I. The Divine Principle Foundation for Ethics

God created man and woman as His objects of love, and God's love is manifested more completely through a family rather than through an individual. Therefore, God's ideal of creation is to actualize God's love through the family.

When husband and wife love each other horizontally, centering on God's vertical love, 1 a child comes to be born. At that time, a family four-position base is established consisting of the four positions of God, father (husband), mother (wife), and children. A family four-position base is also established with grandparents, father, mother, and children-for in the family, the grandparents stand in the position of God.

The persons in each position of the family four-position base have three objects. The grandparents have the father, the mother, and children as their objects; the father has the grandparents, the mother [wife], and children as his objects. The mother has the grandparents, the father [husband], and the children as her objects; children have the grandparents, the father, and the mother as their objects. When a person in one of the positions loves the persons in the other three positions as objects, the "triple-object purpose" becomes realized. 2 When the persons in each position fulfills the triple-object purpose, the family four-position base is realized.

The fulfillment of the triple-object purpose brings about the realization of God's love toward the three objects. God's love is an absolute love, but when it manifests itself, it can do so only in a divisional manner, according to the position and direction within the four-position base. Divisional love refers to the three kinds of love in the family, namely, parental love, conjugal love, and children's love. Parental love is downward love, from parents to children; conjugal love is horizontal love between husband and wife; and children's love is upward love, from children to parents. In this way, divisional love is love with a directional nature. More precisely, love has twelve directions, because the persons in each of the four positions has a triple-object purpose. Consequently, various kinds of love, with different kinds of nuances, come to appear. In order to realize these various kinds of love, various kinds of virtues are required, since to each kind of love there is a corresponding virtue.

To summarize, God's ideal of creation is for human beings to realize God's love through the family and to complete the family four-position base. The aim of the Unification theory of ethics is to accomplish the perfection of the family four-position base. The Divine-Principled foundation for the Unification theory of ethics is as follows:

1. God is the subject of love, and at the same time, the subject of trueness, goodness, and beauty.
2. The original ideal family is the place where God's love is actualized divisionally through the family four-position base.
3. The persons in each position fulfill the "purpose for the whole" and the "purpose for the individual" through relating to three objects, that is, through fulfilling the triple-object purpose.

II. Ethics and Morality

A. Definition of Ethics and Morality

As an individual truth body, each person forms all internal four position base through the give-and-receive action between the spirit mind and the physical mind. This is the "inner four-position base." The family four-position base, formed through the give-and-receive action among family members, is the "outer four-position base." In the inner four-position base, the spirit mind should take the subject position, and the physical mind, the object position. In fallen humankind, however, the activities of the physical mind, that is, the life of food, clothing, shelter, and sex, are generally given first priority, whereas the activities pursued by the spirit mind, that is, the life of values, are left on a secondary plane. That is why people who make effort to perfect their character must continually make effort to rectify the relationship between the spirit mind and the physical mind. In this way, human beings have been aiming at the perfection of personality as individual beings. On the other hand, on the family level, they have been aiming at the perfection of the family by attempting to establish harmonious give-and-receive actions among family members.

In Unification Thought, morality is defined as the "norm of human behavior in individual life," and ethics is defined its the "norm of human behavior in family life." The role of morality is to guide the individual to the perfection of personality, and the role of ethics is to guide the individual to the perfection of family life.

In other words, morality is the norm for the completion of the First Blessing, and ethics is the norm for the completion of the Second Blessing (Gen. 1:28).

Morality is thus the norm for the inner four-position base, and ethics as the norm for the outer four-position base. More precisely, morality is the norm for a human being as an individual truth body, and ethics is the norm for a human being as a connected body. Therefore, morality is the subjective norm, and ethics is the objective norm.

B. Ethics and Order

Ethics is the pattern of behaviors of love from a person in the family four-position base toward each of the three objects, each in its own direction.

Therefore, ethics is established in a specific position and according to the order of love. This means that ethics cannot be established apart from order. In the family today, however, order between parents and children, husband and wife, and brothers and sisters is neglected or ignored. As a result, the family has become disordered. That is the cause of the collapse of social order. Tile family, which originally should have been the basis of social order, has become the starting point of the collapse of the social order.

Order in love relationships is closely related to the order in sexual relationships. Therefore, ethics is the norm for order in love, and at the same time, the norm for order in sex. Today, order in sex has largely collapsed, and illicit relationships have become commonplace. Along with that, the collapse of ethics is rapidly accelerating. The main causes of the destruction of sexual order are the collapse of traditional values and the flood of the sensual culture of sex. The sense of the sacredness of sex has been lost, and sex has become degraded beyond recognition. It is no wonder that family breakdown has now become an everyday occurrence. This situation is not at all different from the situation in the Garden of Eden, where Eve, tempted by the Archangel, had an illicit sexual relationship with him, and as a result, the order of love and sex was broken.

What we need today is a new view of value that can bring the family back to its original state. Such a view of value must establish order in love and order in sex. This is the reason why the Unification theory of ethics is presented.

C. Ethics, Morality, and the Way of Heaven

Just as the human being is a substantial being that integrates the universe, or a microcosm miniaturizing the universe, so the family is a microcosmic system miniaturizing the system of the universe. The law that interpenetrates the entire universe is called the "Way of I-leaven," or "reason-law." The norm for family life, or ethics, is a direct manifestation of the Way of Heaven within the scope of the family. Ethics, so to speak, is the Way of Heaven manifested in the family in miniature form.

.just its in the universe we find vertical order (e.g., the Moon-the Earth-the center of the Galaxy-the center of the universe) and horizontal order (e.g., Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto), so in the family we find vertical order (e.g., grandparents, parents, and children) and horizontal order (e.g., husband and wife, brothers and sisters). The virtues corresponding to such orders are the vertical values, such as benevolence of' grandparents and parents and filial piety of children, and the horizontal values, such as conjugal love between husband and wife, brotherly love between brothers, and sisterly love between sisters.

Morality, which is the norm of behavior for individuals to observe, also resembles the law of the universe, or the Way of Heaven. just as an individual being in the universe exists as an individual truth body when the subject element and the object element within it perform harmonious give-and-receive action, so a human being is supposed to perfect his/her personality when the spirit mind and the physical mind engage in harmonious give-and-receive action centering on God's Heart (love). The virtues of morality are, among others, purity, honesty, righteousness, temperance, courage, wisdom, self-control, endurance, independence, self-help, fairness, diligence, and innocence.

D. Social Ethics as a Projection and Application of Family Ethics

From the perspective of Unification Thought, human relationships in society are a projection of the relationships among family members at home. For example, in the relationship where people's ages differ by twenty years or more, the seniors should love their juniors as their children, and the juniors should respect their seniors as their parents. If the difference in age is ten years or less, the older person should love the younger as a younger brother or sister, and the younger respect the older as an elder brother or sister.

From this viewpoint, family ethics is the basis of all ethics. If family ethics is applied to society, it becomes social ethics; if applied to corporations, it becomes corporate ethics; if applied to the state, it becomes state ethics.

Accordingly, the following values (virtues) come to be established. In a country, public officials should love the people, and tile people should respect public officials. In a school, teachers should pet-form their function well, and students should respect their teachers. In a society, seniors should protect juniors, and juniors should respect seniors. In a business organization, superiors should guide subordinates, and subordinates should follow superiors. These are a few examples of the application of the vertical values (virtues) of the family.

When fraternal love among brothers and sisters is applied to society, nation, and world, it becomes love for associates, neighbors, compatriots, and people in general, in which one can actualize such horizontal values (virtues) as reconciliation, tolerance, obligation, fidelity, courtesy, modesty, compassion, cooperation, service, and sympathy. Society, nation, and world today are all in great chaos. The reason is that family ethics, which is the basis of all ethics, has become weakened. Therefore, the way to save society is to establish a new kind of family ethics, a new perspective on ethics. By doing so, we can save families from collapse, and we can save the world.

It has been about two hundred years since capitalist society was formed. During all that period of time, labor-management relations have been a constant issue. It can be said that Marx and Lenin appeared for the sole purpose of solving that particular problem, which they tried to do through violent revolution. As a result of the Communist revolution, however, freedom has been lost and ethics has been trampled upon, as the reality of the Communist countries demonstrate. In the end, their attempt proved to be a complete failure. It is the position of the Unification theory of ethics that, in order to provide fundamental solutions to labor-management problems, one must first establish corporate ethics on the basis of family ethics.

III. Order and Equality

A. Order and Equality Until Today

Modern democracy has abolished the medieval status system and the privileges under that system, and has attempted to realize equality under the law. As a result, equality in political participation, that is, the system of universal suffrage, has been realized under the democratic system. Yet, even though equality under the law has been realized, economic equality has never been realized, and the inequality in wealth remains unsolved in capitalist society. Karl Marx advocated the establishment of Communist society in order to realize economic equality through the abolition of private property. But in Communist countries, economic equality does not exist; instead, the violent rule by a privileged class (the Communist bureaucrats) came to appear. Thus, true equality has not been realized yet, even though people have continued to try to achieve it. Therefore, it is indispensable to clarify what true equality is, that is, the equality that people have been seeking from the depth of their original mind.

The fundamental question here concerns the relationship between order and equality. If all people were completely equal in their rights, there would be no difference between those who govern and those who are governed. Such a society would become disordered and would be in a situation of anarchy. On the other hand, if order is over-emphasized, certain aspects of equality are bound to be lost. Thus, we must think about what true equality is, namely, the equality that human beings want from the depth of their original mind; we must also find a solution for the problem of order and equality.

Let us consider the matter of order between husband and wife and equal rights between men arid women.

Until today, women have been oppressed and discriminated against by men, but in recent years, the women's liberation movement, which advocates equal rights for men and women, has been promoted strongly. On the other hand, in advanced countries such as the United States, where the women's liberation movement is very active, divorce rate is increasing and family breakdown is widespread. Such social ills have come about because of the excessive emphasis on equal rights between men and women. This has created a situation in which the positions of subject and object between husband and wife has been lost. If the wife stands in the subject position, her relationship to the husband will become its that between subject and subject, which necessarily causes the phenomenon of repulsion. For that reason, the questions of order between husband and wife and of equality between men and women are important problems to be solved.

B. The Divine Principle Way of Order and Equality

Viewed from the perspective of Unification Thought, the Divine Principle way of equality is equality of love and equality of personality. The equality that people truly seek is the equality as children under the love of our Father in Heaven. This is the equality in which God's love is given equally to all people, just as the light of the sun shines equally on all beings. Accordingly, the Divine Principle way of equality is equality given by God, the Subject, rather than equality that people, the objects, can establish as they please.

God's love is manifested divisionally through order in the family. Therefore, equality of love is equality through order. Equality of love through order refers to equality in the degree of the fullness of love. In other words, equality is realized when there is fullness of love in everybody in a way that is suitable to each person's position and individuality. The fullness of love brings satisfaction and joy. Therefore, Divine-Principle way of equality is equality of satisfaction, and also equality of joy. The fullness of God's love comes to be felt only by those who have perfect object consciousness that is, the heart to attend God and to be thankful to God. Those who lack object consciousness can never feel a sense of fullness; instead, they will feel dissatisfaction.

With regard to equality of rights, there can be no true equality of the rights among peoples' various occupational positions, because in order for people to carry on social life, the relationship between subject and object is indispensable, as in the case of government and people, superior and subordinate, and so on.

Yet, people are equal in love-in the sense that they are equally loved to the fullest degree-even though they may have different occupational positions. For example, there can be no difference between the way the president of a nation loves his children and the way a citizen of that nation loves his own children. In a family, there can be no perfect equal rights between husband and wife. Of course, there is no superiority or inferiority in value between husband and wife; still they are meant to engage in harmonious give-and-receive action from their respective positions of subject and object. If they do so, conjugal love will be realized in their relationship, and both the husband and the wife will experience joy.

Thus far, people have been pursuing political equality under the law and economic equality of property.

Yet, the kind of equality our original mind desires has never been realized, while there has never been any realization of political or economic equality, whether in capitalist or in Communist society. This is because people have neither received God's love nor practiced it in their families and society. When God's love is actualized in the family and expands to society, people will come to form fraternal relationships among themselves. Then, even if there are differences in occupational positions or in rights, equalization will be promoted in the fields of economy, education, and so on, and exploitation or discrimination will completely vanish. In such a society, women will be able to take even such persons as that of a president or high-level executive in a company, and discrimination between men and women in the work place will vanish. Since, however, there are functional differences between men and women, it is natural that there should be some distinction between men and women in some specific occupations.

IV. Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Ethics from the Viewpoint of the Unification Theory of Ethics

In this section, representative theories of ethics will be appraised from the perspective of Unification Thought. From the modern period, some major aspects of the theories proposed by Kant and Bentham will be discussed; from the contemporary period, highlights of the theories of analytical philosophy and pragmatism will be examined.

A. Kant

1. Kant's Theory of Ethics

In Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) asserted that true moral law should not be a "hypothetical imperative," which tells us to "do something as a means to achieve Some purpose," but rather a "categorical imperative," which simply tells us to "do something," unconditionally. For example, we should not "be honest as a means to be regarded as a nice person," but rather simply "be honest," unconditionally. The categorical imperative is established by practical reason, and it gives our will an imperative, or an order. (Practical reason is called the "legislator.") The will that has received the imperative of practical reason is a good will. And a good will urges us to action.

Kant described the fundamental law of morality as follows: "Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal legislation." "Maxim" here refers to a purpose aimed at by a person's will, or that which an individual thinks ought to be done. According to Kant, an action undertaken should be such that the subjective principle, or maxim, directing it can be applied universally.

Kant regarded as good that which holds true universally, with no contradiction, just like natural law; that which does not hold true universally, he regarded as evil.

The morality asserted by Kant was a morality of duty, and the inner moral law that presses us to action, was a voice of duty. In his words, "Duty! Thou sublime and mighty name that dost embrace nothing charming or insinuating, but requirest submission .... but merely holdest forth a law which of itself finds entrance into the mind, and yet gains reluctant reverence. 4 Kant also stated that in order for good will not to be regulated by anything, freedom must be postulated, and that, as long as imperfect persons seek to realize goodness perfectly, the immortality of the soul must be postulated, and that, when one seeks perfect goodness, or the supreme good, virtue should be connected with happiness; further, if virtue is to match with happiness, then the existence of God must be postulated.

Thus, Kant recognized the existence of the soul and of God as postulates of practical reason.

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Kant's Theory of Ethics

Kant distinguished pure reason (i.e., theoretical reason) from practical reason. Pure reason is for the purpose of knowledge, and practical reason regulates the will and guides it to action. Since pure reason is separate from practical reason, there cannot but arise the problem of why action required by the categorical imperative is good. In deciding whether or not a certain act is good, one must ascertain the result of that act.

Yet, according to Kant, an act that is directly impelled by the categorical imperative to do a certain thing, irrespective of the results of that act, is good. Suppose someone happens to encounter a wounded man, and the categorical imperative "you must help this man" is issued. Suppose, further, that the person receiving the categorical imperative takes the wounded man to a hospital. After that, however, there is a chance that the man who was taken to the hospital may not feel good about that. Yet, since the person who did the "good deed" was following a categorical imperative issued by practical reason, lie is quite happy with the situation. In this way, without taking into account the result, Kant is only concerned with the motivation. This happened because Kant separated pure reason from practical reason, or knowledge from practice. In fact, however, pure reason and practical reason are not separate things. Reason is one entity, and we are such that we act while taking into account the results of our action, according to one and the same reason.

In Kant's moral law, there are problems: what is the standard with which subjective maxims are to be universalized, and in what way does such universalization become possible? Kant said that, if people became perfectly moral, happiness will be realized; on the other hand, since the act aiming at happiness is a hypothetical one, it cannot be regarded as good, he argued. Though he knew that we seek happiness, he said that we should not aim at happiness. In this context, lie postulated God, and affirmed that, if we practice good perfectly, we will necessarily be happy.

The problem in Kant's view was that he did not know about God's purpose of creation. For him, all purposes were self-loving and selfish. From the perspective of Unification Thought, however, human beings have a dual purpose, namely, the purpose for the whole and the purpose for the individual, and originally they were to pursue the purpose for the individual while placing priority on the purpose for the whole. In contrast, what Kant referred to as "purpose" was nothing but the purpose for the individual. As a result, he denigrated every kind of purpose, and his moral law came to be a law without a standard.

Furthermore, Kant asserted that, in order for moral law to be established, the immortality of the soul and the existence of God must be postulated. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant excluded God and the soul saying that it is impossible to cognize them since they lack any kind of sensory content. Here, also, there is a difficulty in Kant's philosophy. He postulated God, but his postulated God is only a hypothetical god, which amounts to saying that one cannot ever encounter the true God. In the end, the state of supreme good to which lie refers became hypothetical as well.

Kant attempted to establish the standard of goodness of his moral law based only on duty, which is given by practical reason. It was merely a cold world of duty, or a world of regulations. Seen from the Unification Thought point of view, duty and norms are not the end for which human life exists; they are the means for actualizing true love.

B. Bentham

1. Bentham's View of Ethics

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) started from the following premise: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do." 5 Thus lie advocated the "principle of utility," according to which, pleasure and pain are the standards of good and evil.

Bentham calculated pleasure and pain quantitatively, regarding as good any act that brought the greatest pleasure, thus advocating "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" as the principle of his moral philosophy. As to what brings pleasure or pain to people, he said that "there are four distinguishable sources: ... the physical, the political, the moral, and the religious." 6 Among them, he regarded the physical source as the most fundamental one, for only physical pleasure and pain can be calculated objectively. He considered it desirable for as many people as possible to obtain portions of material wealth in an equitable manner.

Contrary to Kant, who argued that pure goodness is not determined by purpose or material interests, Bentham asserted that human conduct can be considered good only when it realizes the greatest happiness for people. Thus, he argued that material happiness must be pursued directly. The background for Bentham's thought was the Industrial Revolution of England.

Bentham's philosophy influenced many thinkers; one of them was Robert Owen (1771-1858), a socialist reformer. Owen incorporated into his own thought Bentham's of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Based on that, and with the influence of the French Enlightenment and materialist philosophy, Owen promoted a movement for social reform. He considered that, since people are products of the environment, if the environment is improved, people will be improved as well, and a happy society will be realized. In order to actualize that ideal, Owen moved to the United States and constructed the New Harmony society of cooperatives in Indiana. That effort, however, ended in failure due to internal divisions among co-workers.

Utilitarians, influenced by this socialist movement, engaged in activities for social reform. They promoted movements for the reform of electoral laws, the reform of laws concerning the poor, the simplification of legal proceedings, the abolition of crop regulations, the liberation of slaves in colonies, the expansion of suffrage, the reform of living conditions of working people, and so on, and contributed a great deal toward their solution of the contradictions of capitalist society.

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Bentham's View of Ethics

Differently from Kant, who advocated goodness as duty, Bentham asserted that a good act leads to happiness. In that respect, Bentham's view is in agreement with Unification Thought. The problem, however, is that Bentham understood happiness as centered on material pleasure; according to Unification Thought, true happiness for humans cannot be obtained through material pleasure alone. In advanced countries today, many people have come to enjoy material prosperity; yet, social disorder and the loss of human nature are quite evident in those countries. This shows that utilitarianism is not an effective way to achieve true happiness.

From the Unification Thought viewpoint, Bentham's thought was proposed for the sake of restoring the social environment. In order to realize the ideal society, human beings have to be restored; at the same time, a suitable environment must be prepared. So, from the providential viewpoint, it can be said that philosophies such as Bentham's utilitarianism, together with the social movements spawned from them, were necessary at a certain period of providential history.

Kant, in contrast to Bentham, can be said to have advocated a philosophy for the sake of restoring human beings. Yet, as pointed out before, Kant's thought was insufficient and fell short of realizing the happiness of humankind. Communism, which appeared later, was, like utilitarianism, a thought for the sake of the restoring the environment. But, Communism went in the wrong direction, namely, violent revolution. As a result, far from realizing a happy society, Communism has created a more miserable society. True human happiness is possible only when a standard of goodness is established that can present unified, harmonious solutions for both the spiritual aspects and the material aspects of human nature.

C. Analytic Philosophy

1. Analytic Philosophy's Perspective on Ethics

According to analytic philosophy, the task of philosophy is not to establish any specific world view, but rather to make philosophy a scientific discipline by engaging in the logical analysis of language. The Cambridge Analytic School, with such scholars as George E. Moore (1873-1958), Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951); the Vienna School or Logical Positivism, with such scholars as M. Schlick (1882-1936), Rudolph Carnap (1891-1971) and Alfred J. Ayer (1910-1971); and the Ordinary Language School of Britain-all of these together are referred to as schools of analytic philosophy.

Among the representative ethical theories of analytic philosophy, we can include "intuitionalism" of Moore and "emotive theory" of Schlick and Ayer. According to Moore, goodness cannot be defined. he said, "Good" is a simple notion, just as "yellow" is a simple notion; just as you cannot, by any manner or means, explain to any one who does not already know it, what yellow is, so you cannot explain what good is." 7 Moore said further, "If I am asked "What is good?" my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter." He stated that good cannot be grasped but by intuition. Value judgments are entirely independent from factual judgments, he argued.

According to Schlick and Ayer, goodness is no more than a word expressing a subjective feeling and a quasi-idea that cannot be verified objectively. Accordingly, an ethical proposition such as, "It is bad to steal money," is nothing but the speaker's expression of a feeling of moral disapproval and cannot be regarded as either true or false.

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Analytic Philosophy's View of Ethics

First, the characteristic feature of analytic philosophy's view of ethics is its separation of factual judgment and value judgment. From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, however, factual judgment and value judgment are both objective, and they can be seen as two sides of a coin. Yet, since a factual judgment is a judgment concerning phenomena that can be recognized by anyone, it is characterized by an objectivity that can be easily grasped. In contrast, a value judgment is advocated by a limited number of religious people or philosophers, and is not necessarily understood by everyone-which gives the impression that a value judgment is purely subjective. If the spiritual level of humankind were enhanced and the law of value working in the entire universe came to be understood clearly by all people, then value propositions, also, would come to be recognized as universally true.

Natural science has been dealing only with factual judgment, and has been pursuing cause-and-effect relations in things. Today, however, science has reached the point where it is no longer possible to thoroughly understand natural phenomena solely through the pursuit of cause-and-effect relations.

Scientists are now seeking the meaning of, or reason for, natural phenomena. This means that scientists have come to need value judgment in addition to factual judgment. It is the view of Unification Thought that fact and value, or science and ethics, must be approached as one united theme.

Second, another characteristic feature of proponents of analytic philosophy is that they have regarded goodness as something undefinable, or a quasi-idea. From the Unification Thought perspective, however, goodness can be clearly defined. In a nutshell, humans have the clear purpose of realizing God's love through the family four-position base; thus a behavior in agreement with this purpose is good. Since a good behavior is realized in actual life, value and fact cannot be separated.

D. Pragmatism

1. The Pragmatistic Perspective on Ethics

Pragmatism and analytical philosophy stand on the same basis, in that both exclude metaphysics and attach importance to empirical scientific knowledge. Pragmatism, which was advocated by Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), was popularized by William James (1842-1910).

According to James, "what works" is true. Suppose, for example, that someone comes to your home and knocks on the door, and you assume it must be your friend John. When you open the door and find that indeed it is John, only then can your thought be called true. In other words, knowledge verified through action is true knowledge. This means that the truth of an idea is determined by whether or not it has "working value." James said, "The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it ... It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: die process, namely, of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation." 9 This criterion of truth, also served as the criterion of value and the criterion of goodness. Thus, an ethical proposition is not something to be theoretically proven, but is regarded as true, and the proposed action as good, only as the action provides some satisfaction or peace to the mind. Therefore, goodness is considered not something absolute or unchangeable, but rather something that is altered and improved upon, day by day, through the experience of humankind as a whole.

The philosopher who perfected pragmatism was John Dewey (1859-1952). Dewey advocated the theory of instrumentalism, saying that the intellect is something that works instrumentally toward future experiences, or a means for processing problems effectively. Contrary to James, who admitted religious truth, Dewey dealt only with everyday life, excluding any metaphysical thought.

Dewey's way of thinking derives from a view of humans as living beings, or organic beings. A living being is in constant mutual relationship with its environment; when a living being falls into an unstable condition, it seeks to free itself from that condition and to return to a stable state. It is intelligence, according to Dewey, that is the instrument effective for this. Good conduct is that which, based on intelligence, is effective toward creating an affluent society and a happy society.

For Dewey, scientific judgment and value judgment were regarded to be of the same quality. He considered that a good society would surely come if people were to act rationally by using their intelligence. There was no schism between fact and value there. For him, goodness is something to be realized step by step through increase of knowledge, responding to the requirements of life and bringing about the satisfaction of desires.

Thus, Dewey denied the existence of any such ultimate goodness as could be recognized all at once. The concept of goodness, too, was nothing but an instrument, or a means, to cope with problems effectively. He said, "A moral principle, then, is not a command to act or forbear acting in a given way: it is a tool for analyzing a special situation, the right or wrong being determined by the situation in its entirely, and not by the rule as such." 10 2.

A Unification Thought Appraisal of the Pragmatistic Perspective on Ethics

James considered "what works," or what is useful, as true and valuable. This means that lie subordinated knowledge and values to everyday life. From the perspective of Unification Thought, however, it would be a reversal of the original way of thinking if we were to subordinate knowledge and values to the everyday life of food, clothing, and shelter. The everyday life of food, clothing, and shelter should be based on the values of trueness, goodness, and beauty; and the values of trueness, goodness, and beauty should be based on the purpose of creation. The purpose of creation is to actualize true love (God's love). Therefore, an act in accord with the purpose of creation is good. An act that is useful to life is not necessarily good. Of course, if an act that is useful to life is also in accordance with the purpose of creation, it becomes good.

James based truth and goodness on usefulness for life; instead, however, lie should have looked for the purpose for which life exists and the purpose for which people live.

According to Dewey, intelligence, including the notion of goodness, is an instrument. Yet, is the theory that the intelligence is an instrument correct? From the perspective of Unification Thought, Logos (or a thought) is formed through the inner Sungsang and inner Hyungsang engaging in give-and-receive action centering on the purpose set by Heart (love). The inner Sungsang includes the faculties of intellect, emotion, and will, and the inner Hyungsang refers to ideas, concepts, laws, and mathematical principles.

Since the inner Sungsang and the inner Hyungsang are in the relationship of subject and object, die inner Hyungsang may be regarded as an instrument of the inner Sungsang. On the other hand, the faculties of intellect, emotion, and will, which constitute the inner Sungsang, can be regarded as instruments of heart for the realization of love.

Dewey, however, said that intellect and concepts are instruments for social reform. Dewey's instrumental theory is not wrong if intellect and concepts are held to be centered on God's purpose of creation. But, as long as their aim is held to be the attainment of affluence in everyday life, it is not the right view. For among concepts, there are some that may be the purpose of life but cannot become the means for life. The concept of goodness is not a means for life; rather it is the purpose of life. Dewey also considered that, if science develops in the direction of improving society, it will be in perfect accord with values. The progress of science, however, does not necessarily correspond with values. Only when science aligns itself with the realization of the purpose of creation-that is, the realization of God's love will fact and value come to be unified.

Federatie voor Wereldvrede en Unificatie
Tel1: (0570) 52-3910
Tel2: (020) 695 7440