Personal Morality
In one situation, the driver of a military tank seeks to avoid crushing the intrepid individual obstructing his path.
He does this even as this individual repeatedly blocks the evasive moves attempted by him.
The individual is unharmed.
In another place and time, a heavy vehicle is reported to have been run over the individual obstructing its path.
The driver had allegedly been directed to destroy the home of this individual, as official policy.
Should he have avoided harming the individual? Was the difference in morality influenced by tribalism? In the first situation, the two persons shared a nationality.
In the second, there was a significant difference in both ethnicity and religion between the two persons.
Even if the driver was influenced by a subconscious tribal prejudice, one which identified the defiant individual as 'not one of us,' should that sense claimed to be imparted by all the major religions of a shared humanity under Heaven have led to an ending which did not involve death? There are, of course, tribes and tribes.
In those nations created by immigrants (the prominent ones being the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), political parties represent the tribes of primary relevance.
Cultural tribes co-exist beneath this umbrella.
In the rest of the world, it is cultural tribalism which guides, if not controls, societal conduct.
A tribe can be defined as a people joined together by a common origin, a shared language, religion, and the cultural values and practices which have evolved over time.
Where the extended family reigns supreme, as in most parts of Asia - even modern Asia - tribal traditions will be upheld.
Unlike the nuclear families of the Ultra-West, (the four principal nations mentioned above created by immigrants), the extended family is there to provide support to each individual.
This support may be psychological or social or financial.
Such support counter-balances the obligations which bind the individual to the collective.
And it is the conglomeration of extended families which constitute the tribe.
And, as long as tribalism reigns supreme, with religion the main glue bonding its components, inter-tribal prejudice may manifest itself.
Against this background, the contrast identified in the opening sentences above raise a significant question: is there not a need for, and an expression of, a personal morality even when tribal prejudice prevails? The answer? That one needs a conscience; one that allows an accord of some sort with tribal and religious prejudice.
He does this even as this individual repeatedly blocks the evasive moves attempted by him.
The individual is unharmed.
In another place and time, a heavy vehicle is reported to have been run over the individual obstructing its path.
The driver had allegedly been directed to destroy the home of this individual, as official policy.
Should he have avoided harming the individual? Was the difference in morality influenced by tribalism? In the first situation, the two persons shared a nationality.
In the second, there was a significant difference in both ethnicity and religion between the two persons.
Even if the driver was influenced by a subconscious tribal prejudice, one which identified the defiant individual as 'not one of us,' should that sense claimed to be imparted by all the major religions of a shared humanity under Heaven have led to an ending which did not involve death? There are, of course, tribes and tribes.
In those nations created by immigrants (the prominent ones being the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), political parties represent the tribes of primary relevance.
Cultural tribes co-exist beneath this umbrella.
In the rest of the world, it is cultural tribalism which guides, if not controls, societal conduct.
A tribe can be defined as a people joined together by a common origin, a shared language, religion, and the cultural values and practices which have evolved over time.
Where the extended family reigns supreme, as in most parts of Asia - even modern Asia - tribal traditions will be upheld.
Unlike the nuclear families of the Ultra-West, (the four principal nations mentioned above created by immigrants), the extended family is there to provide support to each individual.
This support may be psychological or social or financial.
Such support counter-balances the obligations which bind the individual to the collective.
And it is the conglomeration of extended families which constitute the tribe.
And, as long as tribalism reigns supreme, with religion the main glue bonding its components, inter-tribal prejudice may manifest itself.
Against this background, the contrast identified in the opening sentences above raise a significant question: is there not a need for, and an expression of, a personal morality even when tribal prejudice prevails? The answer? That one needs a conscience; one that allows an accord of some sort with tribal and religious prejudice.