Hans Kung and the Foundation of the Joint Ethics

Introduction
In the evolution of human history, it turns out this history does not always grow linearly. Big ideas come and go, new ideas replace old ones, negate or take a new form of a creative synthesis that enriches. These ideas are not relevant to the times or who has served time destroy itself will eventually accept criticism, even abused, and then abandoned. This shows that the more advanced achievements of human thought does not mean he will simply ensure the welfare and peace of human beings, despite all efforts deployed to achieve the idea that these ideals.

For example, the ideas are born from the womb of modernity, which is the antithesis of the Middle Ages, is now the target of criticism era. Criticism is raised because modernity is no longer able to address problems of a dynamic era. Even shares of modernity is considered to have contributed to the emerging humanitarian tragedy that befell the human race, such as war, conflict, poverty, oppression, murder, and so on. It is admitted that the optimism of modernity led to the discovery of human progress through science and technology, but on the other hand he is unable to answer the major problems resulting from the impact of these advances. The number of humanitarian disasters shows that modernity failed to make the world more peaceful, secure, and prosperous.

Concerns about human tragedy of this kind is also perceived Hans Kung, most thoughts will be discussed in this paper. Critique of modernity with postmodernity era treasure now consider this prompted him to seek solutions for problems of contemporary normative colored with terror, violence, oppression, and other humanitarian disasters. Precisely, Kung would build the foundation of ethics with which could guarantee the life of mankind in the world for more equitable, peaceful, safe, and inhuman. Not ethics that rely solely on the ratio of human genius, but ethics are built on humanistic values embodied in these religions.

In this reflection, first author will describe the conditions of modernity and Kung criticism of modernity's failures (1), then will discuss the importance of ethics Kung calls together to solve humanitarian problems resulting from the failure of this modernity (2), and then will present ideas Kung core of his belief in the value of religions as the basis of global ethics (3). Finally the author will give some brief critical notes (4).
 
Modernity conditions

The definition of modernity here is basically not only shows a medieval period of history after or a particular cultural experience, but also an epistemological and philosophical position that certain characters think about knowledge and truth.

In historical consciousness of modernity began from the Renaissance to the 16th century and peaked in Aufklarung in the 18th century. In these times that awareness of the reality of human autonomy in the face of the universe began to appear under the famous motto: Sapere Aude! (Think for yourself!). Philosophically, the great figures that define the spirit of modernity is Rene Descartes. Expression is very famous Cogito ergo sum has marked a new awareness of this: first, humans or the "I" is the subject of natural facing outward yag differentiated with inner nature, and second, that human knowledge of reality is the product of their own thinking and not from tradition or revelation.
Modern Nature is the period in which the human rationality emerge and shift all the authority of non-ratio. This means that during this belief that tradition or religious dogma as a source of authority which is considered capable of answering any questions about the universe and the problems facing humanity, becoming obsolete. Instead, the only man with the ability rasionyalah are able to understand reality correctly and able to answer with the times. Optimism on the ability of this ratio in turn gave birth to the modern idea of progress.

Progress, as awareness of the typical time in modernity, which meant time lived as a straight line towards progress. In this new awareness of the passage of time does not move in a repetitive and imitative but rather moves linearly with certainty. This new awareness is believed that the present qualitative improvement over the next kelampauan and a capital increase in the future.
Belief in human rationality and certainty this will progress to the next moment manifest in creative activity, creation, and science and technological innovation. With science and technology, mankind attempted to realize his goal to master nature, and present it to the welfare of all mankind. However, the events show the reality of the other factual. Science and technology have brought disaster mahadahsyat; two world wars, ideological conflicts, poverty and hunger, and environmental crisis of modernity is precisely colored optimism. From this and the ideals of modernity with all its intellectual and social institutions in question. The ratio of people who believed will bring this world a better (better world) and even diminish the hopes of its own ideals of peace, happiness, respect for human dignity.
Hans Kung, one among a number of thinkers critics of modernity, with a straightforward asserted that the progress of modern science that completely relies on the ratio does not fully bring human progress, as well as the rationality of science and technology. The ratio of enlightenment finally fell on irrationality and sink into the abyss of destruction because of scientific thought and technology can not provide basic answers to the problems resulting from it. More precisely, the modern mind is not capable of providing a global ethical framework to anticipate the impact of progress and development of modern life itself is increasingly differentiated and tersekularisasi.

Joint Ethics Towards Post-Modernity

The crisis of modernity that brings humanitarian disaster is interesting concerns Kung. The first concern related to the tendency of modernity that relies on the ratio of men who do not provide adequate ethical foundation for a global ethical responsibility. Second, related to the technocratic culture that dominates modern society has ignored the humanitarian aspect in using the technology. As a result, not only gave birth to the precisely technology threatens justice and human freedom, but also damage the environment, even the threat to human existence itself.

For Kung, to avoid the disaster that might be getting bigger these can not but there must be a paradigm shift in the value of human life. Movements of the values of modernity to the "post-modernity" includes the following points. First, the changes of society that is free of conduct toward society that is ethically responsible. Second, the technocracy that dominates human culture toward technologies that serve mankind. Third, the environmentally destructive industry towards environment-friendly industries, and the fourth, from democracy to democracy a just legal and berkebebasan.

However, the realization of this paradigm shift, of course, requires consensus, a norm of morality or ethics that are universally binding. Namely, the norm and the minimum value that is transcultural and transnational which can ensure and guide humankind toward the future life of a harmonious, peaceful, law-abiding, and without violence. A norm that is based on shared responsibility towards the life of the universe (a planetary responsibility.) This norm is a public ethic of global responsibility towards others, the environment and the future of the world, and made man as the criteria and objectives.

Religions as the basis of Global Ethics

The first question to build a shared ethics is: what's on the foundation of ethics together and tie it be built? What is the criteria for the validity of the joint ethics can be accounted for together as well?
First Hans Kung mengaskan that the progress of modern science does not fully bring human progress, as science and technology are not entirely rational. The ratio of enlightenment yet ultimately fall on the irrationality and sink into the abyss of destruction. Because just the thought of modern scientific and technological can not provide a basis for universal values, human rights (human rights), and ethical criteria are adequate.

Second, the philosophy also failed even not able to provide practical ethical foundation for the whole community, as well as an ethics that is universal and binding. Instead, they (the philosophers such as MacIntyre, Rorty, Foucault, etc.) back to the cultural and local values as a source of ethical norms for Kung particularity which of course it is not sufficient for ethics together. Why is that? Because ethics in philosophy does not include the necessity of universal and unconditional. Philosophy only serve the power ratio so that the compliance of all necessary ethical existentially painful. Moreover, philosophy is impossible to demand sacrifices in the interest of their lives.

By being pessimistic about the role of reason and philosophy fail to provide an ethical foundation, Kung finally glanced religious opportunities that potentially could become the foundation for such a universal morality. It is true that religion can apply authoritarian, a tyrant, to create intolerance, injustice, isolation, and so on until hostile to science, technology, industry, and even democracy and human rights. However, Kung argue that religion is considered not have a future. For Kung, religion is a universal human phenomenon. He is an essential dimension of human life and history that can not be replaced by other ideologies, whether atheistic humanism Feurbach la, la atheistic socialism of Marx, Freud-style atheistic science and Russell, or the other. It is true that religion has also led to destruction, but in fact religion can also bring human liberation, contributed to the values of justice, tolerance, solidarity, democracy, human rights, world peace, and so on, even become violent ethical strength. For Kung, with the evidence that religion can become the foundation for psychological identity, human maturity, a healthy self-awareness and driving force of social change, Kung reject proyaksi or religion is seen as a means of solace, let alone the childish illusion.

Instead, religion has hope and great potential to build a universal ethical framework, which is no longer possible and expected from the ratio of scientific and technological thinking. Why?
First, every religion has the values humanum, dams precisely because he can be relied upon this humanum values.

Second, religion provides the basis absolutisitas and unconditional moral imperative, wherever, whenever, and in any case. This is different from the adherents eteisme, they can only perform immoral acts autonomously and humane, but they could not give a reason why he received absolutisitas and universality of moral obligation. Kung says: "An inconditional claim, a 'categorical' ought, can not be derived from the finite conditions of human existence, from human urgencies and needs. And even an independent abstract 'human nature' or the idea of humanity '(as a legitimating authority) cans hardly put unconditional obligation on anyone for anything. " In contrast, ethical and imperative demands that can only be unconditional and must be based on something that is unconditional and the Absolute. In this context, for Kung, prophetic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam can provide the basis of the ethical demands of absolute and universal. Confidence in the Ultimate Reality or God is believed to provide the moral motivation and the level of coercion (compulsion), and became the capital of religions in building joint ethics.

And the third reason, which is universal global ethic based on religious values may be achieved because every human being anthropologically believe will the Absolute.

However, Kung gives a number of notes that religions should also be humble to receive the development of new thinking because he himself is not free from problems within itself. In short, religion still can not ignore the enlightenment values such as humanism, and the development of science and technology. First, because the concrete ethical values and norms that are also present together in the historical process, then the possible solutions and ethical norms that change in context. Second, the clergy also should use the help of scientific methods to obtain certainty in a prejudice analysis of the issues involved before making a decision. Third, the increasingly complex problems demanding concrete solutions to the following ethical accountability according to the local context. In addition, ethical action should also be done with consideration of priority and certainty, and this can be achieved by utilizing science analysis methods.

By making these religions as the basis for this global ethic, Kung really want to find common ground alternative ethics that binds together. Rather than rely on human rationality, but on meeting humanum values of religions.

But the idea of this Kung fishing a question, whether the "return to the ethics of religions" intends to recommend to the direction of movement of religious revivalism, such as Islamic revivalism, for example?

Revivalism that had been thrown among the Islamists are basically driven by the will to return to the Islamic Scripture or pure or authentic Islam, by way of interpreting the Qur'an tekstualistik. The problem is the "authentic Islam" or "Pure Islam"? Islamic teachings have been interpreted in various ways by people with a variety of products bear the interpretation of scriptural texts which sometimes lead to differences, even conflicts and divisions. So the claims about "authentic Islam" only son became problematic. Authenticity that can only be understood in terms of appreciation of individual subjectivity. Hence authenticity is always associated with the appreciation of people of faith in concrete situations it is always having undergone a transformation.

Of course the idea of global ethics Kung does not lead to such revivalism, especially the sectarian. Kung but want to formulate a global ethic that can guarantee certainty and moral obligation to everyone. For Kung criteria such ethics may only be found in these religions. Why? As discussed above, the basic element of religion is belief in a transcendent absolute authority. And belief in transcendent reality is a symptom or a universal human phenomenon. Only a transcendent ethics derived from the absolute authority that can guarantee the highest values, unconditional norms, inner motivation, and the highest ideals. And in every religion, said Kung, there are ethical values are universal, can be used as a common ground.

So, instead of going to a call for religious revivalism or sectarianism, Kung precisely affirm the potential of religions to build a common ethical foundation for global peace. Religion is not a hypostase. Religion does not live in a Platonic world, but it is a religion of ordinary people with flesh and blood. A historical religions are struggling with change and impermanence, and was involved in resolving the crisis and concerns of mankind.

Critical Notes

From exposure to Hans Kung's thinking, the writer wanted to give some insight and brief responses Kung position was mainly associated with the idea of religion as the foundation of global ethics.

1). Hans Kung seeks to find common ethical foundation that is universal, to have absolute certainty and contain demands require. According to him, ethics are derived from human ratio formulation can not guarantee ethical values such as human is limited. Humans are limited and whose actions are determined by the needs impossible birth noma are universal ethical and not conditional. Hence only one guarantor of these values, ie substances that are not unlimited and unconditional: God or Reality Ultim.

Searching universal ethics of such religions is possible. But the issues that remain crucial in my opinion is how to translate the norms in concrete situations. Different people or culture or way of thinking the situation will be very different norms translate it concretely. So impossible ethical attitude towards the problem of uniformly and universally, although the same normative foundation.

2). Question should be addressed to the Kung is whether the new world of ethical religions can guarantee peace and nondestruksi situation? If Kung argues that the destruction caused by religious conservatism of the clergy or religious institution, is not the same excuse can be given to the ratio of enlightenment that brought destruction due to leave the communicative ratio. It is true that the ratio of humans is limited, but whether the ethics of religions unconditional it can guarantee that no diversion?
According to the author, Kung seems (perhaps correctly), as the philosophers and scientists, in a see-maalah problem by shifting the normative solution and the specific one and then replace it with another normative solutions, regardless of the practical problem of what happens on the field. That is, to borrow the criticisms leveled by the posmodernis, Kung trapped in the forms of "essentialism" new enlightenment modernity product. By placing religion as the sole basis of the ethical foundation, Kung actually been trapped by the desire to escape from a form of essentialism essentialism old to new. Kung Keterjebakan This will bring further consequences.

First, the essentialist view is always constructed by getting rid of what is considered non-essential. This is evidenced by the dominance of rationality as an essential feature of modern man has done away with the other aspects that are considered essential, such as religion, metaphysics, mystical beliefs, gods and so on. Similarly, the view that religion as the sole basis of the ethical foundation which can be accounted for also have essential status similar to the ratio of absolute confidence, and potentially ignore the potential of other aspects that can support the creation of joint ethics of a community. For example, a norm which states "other" as an ethical basis for moral action.

Second, due to an essentialist view this leap Kung forget the problems that are practical, as noted above. That is, if religion as the ratio also has positive and negative elements and whether global ethics berlandasan that religion can guarantee world peace. If it is possible to formulate such a universal ethic, what practical applications will also produce assessments and ethical action unversal against various issues. Here Kung could not avoid the existence of diversity of one's ethical response when faced with certain concrete situations that particular []


Reading Material:

Hardiman, F. Budi, Beyond Positivism and Modernity, Publisher Canisius, Yogyakarta, 2003
Hennelly, Alfred T, Liberation Theologies: The Global Pursuit of Justice, Twenty-Third Publications, 1995
Kung, Hans, Global Responsibility In Search of a New World ethic, New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1991
Collection of Writing, Religion and the Challenge Period, LP3ES, Jakarta
________________________________________
F. Budi Hardiman, Beyond Positivism and Modernity, Publisher Canisius, Yogyakarta, 2003, p.. 95
F. Budi Hardiman, Ibid. things. 96
See Hans Kung, Global Responsibility In Search of a New World ethic, New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1991. In the early part of this book, Kung stripped descriptively flawed and human tragedy produced by pathological modernity (the loss of tradition and meaning of life, loss of ethical criteria without conditions, etc.). This tragedy include: murder and death of millions of people by war, murder, poverty and hunger, environmental degradation and pollution by large industries, and also a global warming disaster. Additionally, the undifferentiated world in the form of nation-states and various kinds of ideology has given birth to conflict and war. While secularization has produced a new morality based solely on the ratio or who in the world of capitalism is based on considerations of market analysis.
Concerning postmodernity seems to Hans Kung does not confirm a time that was clear and definitive. But he asserted that the constellation of modernity characterized by the shifts in meaning. For example, polisentrisme power, the recognition of cultural plurality, pospatriarki communities, the presence ekososial market economy, the growth of religious dialogue, etc.
See Hans Kung, Global Responsibility, p.. 20-21.
See Hans Kung, Ibid. things. 28-35.
See Hans Kung, Ibid., P.. 46.
See Hans Kung, Ibid., P.. 91.
See Hans Kung, Ibid., P.. 52
See Hans Kung, Ibid., P.. 44-45
It is a Kung statement, quoted from Ignas Kleden, "Religion in Social Change" in Religion and the Challenge Period, LP3ES, Jakarta, p.. 215
See Hans Kung, Ibid., P.. 45


Source : Rumah Kultura (nurulhuda.wordpress.com)