Erenlai - New Ethical Challenges 全球化之下的倫理重建
New Ethical Challenges 全球化之下的倫理重建

New Ethical Challenges 全球化之下的倫理重建

Here are testimonies and analyses that explore business ethics, life technology ethics, and environmental ethics - all fields that determine the way we conceive our nature, monitor our social conducts and foresee our future.

全球化的浪潮也捲起一波波對倫理重建的討論。從跨國企業到生命科學,從教育體系到宗教與社會倫理,我們窺見不同區域中的反省力量可能帶來的轉變與啟示!

 

週五, 12 一月 2007

The Heterogeneity of Chinese Tradition and Modern Chinese International Ethics

Paper presented at the Convention ‘Globalization and its Challenges in the 21st Century’
Hong Kong, July 26-28, 2001


Introduction
Are Chinese ethics compatible with “global ethics?” A response to this question heard from many scholars belonging to the realist perspective - in China or in the West - is that there is no such thing as global ethics. Claims to the contrary, the argument goes, are simply rhetorical devices buttressing institutions of global governance such as the United Nations and some of the practices that many of its members support. As such, global ethics are seen as a very thin veneer with which great powers want to cover their national interests. In the current context, for example, a practice associated with global ethics such as “humanitarian intervention” is viewed as a charade ignoring Chinese concerns, and as the expression of Western imperialism. This criticism receives approval in the West by scholars such as Samuel Huntington (1996), who argues that there exist irreconcilable differences between the “West” and “China.” This paper, however, takes a very different approach and questions the false dichotomy implied in this debate. It considers Western and Chinese ethics as discursive formation shaped historically by social and political factors, not as unchanging essences, and therefore argue for the possibility of achieving over time a “background consensus” on global ethics. In that respect, this paper acknowledges its debt to the ongoing dialogue between Jurgen Habermas and Chinese intellectuals on global ethics. (Xu 2001)
Read entire article in PDF


週五, 24 十一月 2006

迎向新軸心時代

---魏明德新書《新軸心時代》序言

「軸心時代」一詞,是德國哲學家雅斯培用以解釋人類初步啟蒙的概念。依他所說,在公元前第七至第二世紀,中國、印度、希臘、伊朗等地,以及猶太民族圈,不約而同地出現了先知型人物,以其言行揭示人類精神所應該嚮往的高雅境界。

像這種宏觀的視野,既橫跨地理的區塊,又縱攝歷史的演變,既有依據又有創意,自然容易吸引知識份子的眼光,尤其是那些胸懷大志,想要找出人類未來走向的讀書人。我所知道的魏明德神父,就是我們身邊這樣的一位學者。依他所說,軸心時代的現象,應以雅斯培所描述者為第一次,並以西歐十七世紀以來的科學革命為第二次,到了二十一世紀的今日,則是第三次了。他的新書取名為《新軸心時代》,意在喚醒我們面對這個歷史上的重大時刻,並攜手參與塑造人類命運的新契機。

說「人類」,也許太沉重也太空泛,還不如從我們周遭的世界著手省思。魏神父是出生於北非阿爾及利亞的法國人,在中國山東做過研究,再來到台灣。他有能力從世界看台灣,也有意願從台灣看世界。他不但喜歡沉思冥想,也勤於動筆寫作,還創立了《人籟論辨月刊》。從他為月刊的取名上,可以猜測他對莊子的愛好。但是他明知莊子還有「地籟」、「天籟」之說,卻還是安於自己的角色,要由人的角度去拓展一個開闊的精神領域。

台灣的處境眾所周知,政治力量主導了全局,那麼,何不由此入手?我們無不同意社會應該更公義、更包容、更適合人性發展;我們也觸目所見,可以隨手舉出讓人沮喪的例子。魏神父的觀察並無顯著的差異,但是他的反思卻有不同的參考背景,亦即國際社會的全球觀點。他知道「全球化」是大勢所趨,但是卻不能因而忽略台灣自身的獨特性以及可能的貢獻。看到一位外國學者對台灣的狀況如此熟悉,又如此剴切地建言,我們能不仔細傾聽並且由之受益嗎?

作者提出「新人文教育」一詞,並且強調四項原則,就是:認識自己、認識他人、重新創造文化,以及鼓勵跨學科和宏觀的視野。他的新書,其實正是這四項原則的具體例證。他所謂的「重新創造文化」,用意是要保存文化的傳統,再作配合時代條件的新詮釋與新體驗。這個目標無疑是可欲的,但是需要學者精心的研究與民眾熱情的支持,並且沒有人可以預先規定某種理想型態,亦即它是開放的,不斷在挑戰與回應之中成長的。

作者沒有忽略宗教對人類心靈的重大意義。宗教在世間是多元化的,各大宗教除了互相尊重之外,也須彼此學習,認清自身對人類所負的責任。這些觀念看似平常,但是作者在新書相關部分的討論卻是最為深刻的。他認為,「安息日」(每周固定的宗教節日,亦即我們所知的星期日)應該停下工作,至少要「無為」(他採用了道家的觀念),使自己得以肯定自由人的身分,讓心靈歸向信仰的世界,與神明維繫及改善關係。

除了探討人間的安頓與信仰的不可或缺之外,作者並未忽略自然生態的問題,由此而使本書的涵蓋面更為完整。《易經》談到乾卦「九四」這一爻時,描述它是「上不在天,下不在田,中不在人」。現代人往上看,宗教情操日益淡漠;往下看,自然環境明顯惡化;往中間看,人際關係又疏離異化,這時還能心不在焉嗎?因此,「新軸心時代」所代表的是轉機也是危機,是我們必須正視並且採取適當態度的時候了。

本書是魏博士五年來文章的總集,其中的思路是一貫的,表達的方式則頗為多樣。全書並非論文式的系統探討,但是深具可讀性,也頗有啟發性。只要耐心念完全書,一定會有可觀的收穫,並且將有勇氣迎向新軸心時代。

新書相關資訊
【魏明德,新軸心時代,利氏文化有限公司,2006年7月】

相關連結
傅佩榮的部落格
---------------------------
我要買《新軸心時代》

附加的多媒體:
{rokbox}media/articles/Matrix_NewAxe_ct.jpg{/rokbox}

週二, 21 十一月 2006

和諧的依戀與基因食物

談到吃,事實上談到的是一個文化如何面對身體與精神的問題。

從高雄到北京,四處林立的摩天大樓每每讓人想起紐約的曼哈頓,麥當勞的看板也成了各個城市的標誌。台北人可以享受川菜、溫州餛飩、日本生魚片、法式烤蝸牛、韓國石鍋拌飯。今日飲食已經全球化。然而,吃是文化的要素,歸屬感的一部分,也是情感的依戀。談到吃,事實上談到的是一個文化如何面對身體與精神的問題。
華人社會看待身體和畫山水的態度是相通的。約在西元五百多年的時候,南齊謝赫在《古畫品錄》提出欣賞人物畫的六個方法,其中占第一個準則就是「氣韻生動」,後來謝赫六法廣泛運用在山水、花鳥等題材上。唐朝畫家張璪說道:「外師造化,中得心源。」畫家感應整個宇宙的真氣,畫出一個自己創造的小宇宙。
傳統中國醫學也把身體看成一個自給自足的小宇宙,就像畫家創造一個可臥可遊的山水天地:兩者都重視陰陽、虛實以及氣的流動。若要談國畫與人體的關係,也許可用鍾嶸在《詩品》所談到的:「氣之動物,物之感人,故搖蕩性情,形諸舞詠。」由外而內,人感悟到外在環境的真氣,因此搖晃自己的身體、跳起舞來,就像畫家在紙上畫出氣韻的流動。面對真氣的源源不絕,畫家以「靜」來體悟,而我們的身體也希望隨時回到氣的平和狀態。
陳九如編著《黃帝內經今義》,編者在其中下了一段小結:「人體在正常的情況下,機體機能不但保持內部的平衡,也與外在環境取得協調統一,所以疾病的產生簡單的說就是由於陰陽失調。」實際上,這些論述不只是書中的理論,更是我們的生活習慣與面對生活的態度。我們常說:「我心情不好。」意思是說,我因為某個外在事件,失去了內在的平衡,而且我目前找不回自己的平衡。讀者若接觸過國外的文化,遇到過外國老師或是朋友,難免總是會被問道:「你最喜歡的嗜好或是休閒活動是什麼?」許多台灣朋友往往很直覺地回答:「睡覺。」然而,這個答案卻讓台上教授外國語的老師或是身邊友人的臉上寫滿錯愕,他們無法理解為什麼睡覺這般無益於知性成長的活動,竟然可以成為一種休閒。對我們來說,睡覺是找回自己身體平衡的方式,因此在正常的活動如工作、讀書、整理家務之外,那是把累補回來的活動。同樣的,我們也很怕人「哭」,哭與個人自我實現比較搭不上關係,「哭」多半是心亂的表現,也是感受是否深刻的指標。
就這樣,我們不斷希望找回內在的氣的和諧。傳統國畫中的和諧之氣若用造型藝術來表達,那應該就是中央有孔的圓形玉器,我們稱之為「璧」,我們看到就會忍不住走近欣賞,對我們來說這樣的圓滿光澤是最美的。
只要有一點點不飽,我們就會感到不安,因為那就像一個圓有了缺陷。於是,我們就會想要吃點東西,回到「飽」的狀態。當我們說:「我好餓。」時,可能只是沒吃零食而已。當然,日積月累,肚子也就越來越圓。過度彌補缺陷反而造成暴力。
我們要小心「吃得過飽」給自己身體所造成的暴力。此外,我們在這一期探討吃對社會、自然環境造成的暴力。再者,我們希望與大家分享基因食物究竟帶來了哪些問題與挑戰。在新的世紀,傳統疾病帶著強大的抗藥性捲土重來,人類必須重新面對沈寂已久的疾病如肺結核、鼠疫。當基因食物這般看似完美的食物逐漸攻占人們的餐盤時,華人社會實在必須冷靜以對。

【人籟論辨月刊第4期,2004月4日】

附加的多媒體:
{rokbox}media/articles/Edit_Harmonie_ct.jpg{/rokbox}

週一, 09 十月 2006

Ethics and Finance in a Globalizing World

Beijing, November 2005

I - A few lessons from 13 years at the IMF

My three mandates in the IMF (1992-2000) have coincided with the time when globalization has accelerated its pace and became the dominant feature of the time.

What was taking place was -at its beginning- difficult to identify as the major phenomenon now well analyzed. The only evidence was that something was taking place which was very different from what the founding fathers of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1944-1945 had foreseen. Things were moving so rapidly nevertheless and affecting so deeply the international community that international institutions had to move, to adapt themselves and to suggest new orientations to the membership. Globalized finance was one of the features of the change going on, but not the only one by far.

One of the first things I had to perceive was that in this new world, problems became so complex and intertwined that no institution -and even the IMF, in spite of the high technicality of the problems it had to address- could remain strictly technical, trusting the markets automatism to solve the human problems of our world and in particular the “ultimate systemic threat facing humanity ”, poverty. As an unacceptable level of poverty was to my judgment also the ultimate market failure, we had to obey an ethical sense of solidarity to find the way to assist the countries in need.

A second lesson derived from the uneven success of our programs for stabilization, growth and reduction of poverty in developing countries; it became crystal clear that their effective implementation and lasting success was tightly linked to the quality of the participation of all segments of the population to their preparation, adoption and implementation. This new ethical dimension had then to be introduced in the strategies of the IMF, and indeed it was, at least each time governments accepted to go that far.

Then came the Mexican and Asian crisis -the true first crisis of the XXI century- as they were so different from the crisis of the first 40 years of existence of the IMF which were mainly external payment crisis, often exacerbated by unsustainable debt. The Mexican crisis and much more evidently the Asian crisis were unlike any seen before. Crises of this new type explode on the open capital markets, arise from complex dysfunctions, particularly in the financial markets, and are much less exclusively macroeconomic in nature. They quickly take on systemic proportions, and can be checked only through the immediate mobilization of massive financing. Take the three major Asian crises, for example: Thailand, Indonesia and Korea. Dealing with them meant dealing with a three-dimensional problem: a dimension, obviously, of macroeconomic imbalances, along with massive outflows of short-term capital; an acute crisis in the financial sector, reflecting institutional and banking practice weaknesses; and a much more fundamental crisis in the prevailing economic management model. I am thinking here of unhealthy – I would even say incestuous – relations among corporations, banks, and government. This third dimension of corruption, collusion, and nepotism was making obvious that un-ethical behaviors in such a great scale could have dramatic systemic consequences and implied that fundamental reforms were immediately required. The financial universe could no more think, at least from that very moment, that there is such a thing as sound economics and finance, without solid ethical behaviors of the main actors in the public and private sectors.

But there is more. We had soon to acknowledge that -important as they may be- there is not such a thing as financial ethics in isolation. At the moment we were discovering the importance of ethics for finance, we were de facto invited to turn our attention to global ethics for the sustainability of a world were finances were leading the globalization.

Taken together these four lessons have contributed to the progressive emergence of a new paradigm of development. Let me emphasize two of its key features.

First, a progressive humanization of basic economic concepts. It is now recognized that the market can have major failures, that growth alone is not enough and can even be destructive of the natural environment or precious social goods and cultural values. Only the pursuit of high-quality growth is worth the effort. What is such growth?

• growth that can be sustained over time without causing domestic and external financial imbalance;

• growth that has the human person at its center, that is accompanied by adequate investment, particularly in education and health, to take full advantage of the tremendous leverage of human capital for future growth;

• growth that, to be sustainable, is based on a continuous effort for more equity, poverty and inequalities reduction, and empowerment of poor people; and

• growth that promotes protection of the environment, and respect for national cultural values.

Second, at a deeper level, we observe in recent approaches a striking and promising recognition of a convergence between a respect for fundamental ethical values and the search for efficiency required by market competition. Yes, you can see now a far wider recognition:

• that participatory democracy – that major conquest of the 20th century – can maximize the effectiveness of sound economies;

• that transparency, openness, and accountability are basic requirements for economic success;

• that combating collusion, corruption, and nepotism must be a major concern for the international financial institutions;

• that systematically dismantling the state is not the way to respond to the problems of modern economies; rather we must aim for a slimmer yet more effective state, able to provide the private sector with a solid framework in which the rule of law could prevail, on a level playing field; and

• that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between macroeconomic stability and structural reform on one hand, and growth and the reduction of poverty and inequality on the other.

Stability and strong institutions are clearly essential for growth, and hence for poverty alleviation. But the converse is also true: popular support for stabilization and reform cannot be counted upon, unless the whole population, including the poorest—and by the poorest I mean those that not only are out of the loop, but even more are unable to contribute their experience—is able to participate in the formulation of the policies and, of course, in the benefits from those policies.

In short, a new economic paradigm is emerging. The new opportunities for growth created by the revolution in information technology and the opening of markets, combined with more resolute efforts to promote opportunities for all to share in the benefits of growth, will amplify the positive effects of macroeconomic and monetary stability. All of this together can transform globalization in a great opportunity for humanity provided that the emerging new paradigm is firmly rooted in fundamental human values and ethics, and here is where the contribution of the Chinese world will be essential.
(Image: C.P.)


II - What are these basic ethical values for a world of financial globalization?

Which values must we promote if we are determined to make sense of our history? Which values to guide us as the new century unfolds? This question has been with me all along these thirteen years in the IMF and I raised it with many interlocutors. When trying to draw the conclusions of so many conversations. I end up with three values: a sense of global responsibility, solidarity and of worldwide citizenship:

- a sense of global responsibility for each countries and for all including us as enterprises or us as simple citizens, to contribute to the human success of globalization;
- solidarity to alleviate and ultimately eradicate poverty; and
- a new sense of citizenship to back a new global governance.

1. Sense of responsibility

In our globalized financial world, whether a country is large or small, any crisis can now become systemic through contagion on the globalized markets. Domestic economic policy therefore must, now more than ever, take into account its potential worldwide impact; a duty of universal responsibility is incumbent upon all. Every country, large or small, is responsible for the stability and quality of world growth. When I say large, I must add that the responsibility is in some way in proportion with the size.

This adds a new dimension to the duty of excellence that is required of every government in the management of its economy. I use the word “excellence”; I could also say “absolute rectitude”. Globalization is a prodigious factor in accelerating and spreading the international repercussions of domestic policies – for better or worse. No country can escape, and all should be fully aware of the central importance of:

- rigor and transparency in overall economic management;
- growth that is centered on human development, social justice and respect of the environment; and
- government reform, seeking public sector efficiency, appropriate regulations, emphasis on the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, anticorruption measures, etc.

All of that is tantamount to recognize that economic progress is strongly dependant on the basic value of responsibility: the sense that each is responsible for the advancement of all, and on the harmony of social relations at national level and peace internationally. This should, in the end, allow each country to play a greater positive role for the prosperity of the global economy and to accept also the responsibility to contribute to the correction of what goes wrong in the working of the international financial system, and to start with, the inadequacy of financial information, and the failure to respect the rules of transparency so central for policy credibility and market stability.

In the face of a proliferation of increasingly sophisticated forms of financial intermediation, the delays in imposing the required discipline on international markets, which have been kept at the anarchic stage that the domestic markets of the industrial countries were at a century ago, has been particularly detrimental. Reforms of course have been adopted, but here we are in a field where, beyond the initiatives of governments and regulators, the ethical sense of individual actors and private companies can and must make a major difference. They must understand that in a medium to long term perspective, there is not any better way to care for their business than to care also for society and the common good. Yes this role of other actors -frequently from the private sector: enterprises, financial institutions and all components of civil society: labor unions, NGOs, religious organizations, etc. can be decisive. All of them, by their responsible behavior, can play an important role for the success of the newly emerging paradigm in humanizing globalization.

Here I would like to mention the growing conviction in the business community -exemplified by the “global compact” of the UN- that business has the ability to contribute more and more to building a better world. A new generation of globally responsible leaders is emerging whose decisions rely both on their awareness of principles and regulations and on their determination to follow guiding principles such as fairness, freedom, honesty, humanity, tolerance, transparency and of course, embracing all the previous ones: responsibility and sustainability.

These people as good businessmen are result oriented and so attach the highest importance to key action areas through which corporate global responsibility can be nurtured and developed. They include:

- tuning into societal and environmental business context,
- overcoming key organizational, regulatory and societal barriers to change,
- developing stakeholder engagement skills such as careful listening and the ability to engage in dialogue,
- transforming the culture of the firm by changing attitudes and behaviours,
- understanding the purpose of change,
- designing change management processes, and,
- rewarding globally responsible behaviour through improved performance measures and systems.

Under such an inspiration, they see as of the highest importance every effort to initiate to business ethics of the students of business schools around the world.

2. Solidarity to fight poverty

When considering all the positive dynamics at work in our world, the slowness of progress in reducing poverty appears all the more unacceptable. I need not describe in graphic terms the extent of present human deprivation-you know them at least as well as I.
The widening gaps between regions and rich and poor within nations, and the gulf between the most affluent and most impoverish nations, are morally outrageous, economically wasteful, and potentially socially explosive. Now we know that it is not enough to increase the size of the cake; the way it is shared is deeply relevant to the dynamism of development. If the poor are left hopeless, poverty will undermine the fabric of our societies though confrontation, violence and civil disorder. If we are committed to the promotion of human dignity and peace, we cannot afford to ignore poverty and the risks it entails for peace. We all must work together to relieve all this human suffering. This is what solidarity means as an obvious central value for a unifying world. But the fight for peace in the world and solidarity must go hand in hand as peace is an inescapable precondition for durable economic progress. When considering the tragic situation of an impressive part of Africa, where so many countries are directly or indirectly involved in military or civil or ethnic tribes conflicts, how could we entertain any illusion that progress in human conditions is achievable if these conflicts are not brought to an end? At least there must be a major effort – well beyond what we see today –to reduce tensions and to prevent new wars from being started. If through a diversity of initiatives better prospects for peace can emerge, then good windows of opportunity for development could appear. But many other conditions will have to be put in place for its process to become effective.

Here, the poor countries themselves are on the front line, and we have learn that their success on the fight against poverty depend crucially on their own sense of responsibility in promoting good governance and sound policies, in making poverty alleviation the centerpiece of economic policy, together with a renewed emphasis on rapid growth led by the private sector. But for them, also, success lies in national “ownership” of the policies, through a participatory approach that engages civil society in a constructive dialogue. If this is the case, the rest of the world should then be ready to move promptly when these countries indicate that they need support. But then, how can development partners support the efforts of the poorest countries? Let me point to four areas.

First, on the trade front, by assigning the highest priority to providing unrestricted market access for all exports from the poorest countries, including the heavily indebted poor countries, so that these countries can begin to benefit more deeply from integration into the global trading system.

Second, by supporting policies that encourage the inflows of private capital, especially foreign direct investment with its twin benefits of new finance and technology transfers.

Third, by contributing financially. Here we are dealing with an issue which goes beyond – important as it may be – the simple provision of badly needed financing. It is an issue closely related to the basic fabric of a unifying world community: the mutual trust among its members which implies that giving one’s word means just that. Over the past decade, we have witnessed two rather paradoxical phenomena. On the one hand, while the industrial countries have happily been collecting their peace dividends, they have steadily reduced their official development assistance, falling further and further short of the target of 0.70 percent of GDP which all – with the exception of the United States – had pledged to achieve for the year 2000. At the same time, at one world conference after another, they committed themselves, along with developing and transition countries, to promote measurable and achievable human development objectives now encapsulated in the MDG.

Fourth, by being faithful to our pledge, in the occasion of the Monterrey (Mexico) Finance for Development Conference in 2002 to establish, from now on, our cooperation for development on the basis of partnership.

But what does such a substitution should entail: words or substance? A major change indeed. Partnership is dialogue among equals. It implies that your partner in that dialogue makes himself his own choices and defines his own priorities. It implies also total frankness on both sides and full acceptation of the critical judgment of your counterpart on your own policies; and equally a deep respect for the ethical demands, the culture and the traditions of the other, including in the organization of the public life. It requires that no one beg his neighbour and fulfill his full share of responsibilities. It means full acceptation of a join walk on the new trails of globalization, each taking care of adapting his steps to the walk of the other… Partnership as understood in Monterrey doesn’t limit itself to government’s policies. It is a multidimensional concept associating on both sides, enterprises, financial institutions and civil societies, all being invited to enter into this new kind of relations beyond their national borders.

Imagine for a moment that these pledges were actually fulfilled: what a giant step this could be toward a better world, what a giant step it would be toward improving the lot of the most disadvantaged among the poor – women and children! But many of the world’s top leaders have been losing sight of these pledges. Let’s use all our influence including as private citizens to make sure that, particularly after the New York Summit of last September, the OMD are given the highest priorities by our governments. This worldwide mobilization of public opinion will be only a small step, but it is important in view of the fragility of our collective commitments. We must make the first decade of the new century one of fulfillment of past pledges. If we allow cynicism to prevail in this area, we may as well give up the dream of progressing to a more fraternal global society. This is a matter of great urgency. Yes, we need a jolt of responsibility and solidarity.

Having touched upon the key aspects of a poverty reduction strategy, let me underline that what I am referring to here is not our obligation of generosity toward a world much poorer than ours, but our contribution to strengthening the very fabric of a world which is now one; a fabric the solidity of which is crucially dependent on the elimination of war, the respect for pledges and the active support for those who want to stand on their own feet.



3. Participatory democracy and subsidiarity in world governance

This being said and beyond the poverty problem, we know only too well that in today’s world, many people suffer from a lack of control over their own destiny and fear that there is no legitimate authority to deal with problems that are increasingly taking on worldwide dimensions, such as threats to the environment, increases in the use of drugs, widespread corruption, crime, money laundering, etc. For all these issues as for poverty, I fail to see any satisfactory solution without introducing in all places where human issues are addressed more democratic participatory governance.

In the context of globalization, the whole issue of governance must be revisited not with the view of setting up some sort of world economic government; but with two more limited ambitions:

- in the one hand, to offer to all human beings a say on their own destiny, and
- on the other, to find a global response to inescapable problems of worldly dimension.

The task is, nevertheless, formidable. We are the first generation in history to be confronted with the need to organize and to manage the world, not from a position of power such as Alexander’s, or Caesar’s, or the Allies’ at the end of World War II, but through a recognition of the universal responsibilities of all peoples and citizens and of a universal duty of solidarity and cooperation through partnership.

The challenge is, of course, primarily to introduce more and more citizens participation at all levels of national governance. It is also to find mechanisms for managing the international economy, which would at the same time (1) preserve the sovereignty of national governments; (2) help smooth the effective working of markets; (3) ensure international financial stability; and (4) offer solutions to problems which transcend the boundaries of the nation-state, and to which we are responding unsatisfactorily now by over-stretching existing institutions. A tall order indeed! To understand this, we need merely compare our world to the world in 1945. Each country has now achieved sovereignty, each wants to shoulder its full responsibility in the face of global problems, and we know that the effective participation of each country in managing the “global village” is key to the future of the village. Furthermore, while globalization has until now operated at the whim of more or less autonomous financial and technological forces, it is high time that we put in place the appropriate mechanism so that progress towards world unity can be made consistently and in the service of humankind. What is required are institutions which can facilitate joint reflection at the highest levels, whenever needed, and which are capable of ensuring that globalized strategies are adopted and implemented when it appears that those problems can be dealt with effectively at the global level. The problems are serious and many. I would like to point out just three of them: (1) lack of appropriate institutions in new fields of major global concern; (2) respect for the old principle of subsidiarity; (3) fair representation in international economic decision-making.

The founding fathers of the United Nations system made a good job in 1944-1945 to solve the problems they were foreseeing. But of course, sixty years later, we must confront issues at that time unexpected, such as environment and migrations. This calls for the creation of institutions properly equipped to help governments to face them in a proper multilateral spirit.

Whatever our reluctance to add to the bureaucratic apparatus of the UN, it is crystal clear that the world will have – the sooner the better – to face this unjustifiable lacuna, a lacuna on which public voices remain generally silent and which is only brought to our minds, but so far to no avail, when a major environmental catastrophe takes place.

Together with the environment, anti-trust and migrant-worker issues would also justify the creation of freestanding bodies at a global level. Needless to say that the cost of establishing such institutions could be offset at least partly by further streamlining the system in other fields.

This being said, multilateral institutions must be exemplary in their respect of the subsidiarity principle, formulated centuries ago we are now rediscovering. It means that the worldwide institutions must tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural character, which are posed by the universal common good. But without intending to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of the individual state, much less to take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public authorities of each state, its citizens and intermediate associations, can carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and exercise their rights with greater security. This suggests that the more we see the need to consolidate or to grant new responsibilities in world bodies, the more it is also necessary to let them know that their contribution can only be subsidiary. Everyone must understand that nothing can be accomplished at the global level unless it has been taken up at the grassroots level and supported by initiatives of the entire institutional chain from the local to the global level. Responsible citizenship at all levels must be one of the key values of the 21st century.

The more we recognize we must give more leverage to global and regional institutions to tackle worldwide problems, the more we must promote fair representation in their decisions-making bodies. The situation, at this stage, is unsatisfactory. Talking about the financial institutions, I would insist on the following.

The legitimacy of the Bretton Woods Institutions is increasingly questioned. The mounting universal demands for more participatory governance at all levels of governance in society, apply of course also to them and particularly to the way in which they must accommodate the growing role of new players, particularly from Asia. A lot is at stake for the international climate of the next decades, depending on whether they will be invited soon to share global responsibilities or they will have to fight for them. Progress so far has been slow, to say the least. Knowing pretty well the hesitations, I suggest four measures that could distinctly strengthen world governance in a participatory direction.

1/ Make more explicit who does bear the real political responsibilities in these institutions

2/ Reopen the debate on the size and composition of their Executive Boards

This reform would simultaneously respond to the situation newly created by the progress of the European Union toward its integration, the growing importance in world economic terms of the emerging markets and the difficult issue of “voice” for Africa which still awaits a convincing response.

3/ Reform the procedures for the selection of management

The rules and practices for the appointment of the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank should also be changed and the new system enacted on the next relevant occasion. Both Europe and the United States should renounce their present “privileges” in 2004.


4/ Contribute to a more participatory world governance

To gain increased relevance, the G8 must continue opening itself up. Drawing the lessons of the experiences of recent years, we could propose, in this regard, that each G8 summit be coupled with an “extended meeting” to which all heads of State and Governments from the countries represented in the new Council should be invited. This would be a way to put in place a “global governance group”, whose orientations would carry much more credibility, legitimacy and influence than the G8 and G-20 today.

These few remarks on participatory governance, including at world level, are in my view another illustration of the mutually reinforcing character of the initiatives for making ethical principles to prevail and of the efforts to make national and international institutions more efficient, while promoting a needed climate of partnership.



Ethics in a globalizing world where international finances are gaining so much importance: what is needed is to identify the values that men and women today can use to make sense of their history. Our history has not yet been fully written -it is still in our hands- and notwithstanding its risks, globalization is an opportunity to move toward a world economy that is more worthy of the human race. This implies that we take action on the three values to which I have been referring and that many around the world can recognize: responsibility, solidarity and at all levels, participatory citizenship. Thanks to them we could go a long way:

- from disorderly and instable markets to better regulated ones,
- from a world dominated by self-interest to one where gratuitousness would be recognized,
- from a world exclusively nations-centered to a multilaterally-oriented one,
- from a world where governments see themselves as exclusively in charge of the common good to one where a dense network of partnerships would associate enterprises and civil society to the common objective of the humanization of the world.


週日, 08 十月 2006

新夢考驗科學想像力

複製人快來了?聽起來好像很誇張,但是就目前科技的發展來講,那也只是時間的問題。人複製了羊,複製了小動物,什麼時候會複製人類呢?一旦我們真的可以複製人,那麼到時會引發什麼樣的道德錯亂、文化問題、人類學領域的爭議以及科學精神的質疑?每個文化藉以定義人文、本性、婚姻與家庭的方式是不是就要跟著改變?我們要怎樣重新思考生命?
我們不要忙著被嚇壞。大家都知道第一隻被複製的動物桃麗(Dolly)一九九七年在英國愛丁堡的實驗室誕生,活了六年七個月。這個實驗室採用成熟的體細胞複製哺乳動物,也就是說從一隻成年母綿羊的乳房提取乳腺細胞,將細胞核植入一個剔除細胞核的空卵子,經過融合、分裂、發育成胚胎,再移植到另外一隻羊的子宮內發育成羊。因此,桃麗細胞核的染色體和桃麗媽媽細胞核的染色體是一模一樣的。當然,如果成熟的體細胞取自雄性動物,或者取自其他類別的動物如老鼠、豬、牛等,也會產生同樣的結果。
所謂複製就是將成熟個體做到單性生殖,植物的複製在植物界來說是司空見慣的,然而動物呢?人呢?如果動物的複製能夠做到成功,是不是我們就可以進入「複製人」的階段?事實上,複製動物所遭遇的困難與挫敗,給予複製人的議題帶來了許多省思。目前我們仍然沒有國際法來規範生命倫理的諸項事宜,也沒有國際法來限制各國家單位及私人企業的資金投注。在此我們就複製人類舉出三個值得注意的警訊:
第一、談到複製,有一個重要的條件,那就是必須把大量的卵子植入子宮,目前桃麗羊的成功比是一比兩百七十七。若要人體實驗成功,不是讓很多人淪為代理孕母嗎?這樣算是尊重人的表現嗎?
第二、如果真的可以複製人,是不是只有所謂的菁英能夠被複製呢?還是要根據什麼樣的法則來作為複製的標準?
第三、第一隻複製羊桃麗英文名字的字面意思是布娃娃,那些創造者有沒有想過,被複製者不就是被當成布娃娃或是布偶一樣受人擺弄。複製人若出現,他或她還會是一個自由的人嗎?
以上提出的問題幫助我們落實這一期的專輯內容。從這些問題開始我們可以繼續追究:活體的基因控制是否有公共倫理的法則來加以規範?面對新科技,我們需要的是生命倫理上的反省與創見,而不是一味反對或是恐懼,這樣人類才能夠順利地掌握命運,成功跨越每一個新階段。然而,如果我們任憑科學自大及利益投機任意妄為,我們就會失去人性及自己的本性。談到複製不免會觸及許多技術問題,而且往往令人感到震驚與錯愕,但是這個問題與每一個人息息相關,誰也無法置身事外。

【人籟論辨月刊第6期,2004年6月】

附加的多媒體:
{rokbox}media/articles/ma_003 copy.jpg_ct.jpg{/rokbox}

週一, 02 十月 2006

花钱、存钱或给钱?

「给钱」使我们体会自由,学习「无偿」。

常看日本电视台的人都知道,「黄金传说」中有一个「节省大战」的单元,参加比赛的人要比赛谁花钱花得最少,例如每个人只用一万元日币过一个月,而且要努力节省,辛辛苦苦地买最便宜的菜,牺牲所有的育乐…节省也成了一门艺术!
要花钱或存钱?不害怕花钱的人常常表现出勇气、乐观与快乐,但是他们也可能变成消费主义文化的奴仆。他们花钱的习惯也可能透露某种心灵不安,或者告诉大家他们无法好好地为自己和家庭的未来做准备。相反的,节省的人似乎格局比较小或者不够大方。但是,小心花钱的人会考虑未来的挑战和需要。他们的家人会抱怨,但后来很可能会感谢他们的远见。
金钱就是一种工具,很重要的一种工具。我们对工具要保留自由:应该是我们控制工具,而不是让工具控制我们。换句话说,有时要大方花钱:送礼物给我们所爱的人,将我们的感性表现出来,同时缔造家庭和谐;或是落实旅游计划,完成学习摄影或欣赏好音乐的梦想。有时,要懂得不花钱,不要答应孩子任性的要求或是大人不切实际的幻梦…要提醒自己,提醒家人,金钱并不是无限的,而且平凡的生活比起豪华享受更适合人性和道德。
金钱这种工具,也帮助我们沟通:使用金钱的方式透露我们的爱情观、兴趣、热情的投入和生活规划。当我们在沟通的时候,我们可以传达出正面的讯息,也可以传达出负面的意涵。金钱的使用,也可以显露我们的傲慢、小气、欲望或愚蠢。你如何用钱,代表你如何做人…
用钱的方式中,还有「给钱」这一种。给钱?听起来,这并不是用钱最红的方式…「给钱」好像是传统时代的宗教性手段,用来减轻自己的良心不安或得到「功德」。但是,我相信社会应该恢复捐献的重要地位。
「给钱」就是我们表达自由最好的方式。第一、会给钱的人,显示他从金钱中得到自由:自己的价值、目标远远比自己的钱更为重要。第二、会给钱的人,表达他在国家和社会中的自由,因为他所选择的捐献对象不一定与大众所关心的问题相同。第三、会给钱的人表现他对他人的自由,因为他并不期待他人回报。「几时你设午宴或晚宴,不要请你的朋友、兄弟、亲戚及富有的邻人,怕他们也要回请而还报你。但你几时设宴,要请贫穷的、残废的、瘸腿的、瞎眼的人。如此,你有福了,因为他们没有可报答你的。」(《路加福音》十四章12-14节)
「给钱」使我们学习「无偿」。这就是用钱的最吊诡方式!

【人籁论辨月刊第20期,2005年10月】

附加的多媒体:
{rokbox}media/articles/Matrix_GiveMoney_cs.jpg{/rokbox}

週一, 02 十月 2006

花錢、存錢或給錢?

「給錢」使我們體會自由,學習「無償」。

常看日本電視台的人都知道,「黃金傳說」中有一個「節省大戰」的單元,參加比賽的人要比賽誰花錢花得最少,例如每個人只用一萬元日幣過一個月,而且要努力節省,辛辛苦苦地買最便宜的菜,犧牲所有的育樂…節省也成了一門藝術!
要花錢或存錢?不害怕花錢的人常常表現出勇氣、樂觀與快樂,但是他們也可能變成消費主義文化的奴僕。他們花錢的習慣也可能透露某種心靈不安,或者告訴大家他們無法好好地為自己和家庭的未來做準備。相反的,節省的人似乎格局比較小或者不夠大方。但是,小心花錢的人會考慮未來的挑戰和需要。他們的家人會抱怨,但後來很可能會感謝他們的遠見。
金錢就是一種工具,很重要的一種工具。我們對工具要保留自由:應該是我們控制工具,而不是讓工具控制我們。換句話說,有時要大方花錢:送禮物給我們所愛的人,將我們的感性表現出來,同時締造家庭和諧;或是落實旅遊計劃,完成學習攝影或欣賞好音樂的夢想。有時,要懂得不花錢,不要答應孩子任性的要求或是大人不切實際的幻夢…要提醒自己,提醒家人,金錢並不是無限的,而且平凡的生活比起豪華享受更適合人性和道德。
金錢這種工具,也幫助我們溝通:使用金錢的方式透露我們的愛情觀、興趣、熱情的投入和生活規劃。當我們在溝通的時候,我們可以傳達出正面的訊息,也可以傳達出負面的意涵。金錢的使用,也可以顯露我們的傲慢、小氣、慾望或愚蠢。你如何用錢,代表你如何做人…
用錢的方式中,還有「給錢」這一種。給錢?聽起來,這並不是用錢最紅的方式…「給錢」好像是傳統時代的宗教性手段,用來減輕自己的良心不安或得到「功德」。但是,我相信社會應該恢復捐獻的重要地位。
「給錢」就是我們表達自由最好的方式。第一、會給錢的人,顯示他從金錢中得到自由:自己的價值、目標遠遠比自己的錢更為重要。第二、會給錢的人,表達他在國家和社會中的自由,因為他所選擇的捐獻對象不一定與大眾所關心的問題相同。第三、會給錢的人表現他對他人的自由,因為他並不期待他人回報。「幾時你設午宴或晚宴,不要請你的朋友、兄弟、親戚及富有的鄰人,怕他們也要回請而還報你。但你幾時設宴,要請貧窮的、殘廢的、瘸腿的、瞎眼的人。如此,你有福了,因為他們沒有可報答你的。」(《路加福音》十四章12-14節)
「給錢」使我們學習「無償」。這就是用錢的最弔詭方式!

【人籟論辨月刊第20期,2005年10月】
---------------------------------------
訂閱人籟

附加的多媒體:
{rokbox}media/articles/Matrix_GiveMoney_ct.jpg{/rokbox}

週二, 12 九月 2006

吃得饱,吃得暴?

我们喜欢吃套餐,我们喜欢吃到饱,我们喜欢吃得很饱。吃得饱除了撑大自己的胃之外,甚至对大自然和社会也衍生了许多值得思索的暴力问题。 一般来说,大家喜欢「吃得饱」,但往往「吃得暴」,最后变成食量取用过度。我想在此说明,「吃」常伴随著暴力而来,因为「吃」本身就是一种破坏:为了满足生存的基本需求,人们却不得不从另外一个生命获取生命。然而,如果我们还希望做人,就应该认识到「吃」背后隐藏的暴力,并且试图引导它,甚至约束它。在此,笔者简单探讨「吃」对大自然与社会所造成的两个暴力,并分析如何解开形成暴力的困惑,进而达到更有仁道的生活。

对于大自然的暴力

每次我们吃饭都会造成一种生物被毁灭,因为大自然的肉或蔬菜被肠胃无情地吞食。换句话说,这些食物是从大自然中被取走。因此,我们可以轻易了解许多宗教文化想约束这种暴力。印度教与佛教都规定「吃素、不杀生」,因为动物与人都不是独立存在的个体,而同属于轮回的大生命中,所以每个生命都要受到尊重与保护。在《圣经》里,我们同样能看出吃肉如何构成一个困境。〈创世纪〉叙述人类最初为何吃素,而不吃肉1。加音(Cain)杀了弟弟亚伯尔(Abel)之后,天主才不得不承认暴力的存在「无可避免」。后来,天主容许人们杀一些动物来吃,可是这个暴力并非完全野蛮:因为血代表生命,所以人们不可以吃动物的血。不管佛教或天主教都指出「吃」所造成的暴力,并由此帮助人们体会生命的价值。 因为城市化的缘故,很多当代人远离了农业社会。这种疏远使人们对食物的来源相形陌生:蔬菜需要多久时间才会成熟?鸡或猪在屠宰场怎么被杀?对很多人来说,食物的价值也许只能用钱来衡量。如此,我们怎么能对食物所代表的生命表达我们的尊重呢?我认为我们需要重建一些象徵表达,来体认我们所吃的食物与大自然中的生命是密切相关的。例如:吃饭之前,人们可以表达对生命的尊重,就像傣族吃鱼时所说的祝福。透过这样的宗教礼仪,人类了解到自己对大自然欠的债,进而避免浪费食物。透过精神上的净化,人们体会到盘中的菜来自动物与植物的生命,并认知到人类的平衡发展离不开大自然的发展。从最近的环保意识可看出许多自然资源跟不上我们在消费社会中狂买的需求。而新的态度与观念正慢慢在我们的日常生活中建立起来,这是值得庆幸的事。在很多地方,政府会将垃圾分类并回收。吃饭后,我们可以在不同的垃圾桶处理剩下的厨馀,使这些废物能再次利用成为能量或资源。这些对大自然尊重的新表达方式逐渐变成我们日常的礼仪。总之,理解「吃」所造成的严重暴力能引导人类与大自然走向和谐。

对于社会的暴力

承如上文所言,我们明白个人生活离不开大自然的生命。同样的,它也离不开社会大众。在我们的社会中,有人吃得过饱,也有人饿死,真是不可思议。最近二十年来,中国大陆的高格调餐厅如雨后春笋般地在各地开张,尤其是北京及各大城市。由于消费水准提高,人们很喜欢把大餐厅或酒店装潢得很漂亮。由于文化活动并不多,电影院、音乐厅也算少,一般北京人调剂生活的方式就是与朋友聚会,或者去大餐厅吃饭。

「吃的文化」是好的,它使人享受美食,并欢庆人与人之间的友谊。可是,除了浪费食物的问题之外,「吃的文化」也造成社会的「暴力」现象。在此,我简单地提出三个例子。第一、北京马路上的乞丐越来越多。当然,他们当中有一部分的人想要依赖社会,可是有些人的确没有别的生存选择。我们吃一顿一百人民币的饭,而这些人却在餐厅门口饿肚子。我们怎能听不到他们的哭声或看不到他们所受的伤?我们怎能没有慈悲心来帮助他们呢?第二、北京的大餐厅大都雇用外地人。我们进餐厅吃饭的时候,常常因为服务员急躁或不客气的态度而不满,但是我们有没有了解到这些服务生的精神状态呢?大多数的服务生每天工作十二个小时,每个月只能休息一、二天。他们多半住在拥挤的屋里,根本没有地方洗澡。一天的工作结束后,可能就会累得趴在餐厅的桌子上睡觉,而一个月领到的薪水只有五百到八百人民币。这个现象早已违反劳动法的基本规定,可是我们却常常视而不见。第三、有的客人不需要自己付帐,而由所属的单位或公司报销,所以养成客人不负责任的态度。客人不但报销在餐厅用餐的费用,餐厅的老板还助纣为虐地让客人报到原价的两倍。二○○二年,税务局规定餐厅与其他商店都应该用同一规格的发票,以革除这种贪污的坏习惯。因此,随著「吃」而来的经济活动可能会影响到整个社会,特别是社会中的弱势族群。

* * *

吃饭、睡觉都是人生最基本的活动。吃饭不仅因应我们的生物性需求,而且也表达我们在文化、社会上的态度与个人的选择。如果我们能意识到个人生活归属于大自然与社会的大生命,我们就会找出一些方法,使我们能和大自然、社会更和谐相处,也更能体会到这个大生命的味道。

【人籁论辨月刊第4期,2004月4日】

注释
--------------
1 创世纪时,人类有了治理大地、统领万兽的任务,这时候暴力尚未降临世上。每一个生命都是素食的,不管是人、猛兽、飞禽都是如此。等到了大洪水之后情况有了改变。人开始吃肉,万兽也相互吞噬就如人类彼此残杀一样,第一个亲情相残的例子,就是加音杀死了他的弟弟亚伯尔。

附加的多媒体:
{rokbox}media/articles/Matrix_Eat_cs.jpg{/rokbox}

週二, 12 九月 2006

吃得飽,吃得暴?

我們喜歡吃套餐,我們喜歡吃到飽,我們喜歡吃得很飽。吃得飽除了撐大自己的胃之外,甚至對大自然和社會也衍生了許多值得思索的暴力問題。 一般來說,大家喜歡「吃得飽」,但往往「吃得暴」,最後變成食量取用過度。我想在此說明,「吃」常伴隨著暴力而來,因為「吃」本身就是一種破壞:為了滿足生存的基本需求,人們卻不得不從另外一個生命獲取生命。然而,如果我們還希望做人,就應該認識到「吃」背後隱藏的暴力,並且試圖引導它,甚至約束它。在此,筆者簡單探討「吃」對大自然與社會所造成的兩個暴力,並分析如何解開形成暴力的困惑,進而達到更有仁道的生活。

對於大自然的暴力

每次我們吃飯都會造成一種生物被毀滅,因為大自然的肉或蔬菜被腸胃無情地吞食。換句話說,這些食物是從大自然中被取走。因此,我們可以輕易瞭解許多宗教文化想約束這種暴力。印度教與佛教都規定「吃素、不殺生」,因為動物與人都不是獨立存在的個體,而同屬於輪迴的大生命中,所以每個生命都要受到尊重與保護。在《聖經》裡,我們同樣能看出吃肉如何構成一個困境。〈創世紀〉敘述人類最初為何吃素,而不吃肉1。加音(Cain)殺了弟弟亞伯爾(Abel)之後,天主才不得不承認暴力的存在「無可避免」。後來,天主容許人們殺一些動物來吃,可是這個暴力並非完全野蠻:因為血代表生命,所以人們不可以吃動物的血。不管佛教或天主教都指出「吃」所造成的暴力,並由此幫助人們體會生命的價值。 因為城市化的緣故,很多當代人遠離了農業社會。這種疏遠使人們對食物的來源相形陌生:蔬菜需要多久時間才會成熟?雞或豬在屠宰場怎麼被殺?對很多人來說,食物的價值也許只能用錢來衡量。如此,我們怎麼能對食物所代表的生命表達我們的尊重呢?我認為我們需要重建一些象徵表達,來體認我們所吃的食物與大自然中的生命是密切相關的。例如:吃飯之前,人們可以表達對生命的尊重,就像傣族吃魚時所說的祝福。透過這樣的宗教禮儀,人類瞭解到自己對大自然欠的債,進而避免浪費食物。透過精神上的淨化,人們體會到盤中的菜來自動物與植物的生命,並認知到人類的平衡發展離不開大自然的發展。從最近的環保意識可看出許多自然資源跟不上我們在消費社會中狂買的需求。而新的態度與觀念正慢慢在我們的日常生活中建立起來,這是值得慶幸的事。在很多地方,政府會將垃圾分類並回收。吃飯後,我們可以在不同的垃圾桶處理剩下的廚餘,使這些廢物能再次利用成為能量或資源。這些對大自然尊重的新表達方式逐漸變成我們日常的禮儀。總之,理解「吃」所造成的嚴重暴力能引導人類與大自然走向和諧。

對於社會的暴力

承如上文所言,我們明白個人生活離不開大自然的生命。同樣的,它也離不開社會大眾。在我們的社會中,有人吃得過飽,也有人餓死,真是不可思議。最近二十年來,中國大陸的高格調餐廳如雨後春筍般地在各地開張,尤其是北京及各大城市。由於消費水準提高,人們很喜歡把大餐廳或酒店裝潢得很漂亮。由於文化活動並不多,電影院、音樂廳也算少,一般北京人調劑生活的方式就是與朋友聚會,或者去大餐廳吃飯。

「吃的文化」是好的,它使人享受美食,並歡慶人與人之間的友誼。可是,除了浪費食物的問題之外,「吃的文化」也造成社會的「暴力」現象。在此,我簡單地提出三個例子。第一、北京馬路上的乞丐越來越多。當然,他們當中有一部分的人想要依賴社會,可是有些人的確沒有別的生存選擇。我們吃一頓一百人民幣的飯,而這些人卻在餐廳門口餓肚子。我們怎能聽不到他們的哭聲或看不到他們所受的傷?我們怎能沒有慈悲心來幫助他們呢?第二、北京的大餐廳大都雇用外地人。我們進餐廳吃飯的時候,常常因為服務員急躁或不客氣的態度而不滿,但是我們有沒有瞭解到這些服務生的精神狀態呢?大多數的服務生每天工作十二個小時,每個月只能休息一、二天。他們多半住在擁擠的屋裡,根本沒有地方洗澡。一天的工作結束後,可能就會累得趴在餐廳的桌子上睡覺,而一個月領到的薪水只有五百到八百人民幣。這個現象早已違反勞動法的基本規定,可是我們卻常常視而不見。第三、有的客人不需要自己付帳,而由所屬的單位或公司報銷,所以養成客人不負責任的態度。客人不但報銷在餐廳用餐的費用,餐廳的老闆還助紂為虐地讓客人報到原價的兩倍。二○○二年,稅務局規定餐廳與其他商店都應該用同一規格的發票,以革除這種貪汙的壞習慣。因此,隨著「吃」而來的經濟活動可能會影響到整個社會,特別是社會中的弱勢族群。

* * *

吃飯、睡覺都是人生最基本的活動。吃飯不僅因應我們的生物性需求,而且也表達我們在文化、社會上的態度與個人的選擇。如果我們能意識到個人生活歸屬於大自然與社會的大生命,我們就會找出一些方法,使我們能和大自然、社會更和諧相處,也更能體會到這個大生命的味道。

【人籟論辨月刊第4期,2004月4日】

註釋
------------
1.創世紀時,人類有了治理大地、統領萬獸的任務,這時候暴力尚未降臨世上。每一個生命都是素食的,不管是人、猛獸、飛禽都是如此。等到了大洪水之後情況有了改變。人開始吃肉,萬獸也相互吞噬就如人類彼此殘殺一樣,第一個親情相殘的例子,就是加音殺死了他的弟弟亞伯爾。

附加的多媒體:
{rokbox}media/articles/Matrix_Eat_ct.jpg{/rokbox}
第 7 頁,共 7 頁

捐款

捐款e人籟,為您提供更多高品質的免費內容

金額: 

事件日曆

« 五月 2019 »
星期一 星期二 星期三 星期四 星期五 星期六 星期日
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

目前有 4732 個訪客 以及 沒有會員 在線上