THE TANDEM PROJECT
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS
&
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
THE END OF PHILOSOPHY
Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.
Issue: Evolutionary approach to morality and the social nature
of moral intuition
For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs,
Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society
Review: The End of Philosophy, David Brooks, Op-Ed Columnist, New York
Times,
For centuries morality has been the exclusive province
of ancient religious and non-religious beliefs and philosophy, often times
being used to justify immoral behavior and restrict the moral beliefs and
expressions of opposing views.
Now through science this is about to change so says
David Brooks:
Excerpts from Op-Ed Column:
“The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach
to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition. People
are not discrete units of coolly formulating moral arguments. They link
themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence. The
second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution
is always about competition, but for humans, as
“The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach
to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It
challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It
challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts.
It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason
against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and
in the purity of their own reasoning.”
“Finally, it should also challenge the very scientists
who study morality. They’re good at explaining how people make judgments about
harm and fairness, but they struggle to explain the feelings of awe,
transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to
most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also
leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and
makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness,
not as a means, but as an end in itself.”
1. 3 Freedom to manifest one’s
religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by
law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Op-Ed Columnist
By DAVID BROOKS
Socrates talked. The
assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of
people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation:
Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.
One problem with this kind
of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, “Human,”
is that “it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and
proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most
studies, none has been found.”
Today, many psychologists,
cognitive scientists and even philosophers embrace a different view of
morality. In this view, moral thinking is more like aesthetics. As we look
around the world, we are constantly evaluating what we see. Seeing and
evaluating are not two separate processes. They are linked and basically
simultaneous.
As Steven Quartz of the
California Institute of Technology said during a recent discussion of ethics
sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, “Our brain is computing value at
every fraction of a second. Everything that we look at, we form an implicit
preference. Some of those make it into our awareness; some of them remain at
the level of our unconscious, but ... what our brain is for, what our brain has
evolved for, is to find what is of value in our environment.”
Think of what happens when
you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s
disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is
beautiful. You just know.
Moral judgments are like
that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing
parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair
or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies,
before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to
ourselves why something feels wrong.
In other words, reasoning
comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as
Jonathan Haidt of the
The question then becomes:
What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been
evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that
evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within
groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to
divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats.
Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just
care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We
also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, and religions. We are all the
descendents of successful cooperators.
The first nice thing about
this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature
of moral intuition. People are not discrete units coolly formulating moral
arguments. They link themselves together into communities and networks of
mutual influence.
The second nice thing is
that it entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution is always about
competition, but for humans, as
The third nice thing is
that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying
dignity and choice. Moral intuitions have primacy, Haidt argues, but they are
not dictators. There are times, often the most important moments in our lives,
when in fact we do use reason to override moral intuitions, and often those
reasons — along with new intuitions — come from our friends.
The rise and now dominance
of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all
sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by
most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational
scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved
in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power
of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning.
Finally, it should also
challenge the very scientists who study morality. They’re good at explaining
how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to
explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice,
which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The
evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of
individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most
people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE STATEMENT: International Human Rights Standards on
Freedom of Religion or Belief are international human rights treaty law and
universal codes of conduct for peaceful cooperation, respectful competition and
resolution of conflicts. The standards are a platform for genuine dialogue on
core principles and values within and among nations, all religions and other
beliefs. Genuine dialogue on core principles and values includes balanced
discussion on cooperation, competition and conflict.
Surely one of the best hopes for the future of humankind
is to embrace a culture in which religions and other beliefs accept one
another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the name of an
exclusive right to truth, in which children are raised to solve conflicts with
mediation, compassion and understanding.
HISTORY: United Nations History –
Freedom of Religion or Belief
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Documents Attached:
Believing Scripture but Playing by Science Rules
Reflections on Human Nature & Freedom of Religion or Belief
STANDARDS: http://www.tandemproject.com/program/81_dec.htm
The Tandem Project: a non-governmental organization founded
in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to
prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project, a non-profit NGO, has sponsored multiple conferences,
curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.
The Tandem Project
initiative is the result of a co-founder representing the World Federation of
United Nations Associations at the United Nations Geneva Seminar, Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance
and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
called by the UN Secretariat in 1984 on ways to implement the 1981 UN
Declaration. In 1986, The Tandem Project organized the first NGO International
Conference on the 1981 UN Declaration.
The Tandem Project
Executive Director is: Michael M. Roan, mroan@tandemproject.com.
The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in
Special Consultative Status with the
Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations
Goal: To eliminate all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief.
United Nations Secretary
General Ban Ki Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “never
in our lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and
committed dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among
and between nations.” Another writer in different setting said; “the warning
signs are clear, unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all
kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism,
the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”
Challenge: to reconcile international human rights
standards on freedom of religion or belief with the truth claims of religious
and non-religious beliefs.
Genuine dialogue on
freedom of religion or belief cannot work with a closed mind. It demands
respectful and thoughtful responses, discussion of taboos and clarity by
persons of diverse beliefs. Inclusive dialogue is between people of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief. These UN categories were first
defined in the 1960 seminal study on freedom of religion or belief by Arcot
Krishnaswami.
Inclusive and genuine
dialogue is essential as a first step in recognition of the inherent dignity,
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, and a
foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. Leaders of religious
and non-religious beliefs sanction the truth claims of their own traditions.
They are the key to raising awareness and acceptance of the value of holding
truth claims in tandem with human rights standards on freedom of religion or
belief.
To build understanding and
support for Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
–Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion -
and the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Encourage the United Nations,
Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media and Civil Society to
use International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief as
essential for long-term solutions to conflicts
in all matters relating to religion or belief.
Objectives:
1. Use International
Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief as a platform for
genuine dialogue on the core principles and values within and among nations,
all religions and other beliefs.
2. Adapt these human
rights standards to education, teaching children, from the very beginning, that
their own religion is one out of many and that it is a personal choice for
everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or she feels most
inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.1
History: In 1968 the United Nations deferred work on an
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious
Intolerance, because of its apparent complexity and sensitivity. In the
twenty-first century, a dramatic increase of intolerance and discrimination on
grounds of religion or belief is motivating a worldwide search to find
solutions to these problems. This is a challenge calling for enhanced dialogue
by States and others; including consideration of an International Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief for protection of and accountability by all
religions or beliefs. The tensions in today’s world inspire a question such as:
Should the United Nations
adopt an International Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief?
Response: Is it the appropriate moment to
reinitiate the drafting of a legally binding international convention on
freedom of religion or belief? Law making of this nature requires a minimum
consensus and an environment that appeals to reason rather than emotions. At
the same time we are on a learning curve as the various dimensions of the
Declaration are being explored. Many academics have produced voluminous books
on these questions but more ground has to be prepared before setting up of a UN
working group on drafting a convention. In my opinion, we should not try to
rush the elaboration of a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
especially not in times of high tensions and unpreparedness. - UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
Option: After forty years this may be the time,
however complex and sensitive, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to
appoint an Open-ended Working Group to draft a United Nations Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate for an Open-ended Working Group
ought to assure nothing in a draft Convention will be construed as restricting
or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Separation of Religion or Belief
and State
Concept: Separation of Religion or Belief and State - SOROBAS. The First Preamble to the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads; “Whereas
recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. This concept
suggests States recalling their history, culture and constitution adopt fair
and equal human rights protection for all religions or beliefs as described in
General Comment 22 on Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, UN Human Rights Committee,
Article
18: protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief.
The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not
limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs
with international characteristics or practices analogous to those of
traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency
to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the
fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that
may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community.
Article
18: permits
restrictions to manifest a religion or belief only if such limitations are
prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or
morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Dialogue: International Human Rights Standards on
Freedom or Religion or Belief are international law and universal codes of conduct
for peaceful cooperation, respectful competition and resolution of conflicts.
The standards are a platform for genuine dialogue on core principles and values
within and among nations, all religions and other beliefs.
Education: Ambassador
1981 U.N. Declaration on Freedom
of Religion or Belief
5.2: Every child shall enjoy the right to have access
to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes
of his parents, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or
belief against the wishes of his parents, the best interests of the child being
the guiding principle.” With International Human Rights safeguards, early
childhood education is the best time to begin to build tolerance, understanding
and respect for freedom of religion or belief.
5.3: The child shall be protected from any form of
discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in
a spirit of understanding, tolerance, and friendship among peoples, peace and
universal brotherhood, respect for the freedom of religion or belief of others
and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the
service of his fellow men.