Global social processes in the face of new moral summons

Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 June 1999

The turn of the centuries forces people throughout the world to contemplate the fates of their nations, the meaning of history, and the place in it of the individual and various human communities.  Simultaneously many events of recent years have intensified old moral problems and have engendered new ones, creating a basis for complex questions and reflection.

Just like many centuries ago, humanity is divided over differing understandings of morality and law and over the relationships of these phenomena as such.  What constitutes the foundation of the standards of morality by which we should be governed in political, economic and personal life and in interpersonal, international, and interstate relations?  Why is it that identical moral laws are understood differently by nations and employed differently so that they even become objects of abuses?  Finally, what is morality; is it merely human conventions that depend upon changing historical circumstances, or is it something more, eternal commandments of an unchanging God which do not grow old even if the whole world ceases to fulfill them?

Contemporary law and traditional moral structures sometimes can come into opposition with each other.  The concept of sin as it exists in religious ethics is by no means identical with the concept of crime in the form that secular laws deal with it.  A great many acts which are subject to unconditional condemnation from the point of view of centuries-old moral standards do not at the same time incur punishment in accordance with the laws of a majority of countries.  What kind of evil should be restricted by society and the state and what kind can be tolerated out of respect for human freedom?

What generally is the criterion of "permissibility" of sinful behavior for a society? In the contemporary world the generally accepted criterion is the absence of obvious harm to other people; as a rule the harm is understood in physical and material categories.  However it should not be forgotten that for a religious consciousness, and even for many nonbelieving people, there are values that are incomparably more important than human life, and thus the criterion of the impermissible becomes for them much more broad.

Legislative systems, on both the national and international level, also differ.  Many principles of law today have been placed into question and are in conflict with each other. Suffice it to mention the intensified conflict between the principle of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state, on one hand, and the interests of separate groups of citizens, on the other.  This conflict already frequently has led to massive, bloody conflicts and now has given rise to the danger of a new global conflict.

I think that one can identify within this group of unresolved questions two problems.  First, the relationship of justice and mercy, peace and truth. In the international arena there is arising more often a conflict between the ideals of reconciliation and the desire for establishment of a just order that imposes restrictions on everything that does not conform to one or another conception of truth and falsehood, conceptions which, as we have said already, differ greatly from one another.  Second, today's divide lies between  a profoundly humanistic consciousness that places supreme value upon the individual, especially his material existence, and the religious consciousness, which insists on the relative value of earthly life, whose real purpose is the achievement of eternal blessedness and the preparation for it.

The latter problem entails the question of the possibility of historic progress. The Christian, who cannot ignore divinely inspired prophecies about the apocalyptic end of history, must inevitably treat critically affirmations about the progress of humanity, especially that which is achieved exclusively by human efforts without the aid of God.  And when the issue comes to the ethical assessment of history, the evaluation of either progress or regression becomes an extremely complex matter.

It could be said that discussion of this type has little to do with the reality of global political processes in our day. However I think that it is just the profound differences in understanding by people and nations of their own historical mission that leads to such serious conflicts which are happening in the world today.

The situation regarding Kosovo, which has intensified disagreements between the West and Russia, the Islamic nations, and many countries of the so-called third world who are intently searching for an independent path of development, permits one to speak of a regular process whose roots lie much deeper than geopolitical, military, or economic interests.  The collapse of the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union inspired new enthusiasm for the ideology of progress, by which is understood most often the maximum satisfaction of the demands of the autonomous individual.  In its most primitive form this ideology shows itself in consumerism, which now is promoted in the majority of countries of the world by the propaganda of the "ideals" of demand through advertisement, education, and political stereotypes, literally overwhelming any attempt to set anything higher than economic interests or creature comfort.

However the cult of demand is only a crude form of the cult of peaceful progress.  In recent time we increasingly confront the spread of notions about earthly human existence, including its cultural, intellectual, and other such aspects, as an absolute standard of good and evil, higher than the criterion of truth and justice.  The ideal society, according to such notions, is called first of all to guarantee to each of its members a life of maximum comfort in the material sense, as well as education, access to intellectual resources, and abstract "spiritual and cultural" potentials.  At the same time the individual must not be restricted in any way except in the case of infringement upon another personality, expressed in a sufficiently obvious manner and subject to criminal punishment.  In such a system of values the role of society is reduced to the simple maintenance of the government, that is, a mechanism which guarantees the observance of the "rules of the game" in mutual relations among individuals.  The establishment of international standards and the creation of the possibility of forcing states and societies to observe them should permit one to speak about the "total triumph" of rationalistic civilization which has no further need of God.

Without question it is difficult to deny the need for a material structure of the life of people and the guarantee of their rights and freedoms.  Concern for getting food for one's neighbor and one's self, protection of people from violence and other infringements on the part of the state, creation of maximally propitious conditions for economic, political, cultural, and spiritual self-expression of the individual are all tasks of great worth and are morally justified.  But is the content of our existence eroded by them? Do they exhaust the meaning of the existence of the individual and society?

We are not talking about the achievement by all of humanity of material prosperity on the scale that has become customary for the "golden billion" of citizens of the technologically developed countries, which is barely achieved, for this entails a collision with the real ecological resources of the planet and hitherto has been achieved by the economic exploitation of a majority of residents of the earth, who from the most burdensome labor have received miserable reward.  The very setting of the egoistic interests of the individual at the center of the universe--which is characteristic incidentally not only of "triumphant" consumerism but was also of the past "triumphant" marxism--inevitably runs into opposition on the part of people whose lives are guided by values that are not contained within the bounds of the rationalistic understanding of earthly existence.  What is it that prevents those Serbs from being reconciled with losing their religious independence and leaving their ancient shrines in Kosovo and after some time getting a peaceful and comfortable life?  Why do Islamic nations, in opposition with almost all the rest of the world, try to establish on their land an order that is incomprehensible for the West but which flows naturally from their religion and thus is understood by them as a social norm?  Why do many people in western countries rise up against moral nihilism and refuse to pay out of their own pockets for the propaganda of evil, abortions, and support for so-called sexual minorities?  Finally, what is the reason that many of our fellow countrymen have tried for years pleasantly but firmly to explain to the West that the attempt "to change" Russia by forcing it to embrace alien worldview and cultural standards will inevitably evoke reaction?

Every people, every culture, religion, or philosophical system has the right to historic self-realization and the contemporary system of international law provides extremely broad formal conditions for this.  However we often have become witnesses to attempts to declare one of the existing worldviews as a kind of universal norm and all the others departures from this norm which should be overcome or leveled by these or other means. At the same time it is forgotten that this "norm," as a rule, is being followed by only a small portion of the population of the planet.  Thus, the majority of the nations of Europe and the world have a definite preference for the traditional religions and religious professions which are supported by the basic portion of the population of the country.  In many states recognition is given to the historic ties between ethnicity and religion, culture, and the way of life.  At the same time they continually try to persuade us that the radical understanding of the super-ethnicity and super-confessionalism of the state is the norm and any attempt to establish national self-identity in terms of faith, ethnicity, and culture is a step backward and discrimination against minorities.

Today it also is accepted to speak about the absolute, supreme value of earthly human life.  At the same time it is obvious that many people are ready to lay down their lives for the sake of notions, symbols, and ideas that are sacred to them.  Any attempt to establish by force the priority of rationally perceived interests over the spiritual existence of a nation really leads directly to great human sacrifices.  The example of Kosovo shows clearly that the attempt to guarantee the well-being of one group of citizens at the expense of the spiritual priorities of another cannot but lead to amazing tragedy.  Indeed, for many Serbs the possibility of getting to their historic shrines means much more than temporal earthly existence.  Without justifying the repressions that were committed against civilian Kosovo Albanians, we nevertheless note that nobody has taken from the Serb people the right to a just struggle for the integrity of their country and to access to its sacred places, even if such a struggle means the violent suppression of armed separatists.

However the essence of the Kosovo conflict is not just in the control of territories.  Two basic worldview principles have collided:  the priority of the physical existence of the individual and the priority of the spiritual bases of existence.  Western participants in the conflict have not given serious attention to the second factor; for them all explanations for the actions of Serbs, as in the past, lay within the sphere of geopolitical interests of the "Belgrade regime."  It is this misunderstanding that has led to the present confusion in the NATO camp and also to the situation where the previously declared goals of preventing a humanitarian catastrophe led to precisely the opposite.  Something similar, incidentally, happened in the period of the tragic events in Chechnia.  The Russian elite was not able to imagine that neither the military "stick" nor the economic "carrot" would not force the Chechen people to reject their own autonomy and the right of building life in accordance with their own conceptions of good and evil.

Extreme personalism which denies the value of the collective, communal forms of existence--of ethnicities, nations, or religious communities--also strives to establish itself as the most "fruitful" direction for social thought.  However disillusionment with it is growing both in the East and in the West.  Even those who are accustomed to think of the individual exclusively in categories of his total isolation before the face of God, nature, society, and history are forced to consider that hundreds of millions of people realize, often moving from the opposite, that the life of the individual apart from close unity with others like itself, is impoverished and that self-limitation and reconciliation for the sake of service to one's neighbors and for the sake of the existence of one or another human community is the supreme and most worthy form of personal self-realization.

The ideology that aspires today to dominance and universality in international relations is also trying to make morality exclusively the sphere of the private life of the individual, severely limiting its social dimension.  Such phenomena as marital infidelity, extramarital relations, sexual orientation, pornography, the propaganda of violence, drug addiction, and alcoholism are declared the norm of social life on the basis that they lie exclusively within the sphere of the responsibility of the individual to himself and do not directly affect the interest of the physical well-being of other individuals.

We are not going to talk about the obvious links of these phenomena with many socially dangerous phenomena:  crime, destruction of families, and epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases.  There exists a more serious problem, the conflict between these evils and centuries-old moral norms which, in the conviction of many if not the majority, are established from above and thus have unconditional priority over any human laws and decisions. Do evil and virtue apply exclusively to the private life of the citizens or, in the case of a higher level of public consensus relative to one or another norm of morality, should the ethical sphere be an area of concern for nations, which means, for governments?  Indeed, the religious roots of ethics, which means the ontological and unconditional character of ethics, is not recognized today by all people by any means.  But the very nature of humanity usually protests against the extremism of moral nihilism which means democratic societies inevitably must reflect the public morality in their regulations.  Besides, the denial of the unavoidable character and super-human essence of eternal moral laws in the final analysis is able to lead to the perception of axiomatic standards of ethics. What will come of a discussion about the legalization of pedophilia in which the opponents of evil try with great difficulty to establish the traditional morality with the help of purely humanistic, rational, and juridical arguments.

With increasingly intense passion today is being discussed the topic of the interference of science and technology in the nature of plants, animals, and humans. Indeed, genetic engineering can give people some more food products, avoid several diseases, and prolong individual life.  Obviously some complications of a practical character sooner or later will be overcome which will obviate the fear of the danger of genetic technology for the physical existence of humanity.  But should we forget that having to work for food, and suffering, and even death are not necessarily evil? Why are we generally considering earthly existence as the absolute good, for the sake of which we consider that we have the right to change God's world in accordance with our view?

We have cited only a few of the questions which are acutely standing before humanity on the eve of the great change of historic milestones. In some sense they may be considered new; however their essence has been well known to many nations and generations, beginning from the construction of the tower of Babel.  More than once and even more than that people have tried to begin to live without God, placing their reason above the will of the Creator. That's how it is today as well; behind many conflicts of an economic, political, and even military character stands the absence of mutual understanding between the advocates of the rational and religious views on the world and humanity, on the course and meaning of earthly history, and also on the reality which is wider and higher than it.  The growing dramatic break-up in a most immediate manner will have an impact on the understanding of the interrelations of justice and peace; after all if people radically diverge in their vision of what is just and legal and what is not, overcoming hostility and establishing peace will become an overwhelmingly difficult task.

Is there a way out of the emerging situation? Is it possible to harmonize the rationalist worldview and the spiritual aspirations of people who do not consider human reason the only criterion of truth?  We suggest that this is not only realistic but also necessary.

As a basis for reconciliation, spiritually oriented people have the right to expect at least the renunciation by the rationalistic deification of humanity of a monopoly on truth and of the attempt to construct the life of societies and states, as well as international relations, exclusively on the basis of "objective" values of the material order.  It should no longer be considered that the values that differ from the postulates of "post-Christian" humanism are a priori regressive, and thus should not be considered worthy of full respect.  At the same time religious forces  should see more clearly than today that drawing that thin line which separates, on one hand, the right of the individual freely to determine his life's path, possessing the God-given freedom of choice between good and evil, and on the other, the right of a society, nation, and the human family by various means actively to support that which natural and religious morality considers good and to refuse support for those phenomena which traditionally have been considered destructive.  It is this path which can receive the approval of the majority of the earth's population and restore harmony in the global social processes.

Other means for resolving problems which have been exercised in today's world seem to be rather fruitless.  We have in mind primarily the attempt to open up Christianity, along with the other religions, to the rationalistic worldview.  This is not the first time that communities of believers in many countries have been forced to try to reach an accommodation with a godless environment.  Such accommodation is not motivated by obedience to the will of God but by arguments of a crudely human dimension rooted outside of religious truth.  The result is a cooling of religiosity and a strengthening of extreme pseudo-spiritual movements which try to find an answer to secularization in aggressive forms of protest.

And so we are convinced that the movement toward a just world can and must be based on the coexistence of  the religious and secular views on the development of the state and society, and on morality and its social expression. The solution of the acute problems of the contemporary world is unthinkable on the basis of a purely rationalist worldview; striving to become the only socially significant force, human reason can only intensify the moral and spiritual crisis of civilization.  Acceptance of the equality of the humanist and theocentric views of the world and their equal rights to influence world events will create the conditions for overcoming by means of dialogue and accord many of the current divisions from which both separate countries and peoples and the relations among them suffer.  I believe that the time is approaching when not only in the hearts of believers but also in the global public arena "mercy and truth will meet and justice and peace kiss" (Ps 84.11 [85:10]).  (tr. by PDS)