Can people in this world, given their cultural and religious differences, ever find a way toward peaceful coexistence?
One of the most important debates in the 21st century is the seeming irreconcilable difference between individual freedom and the value of the community. The liberal position highlights the individual as the highest value, and it is for this reason that in John Rawls’ formulation, as a reaction to utilitarianism, he argues that “each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.”
But the critics of Rawls indicate that given the differences in terms of cultural values, the liberal position cannot be the ideal framework in a multicultural society. The very foundation of the Rawlsian starting point is human rationality, specifically western rationality. The lexical priority of human freedom means that without his basic liberty, the individual loses his fundamental sense of humanity—the capacity to make choices. For liberals, the important components of this freedom are “freedom of expression,” “freedom of assembly” and “freedom of religion.”
Yet, a counterargument says that the norms in different societies depend on the values that people have. In a communitarian setting that gives priority to the family as the foundation of the common good, the interest of the family is always greater than the interest of the individual member. This unwritten principle suggests that parents make sacrifices for their children or that people sacrifice themselves for the interest of the community.
The Paris attacks, while woven into a narrative of terrorism and a violation of free speech, is one that also highlights, in the words of Noam Chomsky, the hypocrisy of the western world. On record, thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, have become victims of drone attacks that target suspected terrorists. Yet, no outcry from the media in our “freedom-loving world” has been heard.
This does not mean, however, that violence can be justified for the sake of a cause or principle. All forms of violence against the human person must be condemned. Violence cannot be used by terrorists to justify their fundamentalist ideas.
It cannot be denied that hegemonic structures in the First World deprive people in the Third World of their fair share of the goods in society and violate their basic rights to a decent life. But the truth is that the United States is waging a battle against terror because American interests are at stake. But we have to also categorically state that suicide and car bombings that target innocent civilians, in the name of religion, and designed as such because no terrorist organization will ever win in a conventional war, are morally unacceptable.
Is it possible to exist in a world where the primacy of human freedom and the value of one’s community coexist?
Indeed, the hard part of it is the idea that some cultures cannot accept the western way of life, which they attribute to consumerism, self-interest and material greed. In the new millennium, you can easily identify Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber as byproducts of the perceived decay of western values. For traditional cultures, a way of life that promotes individualism can be seen as inimical to the survival of the values of the community. The games that our children play nowadays, for instance, are no longer about “playing for each other” but “playing against oneself.”
The basic point here is that the community cannot be seen as an abstract entity. Following Friedrich Hegel, it also has “a life of its own.” As such, an attack against the values of a community is an attack against the members of that community. Yet, terrorism is wrongly using religion for its cause. Indeed, it can be said that terrorists are plain criminals who use religion to legitimize violence. Still, we have to admit that it is morally problematic to ridicule the faith of other people and use freedom of expression as an excuse. Both are guilty of the crime of “totalization,” to use Emmanuel Levinas, where the other is subjugated.
The solution of Levinas to our problems rests on the idea of an ethics of justice. Justice for Levinas does not begin with the individual. It begins with the other. For Levinas, my responsibility to the other is prior to my freedom, my community or my being. This does not mean, according to Kenneth Obiekwe, that “the individual needs to be subordinated to the community.” Rather, it sees my being responsible for the other—the poor, the stranger, the outsider—as a way of nurturing and enhancing the very value of my freedom.
Our pursuit of happiness, both as individuals and as a community, should never be at the expense of other people. The ethics of justice that Levinas offers, which is grounded in proximity or that “face to face” encounter with the other, through “love and nonviolence,” where the other is recognized for his “unsurpassable worth and human dignity,” is the only way to peace.
Christopher Ryan Maboloc teaches philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University. He has a master’s degree in applied ethics from Linkoping University in Sweden.