Salam al Rabadi \ researcher and author in international
relations
spain\ Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Today we find it difficult to imagine a better future radically than we are. And
within this framework it can not of course to imagine a world for ourselves is
fundamentally different from the present where we are . and be the best at the
same time? In the face of contemporary global issues.Example:
the environment , terrorism, poverty, and the issue of minorities, biotech
revolution ... The world is divided into two halves :
1- The
first half : the killer .
2- The
second half : the dead.
But
it is who decides that with the first half or the second half? As long as the genes of the dead man's
brother is with the idea of a killer? So how are rectifying the compass to
understand that this gene is generated from a single stretch and studied in one
book and crept into the brain of one? And how if we give our shortcomings and
our mistakes for our children for they are the best value of life ???
We are not here, in the exhibition
question about the temporal evolution and quantitative not all philosophies and
theories produced since the emergence of history nor about human origins and
essence . As intended and entrusted us know is a set of standards that govern
the relationship between the idea of human (really) and thought. and between the importance
of human existence in principle. Most developed countries now interested in forming a committee
to evaluate the discoveries of science. That is immoral such as the issue of
medical abortion,contraception and tools,and human cloning,and the process of
artificial insemination for women... and these higher commissions directly
collide the ramifications of scientific knowledge and monetary expansion in the
present time .
Consequently, any pattern of rationality as well as the content
of any of the contents and status of scientific knowledge can be relied upon in
order to determine the principle of moral or human can we abide by it? And how
they can justify the vision of certain moral example higher? How can access to
that vision?? Is there a code of ethics rational or realistic it can be subject
to human behavior , to the standards ? ?Is there a moral facts which we can ,
identify humanitarian priorities? How can we identify them???
In front of these questions, it is necessary to put the problem: Is it possible Be the value of the human mind in itself??
That everything, around
us and within us and with us need
to become lessons and new theories looking for the world we inherit to
understand clearly what is going on in the world has become . The world is
shaking and the scale of values need to become a new vision. We are facing a
problem and trends and meanings vary in content but the standards one. And are
clinging to in essence nature and movements and knowledge as a guarantor of
value basis whether individual or collective .
Is that the start of the conflict vary group with another
group?or some of them with all? or with part of another in order? to give birth
climates and considerations in violation of the rules and assets?So what is the
standard that produces valuable ? What is the basis of our values? It is to
decide this: Custom,habit,regularity,law, environment,social reality,cultural
reality?Can we considered cognitive creativity is an attribute value?Or
attribute a difference?What is the energy that will be consumed by the
generations and the world?who are caught in it to get to the station full of
humanism ?
All of these questions,
a spin to explain the essence of knowledge which is apparently the emergence of
a set of values which controls the eschatological human mind.Here the
criteria that determines the will and understanding?It decides whether the
world was shaken to
values lower or higher? How do we explain what the difference in the light: knowledge,realism, as well as the future? It says that
the cognitive hierarchy of values has been shaken?, and the world has become one idea after it was different
ideas? It appeared to the world of modern values, which does not explain himself.
but he says: is where he is going?
Based on all
these data, we have the evolution of modern thought in three directions:
1 - Traditional:
It is in the interest of science standard, such as logic,
which determines the validity or lack of validity, all
rational thinking.
2 - modern:
wondering about how much each building a knowledge, as
well as all human speech.
3- There is also, Other Sciences raised
the issue of existence and being.
So the Humanities and the community,
grow toward the light all sorts of behavior, on the basis of established and
tuned, the direction of the overall situation analysis. The moral
judgment finally it depends on the quality of the knowledge that we get, by
scientific research to characterize the results. The use of the concept of
"pragmatism", or sense the process of spontaneous and direct, enjoyed
by everyone no matter what level of cultural, means liberation of modern social
science, and rhetoric from operations chipping and shorthand and abstract
theory, that distract us from the reality studied who want to come to him and
understand .
Valray moral and historical
and philosophical approach,
does not allow any ideological position to be
determined.It
must be activated moral
reasoning with strong Hits standard.
It seems that
the contemporary scientific exploration
still too late in this
framework. Specialized
academic studies
which dealt with the subject of ethics
are still rare and
disappointing, from a
scientific point. Because
it is descriptive studies,
in view of the
ancient texts, and recent
studies. Therefore, we can
distinguish between
the patterns of moral discourses,
through which can be seen the
value system:
1- normative theological narrative:
that includes religious
currents.
2- secular moral philosophy:that
provides material
for the analytical streams.
The location of ethics under the law
modernist applied Unlike traditional legal systems the principle of:
"everything
is permitted unless explicitly forbidden"
Thus, the law separated and
away from morality. Has become the language of the market seep into all human
relations and thus constitute a fundamental challenge to the social and
political system. And that do not know the ethics and boundaries . It will be impossible
to continue without creating a new concept of philosophy , and a new way of
thinking about the nature of truth. Consequently, we urgently need to establish
a science above morality. science teaches all moral systems in order to reach
universal language laws.
It is thought necessary to renew or activate independent thought and
critical within the ethical line .
But then perhaps fall again in the arena of science and logic Alabstomologia.
These questions are thought to talk
because the traditional classical thought depends Unfortunately for various
Tewologgiot: Jewish,Christian, Muslim,and others .... and not for the spirit of
the new scientific???
