Ethic of Reciprocity in the Society - Essay Example

Ethic of Reciprocity in the Society The ethic of reciprocity provides a basis on which human relations ought to be centered. The ethic of reciprocity is centered on the belief that all humans are equal hence should treat one another on an equal platform. The golden rule requires that every individual to be treated fairly and justly. Fair and just treatment is due to every individual on the basis of their humanity. Issues of race, skin color, country of origin, family background and any other ascribed connotations do not apply when it comes to ethical considerations. In a nutshell the ethic of reciprocity calls for treatment of other people just in the same way one would want to be treated. Just as the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity calls for respect to people on the basis of humanity. The ethic of reciprocity is thought to be the major ground on which human rights are premised upon (Singer, 87). The code of conduct given by religion is testament that the ethic of reciprocity has provided the grounding for human behavior though its application is the only shortcoming. All religious groupings have a known code of conduct that forms the basis upon which members relate amongst themselves and the rest of the society. As a member one is bound to observe such rules or face certain measures in case of a failure to do so (Harry, et al, 136). In truth there are always set measures that define the range within which people should act. The most difficult task is not in the coming up with the code of behavior but to implement it. In as much as it is going to be acceptable, there are those who violate them. In light of this, it is necessary to see how the worlds’ major religions have adopted this ethic of reciprocity into their various doctrines. At the same time an assessment to determine the efficacy of the rule will be examined with a view to taking an appropriate position. Again, a look at Buddhism clearly shows that the reciprocity ethic guides relations though there are issues with compliance. Buddhism religion is grounded on the requirement that one should not kill or cause another person to kill. It also emphasizes the need to be considerate while seeking happiness by requiring individuals not to oppress others in pursuit of happiness (Tarico, 37). On paper, this is a desirable position taken by Buddhists. But my major concern is its feasibility. According to this religion, one should not kill or cause another to kill, a very noble idea. But, what happens if one is employed as an executioner? Staunch followers may reject the offer to work as an executioner but what if this is the only source of livelihood? From this short review, it becomes evident that however good a conduct code is, there are other issues that will impede its implementation. Baha’i faith also seems to be following the same teaching by suggesting that it is better to prefer a brother than oneself. The faith also advocates for fairness in calling for its followers not to put other people in situations in which themselves cannot agree to. The faith demands that shall there be a chance to select options one should make the better of them for his brother. This faith supports the position that you keep everybody ahead of yourself. Realistically, personal ambitions can rarely give way to societal good. In some instances, people may turn out to be quite lazy knowing that others will provide for their needs. If this case arises, then, it amounts to abating responsibility. Christianity also provides the guidelines on which behavior should be based. In the end it emerges that some duties do not go hand in hand with the brotherly treatment requirement. Christianity’s adoption of the ethic of reciprocity rests on its focus on not seeking revenge in an event that one is offended. This insists that one should love thy neighbor as thyself. In the book of the Bible, it is required that strangers be treated like one of the family (Heather, 125). It has however been pointed out that evangelical teachings can corrupt the minds of people. From the first remark that Christianity proposes not to consider revenge actions, it is discernible that revenge is not good. However, people working as army men will find this proposition inconceivable. If they chose to toe this requirement, then they will be vanquished and this will portend serious repercussions on the appointing authority. It becomes apparently clear that in some duties, it is not possible to observe the ethic of reciprocity. Confucianism is no exception as it clearly spells how people should hold others. Confucianism doctrine also requires their faithful not to force on others what you would not like for yourself. This clearly calls for individuals to offers to others what themselves would also be in a position to receive. Those of the Hinduism religion say that one should not consider doing unto others what he perceives to be injurious to the rest of his neighbors. On the Islamic front, things are not appearing to be any different because the Muslim brotherhood demands that no one should do things that hurt others. On the basis of the Judaism doctrine, one ought to love their neighbors as they love themselves. This only presents a desirable position that according to me is not attainable. After a careful consideration of the world’s major religions, it is easily noticeable that all of them point to the same description in regards to how people should relate to others. The focus is to do good for your friend ahead of yourself. However, in practice this is a pipe dream, simply put, it is a desirable thing to do but it cannot be achieved. Given that religion has provided the basis for human behavior, it is surprising however that major world conflicts center on it. Currently, the world’s major problems emanate from resource allocation and distribution. A striking example is how terrorist groups have tried to lend legitimacy to their activities. They claim that the west is misusing the rest of the world resources to their exclusive benefit. The west is predominantly a Christian sphere while the terrorist operatives are in most cases Muslim extremists. If the United States of America and the West, Christian nations, were using the Christian doctrine, then this conflict could not have been there. Furthermore, the Christian doctrine requires that you consider your brother ahead of yourself. If this was also followed then it becomes clear that this contention could never be there. The brotherhood biblical supposition is thin air considering the fact that the West is a capitalist society where the individual is the center of everything. In order to experience a crisis there must be two sides contesting something. On the other side of the divide is the terrorist grouping of Al Qaeda. This group claims also to be a religion-based organization that is fighting on behalf of Islamic ideals. The Islamic religion does not in any way support terrorist activities, but this group bases its actions on Islam. This profoundly shows how the ethic of reciprocity is only an illusion whose attainability is not only unforeseeable but also impractical. This problem of terrorism that arose premised on Islam has had wide-ranging effects on the world community. It is no longer safe as it used to be as terrorist events have recently spread even to the remotest parts of Africa. Though the reciprocity ethic offers guidelines, circumstances may constrain its applicability. According to (warburton, 39) it is never easy to separate the right things from the wrong ones. This is because different circumstances like environmental, geographical, economic, political, among others will condition on how people behave. To this scholar, there is nothing like a fixed set of rules that are enforceable without alterations. Further afield, (Warburton, 39) concedes that morality issues are not clear-cut as contentions will also arise, for instance what is moral to one individual is not necessarily moral to another. This shows that harmony must be struck in order to make the ethic reciprocity principle to be feasible. Basically what religion has offered is just a theoretical guide to behavior, but it has failed to make it practical. There are major criticisms as a result. In the first case, your interests may not be catered for. Then, secondly, circumstances may not be the same. It can also arise that values are not uniform. Consider issues to deal with love. If a person feels to be in love with another though the reverse does not exist, what happens? The ethic does not apply in these circumstances (Warburton, 41). Conclusion This paper has come at an opportune time due to the current different episodes all over the world that have raised the question on the role of religion in the society. A focused analysis of this paper indicates that religion has basically given an outline on how people should conduct themselves in society. However, those responsible to sell these various religious codes of conduct descriptions to the society have failed in their task badly. This is either due to the inapplicability of the doctrines to real life situations or due to the inadequacy of the doctrines appeal. All in all, religion has provided the basis for behavior, the only missing link is how to truly operationalize it in a way that achieves the intended goals. From this, it is visible that the ethic code of conduct has provided society a desired behavior pattern, which when fully followed will offer society the much needed peace. It is worthy to note that the code is effective, only if the implementation is improved by incorporating everybody into the system. Works Cited Harry, J. & Gensler, W. Ethics: Contemporary Readings. Great Britain. Rout ledge press, 2004. Pg 136. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=fnbtxGXu39sC&printsec=frontcover Heather, D. Blood, Bones and Spirit: Aboriginal Christianity in an East Kimberley Town. Carlton South. University of Melbourne Press, 2001. Pg 125. http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ZW7KuNxD2mIJ:cps Singer, P. A companion to ethics. Chicago. http://books.google.co.ke/books id=17i10ZZu8O4C&pg=PR2&dq=Singer, University of Chicago press, 2001. Pg 87. Tarico, V. The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth. S. I. Lulu.com publisher, 2007. Pg 37. http://books.google.co.ke/books id=DLnYtsfZtegC&printsec=frontcover& Warburton, N. Philosophy: The Basics. Great Britain. Rout ledge Press, 2004. Pgs 39 & 41.http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=X0eEbR2-Xt4C&pg=PA187&dq=Warburton +N.+Philosophy:+The+Basics Read More