DOCSLIB.ORG

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong: How Do We Decide? Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists 13-14 Year Olds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Good and Bad, Right and Wrong: How Do We Decide? Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists 13-14 Year Olds Sandwell SACRE / RE Today © 2019 Unit 3.12 Year 8 or 9 Good and bad, right and wrong: How do we decide? Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists 13-14 Year Olds Sandwell SACRE, 2019 1 Sandwell SACRE / RE Today © 2019 What is good and right? What is wrong and evil? Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists Age Group: 13-14 About this unit: This non-statutory unit is offered to teachers as an exemplar for guidance in planning and delivering RE for 13-14s using the Agreed Syllabus. The unit explores questions such as ‘how do we know what is good and evil or right and wrong?’ and ‘Does religion do any good?’ ‘How do Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and Christians decide what is right and wrong? The unit is about the theme of goodness and evil, and examines issues about right and wrong, religious and other kinds of authority and the values and commitments by which each person chooses to live. It can be taught alongside PSHE / Citizenship or enrichment and general studies programmes with mutual concerns – though it is important for RE objectives to be carefully planned and realised if this is attempted. The investigation sets challenging standards for students: the higher order thinking the unit requires would not be out of place for gifted and talented students. Some elements of this enquiry could be fully integrated with GCSE RS (which many schools teach from Year 9). As well as being a legal requirement, it is important that schools plan quality in RE for all pupils. This unit is a model for such planning. The unit will provide these opportunities. • Students have opportunities to consider a diverse range of views about questions of evil and goodness, right and wrong. • From the study of sources of wisdom and authority within religions students will be able to examine and develop reasoned viewpoints and thoughtful evaluations of these questions. They will encounter some diverse views about goodness and evil. • In this example, viewpoints from Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhi, Islam and non-religious life will be considered. Any school may plan to address the questions of the unit with reference to another religious tradition, or to refer to just three of the perspectives we mention here, taking account of the overall need for a balanced curriculum in RE KS3. • Students will be able to think about their own views, the influences upon them, and the reasons why they hold them in relation to questions about good and evil. • Experiences and opportunities provided by this unit include engaging with a range of views about human well being, goodness and evil, discussion, debate and controversy, and the opportunity to reflect in depth on the links between motives, actions and consequences. Significant background ideas from the religions and worldviews: ❑ In Christian traditions, belief in God as the source of goodness is a key to understanding the role of scripture, law and guidance. Christianity’s Jewish roots mark the significance of the Ten Commandments and the relationship between God and the people of God which they imply, but the main sources of Christian ethics come from the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels. Students need to get to grips with this in an authentic way. Sacred text, story and theological ideas contribute to Christian understanding of what it means to be human in relation to good and evil. Jesus’ use of the ‘Golden Rule’ and his teaching and example about love should be studied here. Matthew 5-7 and I Corinthians 13 are good Biblical starting points. Jesus is seen in the gospels as the ‘strong one’ and 2 Sandwell SACRE / RE Today © 2019 one account of his purpose in life is to confront evil / the devil, and win a victory of love over evil and hatred. ❑ Islamic understanding of goodness and evil is tied to the understanding of Allah as the source of all goodness drawn from the Qur’an. The Sunnah (sayings and practice approved by the Prophet) contributes exemplars and illustrations of goodness and evil in action. The Islamic vision of life for the well being of all emphasizes the Ummah (the global community of Muslims), the importance of submission to Allah and the role of Shariah law (Islam affects social and political life and describes what is good for human communities through Shariah). Some of the Names of Allah (e.g. The Judge, the Guide, He who Sees, The Reckoner, He who Pardons) are connected to the moral life. Islamic ritual always encourages the believer to do right, and to seek forgiveness for wrong (e.g. ‘stoning the devil’ on Hajj, Salah and Du’a prayers for mercy and forgiveness). ❑ Sikh teaching: God does not inflict suffering on human beings directly. Suffering is allowed by God as a test of courage and faith. God gave humans free will. Therefore, evil cannot be removed from the world by God, as otherwise God would not be allowing humans true free will. Sikhs are encouraged to work to do good and relieve the consequences of evil. Those who do evil will be punished: “...in the Court of God everyone will be judged. Those who have betrayed the trust of the people will be shamed and punished.” (Guru Granth Sahib page 1288). Suffering is valued for the good that it often brings out in humans, e.g. compassion and empathy. Sikhs believe that suffering can draw a person closer to God as people tend to forget God when times are good and turn to God in bad times. ❑ Sikhs, Muslims and Christians may agree that the ultimate source of goodness is divine, and that humanity’s flawed attempts to seek what is good need the strength that comes from the practice of faith to flourish. This is the basis of their critique of non-religious morality. ❑ Buddhist ideas: as a non-theistic tradition, Buddhism is very much concerned with the reduction and ending of suffering: the Buddha prioritises this over any philosophical argument or doctrinal idea. The end of suffering – to which we are all subject – is approached through understanding and accepting the Four Nobel Truths and through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. Buddhists practice Five Precepts (voluntarily adopted – not laws) to bring them closer to goodness. Rather than talking of rules, Buddhists often speak of ‘skilful means’ to approach enlightenment. ❑ Among non-religious people questions of good and evil may be answered with reference to reason, experience or the principle of utility (‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’). Atheists and agnostics may see God-talk as an unnecessary confusion of the debate about ethics. Some non-religious critiques of faith suggest that religion itself is evil, or promotes evils such as over-confident assertion of truth, bigotry and intolerance. The debate continues – and it is good for RE to engage it. Humanists use the slogan ‘good without God’ to describe their ethical commitments to truthfulness, rationality, skepticism, integrity and altruism. It is important that RE teaching should never give the impression that religions have some kind of monopoly on ethics. Atheism or agnosticism may offer purely human accounts of how we decide what is good and what is evil. At the same time, there are powerful non- religious critiques of religion which also have their place in the enquiry. Estimated teaching time for this unit: 10 -12 hours. Teach less, in depth, if you have less time – it’s not recommended to skate o ver the surface, but to engage with two workdviews in depth. Where this unit fits in: This unit develops the role of philosophical thinking in RE by attending to ethics. It provides opportunities to build upon work from earlier in key stage three by looking more deeply at the meanings of terms and the influences of religion and other ideas. The unit intends to give students the chance to develop their own sense of morality and their own awareness of the impact of their choices about right and wrong. 3 Sandwell SACRE / RE Today © 2019 KEY THEMES ADDRESSED BY THIS UNIT ▪ Beliefs and concepts: what do Muslims, Christians and non-religious people believe about good and evil? What can be learned from differing concepts of right and wrong? ▪ Inter faith dialogue: what can Muslims, Christians and non-religious people learn from sharing their ideas and visions? What similarities and differences can be explored? Can we learn about good and evil from Muslims, Christians and non-religious people? ATTITUDES FOCUS: Students will explore attitudes of: ▪ Self awareness by becoming more sensitive to the impact of behaviour and ideas about good and evil on themselves and others; ▪ Open mindedness by distinguishing between opinions, viewpoints and beliefs with reference to right and wrong, good and evil. KEY STRANDS ADDRESSED BY THIS UNIT • Beliefs, Values and Teaching • Questions of Identity, Diversity and Belonging • Questions of Values and Commitments CONCEPTS: The core concepts from RE that this unit addresses are beliefs, values, commitments and diversity. Teachers should plan to enable learners to see the significance of these core ideas at every point. 4 Sandwell SACRE / RE Today © 2019 Prior learning Vocabulary Resources It is helpful if In this unit, Key Religious Texts: (Online searchable sacred texts: www.ishwar.com) students have: students will have ▪ Qur’an, 6: 151-154 • Studied an opportunity to ▪ Bible: Exodus 20, Matthew 5-7, I Corinthians 13 some use words and ▪ Other examples from other faith traditions. examples of phrases related to: Games: religious ▪ ‘The Values Game’ (in ‘Looking inwards, Looking outwards’ teachers’ pack, moral • Specific J. Mackley, RE Today 1997) ▪ 'The Worst Thing in the World' (in ‘Evil and Goodness, Developing teaching in religions: Secondary RE’ RE Today 2001) Y8’s theme Christianity: ▪ ‘Dilemmas and Decisions: 48 scenarios for moral thinking’, RE Today of sacred Jewish roots, Web: texts and Ten ▪ www.humanism.org.uk makes some atheist and agnostic materials revered Commandments, available easily, and has a shop.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Selections)
    Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (selections) This is an excerpt from Beyond Good and Evil, a book written by Nietzsche in 1886, consisting of about three hundred aphorisms on various subjects. The central theme of this book is the problem of morality—how we should act. The startling conclusion Nietzsche draws in the book is that we ought to jettison the altruistic morality that society and religion has imposed on us, the morality in which we demonstrate care and concern for the welfare and well-being of others, and instead institute a new morality centered around the self, a new self unfettered by social norms and the “slave morality” of what Nietzsche calls the “herd.” The final culmination of this new morality which lies “beyond good and evil” can be found in the final chapter titled “What Is Noble?” According to Nietzsche, to be noble means to see oneself as the center and origin of all value. In fact, the terms “good” and “bad” originally designated simply what the aristocracy did and did not value. For Nietzsche, “life is precisely the will to power,” and historically members of the aristocracy exercised their will to power by exploiting common people and using them as they saw fit. Nietzsche calls the morality of the ruling aristocracy a “master morality. ” He contrasts this kind of morality with “slave morality,” which arose when common people tried to make their inferior and despicable lives more bearable by exalting as virtues such qualities as kindness, sympathy, selflessness, patience, and humility (the cornerstones of Christian morality). Slave morality gave rise to the pair of terms “good” and “evil,” which Nietzsche contrasts with the “good” and “bad” of master morality.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Good and Evil—1
    Nietzsche & Asian Philosophy Beyond Good and Evil—1 Beyond good and Evil Preface supposing truth is a woman philosophers like love-sick suitors who don’t understand the woman-truth central problem of philosophy is Plato’s error: denying perspective, the basic condition of all life On the Prejudices of Philosophers 1) questioning the will to truth who is it that really wants truth? What in us wants truth? Why not untruth? 2) origin of the will to truth out of the will to untruth, deception can anything arise out of its opposite? A dangerous questioning? Nietzsche sees new philosophers coming up who have the strength for the dangerous “maybe.” Note in general Nietzsche’s preference for the conditional tense, his penchant for beginning his questioning with “perhaps” or “suppose” or “maybe.” In many of the passages throughout this book Nietzsche takes up a perspective which perhaps none had dared take up before, a perspective to question what had seemed previously to be unquestionable. He seems to constantly be tempting the reader with a dangerous thought experiment. This begins with the questioning of the will to truth and the supposition that, perhaps, the will to truth may have arisen out of its opposite, the will to untruth, ignorance, deception. 3) the supposition that the greater part of conscious thinking must be included among instinctive activities Nietzsche emphasizes that consciousness is a surface phenomenon conscious thinking is directed by what goes on beneath the surface contrary to Plato’s notion of pure reason, the conscious
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • God and the Problem of Evil Notes
    Theodicy: God and the Problem of Evil Introduction Theodicy: From the Greek words for God (theos) and justice (dikē) - It is an attempt to vindicate divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. Three facts that seem to be in tension: 1. God is all-good 2. God is all-powerful 3. Evil exists “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – David Hume Summary: How do we defend the facts that God is good and God is powerful if he allows the holocaust, child-molestation, infanticide, wars, terrorism, cancer, rape, etc. Attempts to solve this tension 1. Simply deny that God is good. Problems 1 John 1:5 - This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Psalm 106:1 - Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! Psalm 119:68 - You are good and do good; teach me your statutes. Nahum 1:7 - The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. James 1:13 - Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Evil in the Personal Experience of St. Augustine
    RUCH FILOZOFICZNY LXXVI 2020 2 Agnieszka Biegalska University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland ORCID: 0000-0002-5653-9684 e-mail: [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/RF.2020.024 Our heart is restless until it rests in you. St. Augustine, Confessions* Evil in the Personal Experience of St. Augustine The most disturbing issue that permeates all of St. Augustine’s work is the question of the existence of evil, experiencing it and inflicting it. Giovanni Papini claims that Augustine, “before he found himself in finding God, […] had to exhaust the experience of evil to the very depths”.1 This remark redirects our thinking about Augustine’s under- standing of evil from the field of theoretical considerations to the realm of his personal experience of evil, where his philosophical and theologi- cal thought seems to be rooted. For many years, Augustine experienced evil and inflicted it himself. In the Confessions we read: “our life was one of being seduced and seducing, being deceived and deceiving, in a vari- ety of desires. Publicly I was a teacher of the arts which they call liberal; privately I professed a false religion – in the former role arrogant, in the latter superstitious, in everything vain”.2 A sense of persistence in false- hood and iniquity, noticed by Augustine quite late, a few years before his death in 430 (if one can consider his Confessions as a testimony to this important moment) and his desire to know the truth about himself, * Saint Augustine, Confessions, transl. with an introduction and notes by Henry Chadwick (USA: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1, i (1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Conscience As a Determinant of Morality: It’S Implication for the Nigerian Society
    International Journal of Philosophy and Theology September 2014, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 219-234 ISSN: 2333-5750 (Print), 2333-5769 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a15 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a15 The Human Conscience as a Determinant of Morality: It’s Implication for the Nigerian Society Patrick Eluke1 Abstract Human conscience has been severally described as the judge of human morality in every society. The way individuals in the Nigerian Society behave is predicated on the type of conscience they possess. Human conscience is that part of one’s mind that tells one whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Conscience varies from certain, doubtful, and perplexed, scrupulous to lax conscience. The good conscience undoubtedly implies the absence of fault, constant practice of good works and insistence on honorable behavior. This paper, therefore, seeks to survey types and they directly correlate with our different actions in the Nigerian Society today. This paper adopts descriptive method in order to achieve its objectives. 1. Preamble “Conscience is seen by some scholars as the source of moral knowledge or the source of moral reason, while others see it merely as a name for more feelings approval or disapproval of actions either as a result of psychological or social conditioning.”1 (Peschke K.H. Christian Ethics, moral Theology in the light of Vat. 2 Vol. 1 1986 p. 152.) This view is held by various scholars especially by both philosophers and non- philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of the Good and the Evil in the Teachings of Leo Tolstoy and Hannah Arendt
    Svetlana Klimova THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL IN THE TEACHINGS OF LEO TOLSTOY AND HANNAH ARENDT BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS SERIES: HUMANITIES WP BRP 150/HUM/2017 This Working Paper is an output of a research project implemented at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE). Any opinions or claims contained in this Working Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of HSE Svetlana Klimova1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL IN THE TEACHINGS OF LEO TOLSTOY AND HANNAH ARENDT2 The main subject of this article is devited of analyses a problem of Good and Evil in the teaching of Leo Tolstoy and Hannah Arendt. each in his epoch and by a similar way, got to the back of contradictions between “reasonableness”, “morality” and a human behavior in the state and society though they approached them from the opposing points of view. The approach of Tolstoy was Christian-ethical while that of Arendt was philosophic-political. Their congeniality is attributed to the fact that the ethics of Tolstoy and the policy of Arendt are built on a common theoretical ground, i.e. the philosophical anthropology of Kant. In the “man-state” opposition, Tolstoy revealed the ethical prerequisites to creation of the totalitarian ideology, and Arendt showed up the historical, political and inhuman essence of the totalitarianism phenomenon as such. Key words: Good, Evil, radical and banality evil, a philosophical anthropology of Kant , consciousness, the mass society and the mass man, “Eichmann as man” and “Eichmann as Nazi official,” independent thinking. JEL Classification: Z 1 National Research University Higher School of Economic (Moscow, Russia); Department of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Asymmetry of Good and Evil
    Comp. by: Vasanthi Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0002526678 Date:6/5/15 Time:06:26:31 Filepath://ppdys1122/BgPr/OUP_CAP/IN/Process/0002526678.3d Dictionary : OUP_UKdictionary 15 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 6/5/2015, SPi 1 The Asymmetry of Good and Evil PHILIP PETTIT The thesis of this paper is that there is a marked difference between doing good and doing evil—in particular, doing good and doing evil to others—as we conceive of these actions in everyday life. Doing good to others often means doing them good robustly—controlling for good effects—whereas doing evil rarely has such a robust or modal character. This asymmetry thesis has a number of implications and I will concen- trate in particular on one.1 This is that it enables us to make sense of the Knobe effect, so-called: the effect, as it appears, whereby we are generally more willing to ascribe intentionality in cases where people do evil than in otherwise similar cases where they do good. The paper is in five sections. In the first I look at some important issues in the ontology of behavior, distinguishing between the acts or deeds whereby we produce effects and the actions or doings whereby we control for effects. In the second I show how we expect those who do good to others to control robustly for beneficial effects, being prepared at the limit to pay a cost in self-interest for securing that result. In the third I argue that we do not have the same expectation with those who do evil to others; they may aim at bringing about bad effects but not generally at any cost in self- interest.
    [Show full text]
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero
    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Do Good and Evil Come From? Peter Kreeft
    WHERE DO GOOD AND EVIL COME FROM? PETER KREEFT I’m going to argue for the existence of God from the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste. Not merely substitutes for “I like” and “I don’t like.” Before I begin, let’s get one misunderstanding out of the way. My argument does not mean that atheists can’t be moral. Of course atheists can behave morally, just as theists can behave immorally. Let’s start then with a question about good and evil: ‘Where do good and evil come from?” Atheists typically propose a few possibilities. Among these are evolution, reason, conscience, human nature, and utilitarianism. I will show you that none of these can be the ultimate source of morality. Why not from evolution? Because any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or the bad, there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad. For most of human history, more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was and no one questioned it. Now we condemn slavery. But based on a merely evolutionary model, that is an ever-changing view of morality, who is to say that it won’t be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not therefore acceptable. And if you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery. And if you can make that distinction you are admitting to objective morality.
    [Show full text]
  • See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C
    See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C. Rathbun and Caleb Pomeroy Abstract A central theme in the study of international relations is that anarchy requires states set aside moral concerns to attain security, rendering IR an autonomous sphere devoid of ethical considerations. Evolutionary and moral psychology, however, suggest that morality emerged to promote human success. It is not despite anarchy but because of anarchy that humans have an ethical sense. Our argument has three empirical implications. First, it is almost impossible to talk about threat and harm without invoking morality. Second, state leaders and the public will use moral judgments as a basis, indeed the most important factor, for assessing international threat, just as research shows they do at the interpersonal level. Third, foreign policy driven by a conception of international relations as an amoral sphere will be quite rare. Word embeddings applied to large political and non-political corpora, a survey experiment in Russia, surveys of the Chinese mass public, and an in-depth analysis of Hitler’s foreign policy thought suggest that individuals both speak evil, condemning aggressive behavior by others, and see evil, screening for threats on the basis of morality. The findings erode notions of IR as an autonomous sphere and upset traditional materialist-ideational dichotomies. A frequent theme in international relations (IR) theory is that foreign affairs is an amoral realm where everyday ethical norms know no place. Under anarchy, ethical considerations must be set aside because morality’s restraints hinder the necessary pursuit of egoistic interests through the use of threats and violence.
    [Show full text]