Michael Cherry

ENGL 1130-35
March 18, 2001

The Future of Prometheus

Many people today pride themselves on living in an enlightened society. Often,

we imagine our civilization to be the apex of human evolution, characterized by a sense
of intelligence and principle, set against a past we imagine as filled with ignorance and
brutality. And it is true: We do have much of which to be proud. One such area is what
we call human rights. This term has only been common in the past century, and the
terminology used suggests that it derives from the modernization and secularization
which began in what we term the Enlightenment, most prominently in the eighteenth
century. But there are other uses of this term: Enlightenment has also tended to refer to a
religious or spiritual experience. And though our concern today for human rights is
laudable, it may be that merely human and secular reasoning is not enough of a support
against the many challenges to human rights that are soon to come in this already very
complicated new century. In the words of one expert, The concept of human rights
came into widespread use around the world rather rapidly and could conceivably fade just
as quickly (Nickel 82). A return, in some manner, to a religious or spiritual foundation
for our ethical reasoning may be necessary.

However, such an approach is limited. There is one thing that those who have a
religion cannot do, even if in fact they want to accept unconditional moral norms for
themselves: they cannot give a reason for the absoluteness and universality of ethical
observation (Kung 51) Indeed, as our global culture becomes more complex and varied,
and as the very intellect that has allowed us such principles splinters into cultural
relativism, human rights become founded upon very unstable ground. What can religion
offer? [Only] an Absolute can provide an over-arching meaning That can only be
the ultimate, supreme reality, which while it cannot be proved rationally, can be accepted
in a rational trust (Kung 53). Spiritual teachers in every part of the world have posited
such a reality. While the ultimate veracity of such claims may be unverifiable, the reality
of it in the human psyche is self-evident. And our concern for principles such as human
rights are really derived from this source: Freedom, equality, brotherhood, and human
dignity were originally Christian values which had been rediscovered and
realized with strict consistency for modern times (Kung 86). A return to some sort of
religion or spirituality may not be so much in opposition with modern secular ideals, after
all.
Christianity, the most characteristic religion of the West, indeed contains within it
the necessary foundation for further development of human rights. The most important
teaching is that of compassion, feeling the suffering of others, which depends on feeling
at one with them. Compassion is another word for the unitive experience and therefore
another name for mysticism (Cosmic Christ 50), says Matthew Fox, leader of a new,
progressive version of Christianity called Creation Spirituality. In other words, the

essence of religion is the experience of being inseparable from other people (as well as
the rest of the universe). The key to understanding compassion is to enter into a
consciousness of interdependence which is a consciousness of equality of being (Fox,
Original Blessing 279). This is essential, as the refusal to do compassion and justice,
contribute to the very dualism that human, sexual, racial, economic exploitations are
all about (Original Blessing 296). Fox considers this to be the key teaching of religion,
Christian or otherwise. Certainly this must be the foundation of any enduring sense of
human rights.
In Buddhism, perhaps the most characteristic religion of the East, compassion is
also the key to morality. Buddhism perhaps goes farther, in that no human self is said to
exist at all independently of all other beings and things. No dualism is really even
possible in this view. Compassion arises spontaneously out of wisdom: the realization
of no separation. Someone falls; you pick the person up. No effort (Loori 71). The
attainment of this realization depends on the exploration of ones own mind. Buddhism
is a non-theistic religion; no god is worshipped or posited at all. Rather, what might be
called divinity or the Absolute is discovered as the ground of ones own mind, and of
reality itself. Morality, to be authentic, needs to arise out of ones own realization
(Loori 67). When this happens, [morality] is effortless, purposeless, and even playful.
It is a delightful morality (Loori 68). When one practices this religion, a sense of the
worth of other human beings is automatic. Enlightenment and morality are one reality
(Loori 75). Surely this is a stronger foundation for human rights than mere rational
argument.

As Buddhism indicates, there is a commonality to both sides of this issue.

Religious and non-religious experiences alike emerge from the same human psyche.
Compassion, whatever its source, is felt by human beings and implemented by means of
the human mind. There need be no division here. True humanity is the presupposition
for true religion (Kung 91). Both Buddhism and Christianity have been at times very
intensely rational and philosophical. And a concern for human well-being and dignity
can certainly not be limited to the religious. Buddhism, in its emphasis on a very sober
some might say, scientific investigation into the possibilities and nature of human self
and experience, may be the best example of how to reconcile these two seemingly
opposed views. If such sober investigation can exist fully interdependent with a mystical
experience of the absolute or if, indeed, the latter depends upon the former in
Buddhism, perhaps such a relationship between secularism and religion can be achieved
for our whole global culture. Otherwise, we may lose our own humanity, and not just our
human rights.

Michael Cherry 2001, 2014

[Sadly, the Works Cited page for this paper has been lost.]