Apply what you have learned in this course on “Ethics” to (1) an interpretation, (2) a critique and (3) an evaluation of the ethical consequences of the following thesis:
“Since the advent of the 20th century, humankind has been living in the Personalistic Age, the dominant value of which ought to be ‘the love that assists at the self-and-ethos actualization of the sociocultural potential of the other'”
COURSE DESCRIPTION/PRINCIPAL TOPICS:
The purpose of this course on “Ethics” is to elucidate that which constitutes what is considered “the good” for humankind in terms of the Aristotelian criterion of “that activity which accords most with human nature”. We shall therefore engage in a philosophical anthropological study of the history of human nature, seeking therein that activity which could well stand as the criterion for “the good” in this our era of human evolution. The judgement of our research is that the focal point of the history of humanity is the ability to create dramatis personae in a multiplicity of symbolic forms. If the hallmark of our nature is the creation of personae, just what kind of characters ought we create for the good of our tribe, our nation, our community and culture as well as our species itself? What are the ethical demands of personhood per se? What are the categorial and ethical consequences of redefining the human as Homo personaeficans?
And please refer to “The great transformation, the beginning of our religious traditions” by Karen armstrong for my term paper.