The
three phases of ethical systems;
Classifying
religious, philosophical and political systems according to their
implicit or explicit ethical precepts.
Introduction-
Before
we get into the meat of the presentation, a brief explanation is in
order. The scheme is a hypothesis concerning the nature of human
societies and how they organise themselves. I think it's solid, but a
lot of work still needs to happen before it can graduate to the
status of a theory. I have confidence that this will eventually
occur, but can't claim theory status yet.
The concept arose in the context of a discussion held in 2012 on an Australian facebook group. The discussion was about the definition of certain 'alternative' spiritual paths, with many views expressed on that contentious subject. Reading through the discussion, I noticed certain themes kept repeating. The slippery definitions were a great help as people tried to shoehorn in almost every known practice past and present, compelling me to consider the lot. It was a blessing in disguise as it forced me to really look at the characteristics of spiritual paths, their basis, practices and ambitions, in an attempt to discern what made one path fit a chosen term and another not. What I came up with was a threefold classification scheme for spiritual paths which also operate as ethical systems.
The concept arose in the context of a discussion held in 2012 on an Australian facebook group. The discussion was about the definition of certain 'alternative' spiritual paths, with many views expressed on that contentious subject. Reading through the discussion, I noticed certain themes kept repeating. The slippery definitions were a great help as people tried to shoehorn in almost every known practice past and present, compelling me to consider the lot. It was a blessing in disguise as it forced me to really look at the characteristics of spiritual paths, their basis, practices and ambitions, in an attempt to discern what made one path fit a chosen term and another not. What I came up with was a threefold classification scheme for spiritual paths which also operate as ethical systems.
It's
always good to know with some precision what it is we're talking
about, so some definitions are in order. The key terms, of course,
are 'ethical system' and 'phase'.
I
use the term 'ethical system' to mean an interconnected set of
beliefs mandating a particular set of behaviours for members of a
human society and thus in turn dictating how that society functions.
As such, it is more about the survival and well-being of human groups
than enlightenment of, or advice to, individual humans. This is an
unusual approach to the subject of ethics, but it is a view we must
take to understand where I'm coming from.
I
have deliberately chosen the term 'phase' to describe the
meta-families of ethical systems to evoke the idea of the three
commonly understood phases-states of matter, solid, liquid and
gaseous. This is a useful analogy for the scheme. H2O takes the form
of ice, water and steam, and although it is the same material in each
case, it possesses highly varied properties and behaviours depending
on the phase. Looking at it another way, although CO2, H2O, iron,
mercury, silicon, ammonia and so on have very different properties to
each other, they will all nonetheless display certain commonalities
in their behaviour when they are in the same phase. The basic
principles of fluid dynamics apply equally to liquid CO2, molten
steel, water and liquid nitrogen, however different they might
otherwise be.
I
have not described the phases as 'stages', because they are not.
Phase I ethical systems are not juvenile or incomplete systems
evolving along a pre-set path to Phase II and then on to Phase III.
Phase I and Phase II ethical systems are complete in themselves and
should be regarded as fully developed within the context of their
circumstances.
The
organising principle of the scheme is the object of highest loyalty
and allegiance of a given ethical system. I have only been able to
discern three such objects, hence the three phases of the scheme.
I'll now reveal the root definitions of the phases and try to
illustrate something of their nature by providing an archetypal hero
appropriate to them.
A Phase I ethical system is one that holds the society it is part of to be the highest object of loyalty. The figure which most embodies the ideals of Phase I systems is the victorious warrior.
A Phase I ethical system is one that holds the society it is part of to be the highest object of loyalty. The figure which most embodies the ideals of Phase I systems is the victorious warrior.
A
Phase II ethical system holds itself to be the highest object of
loyalty, even above the loyalty owed to society. The highest ideals
of Phase II are embodied by the redeemed martyr.
Phase
III ethical systems are a bit more complex. They developed out of the
need to establish a deeper understanding of reality, and thus
incorporate features which are developed to verify or dismiss ideas
depending on how closely they matched observable reality. The
archetypal figure for Phase III is the scientist searching for truth.
We'll
now look at each phase in turn, from Phase I to phase III.
Phase
I-
I'd
like to start on Phase I with a quote illustrating the world-view of
such societies.
“Then
out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the
temples of his Gods."
Thomas
Babington Macaulay, Lays Of Ancient Rome.
A
Phase I ethical system is one which holds the collective human group
using it to be the highest object of loyalty. Phase I is the
original, naturally-evolved state of human groups, and it held
complete sway over the planet, as far as we know, until the earliest
Phase II system appeared some time in the early-mid first millennium
BCE.
They
come in many different varieties. While all humans have broadly
similar needs, specifics of environment, technology level, resource
base and paths of historical development lead to idiosyncratic
cultural mores and modes of interaction. A set of customs and lore
specify how to act under various circumstances. The customs of one
human group concerning a particular situation may vary greatly to
those of another in the same circumstances. The ancients understood
this very well, as the following quote from Herodotus illustrates:
“...For
if one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs in the
world such as seemed to them the best, they would examine the whole
number, and end by preferring their own; so convinced are they that
their own usages far surpass those of all others. Unless, therefore,
a man was mad, it is not likely that he would make sport of such
matters. That people have this feeling about their laws may be seen
by very many proofs: among others, by the following. Darius, after he
had got the kingdom, called into his presence certain Greeks who were
at hand, and asked - "What he should pay them to eat the bodies
of their fathers when they died?" To which they answered, that
there was no sum that would tempt them to do such a thing. He then
sent for certain Indians, of the race called Callatians, men who eat
their fathers, and asked them, while the Greeks stood by, and knew by
the help of an interpreter all that was said - "What he should
give them to burn the bodies of their fathers at their decease?"
The Indians exclaimed aloud, and bade him forbear such language. Such
is men's wont herein;...”
Herodotus,
Book 3.38.
Ethics are most often seen in terms of duty to the family, clan or tribe. Consideration of humans outside the group is very often non-existent, and interactions with them don't fall under the field of ethics at all. When outsiders are dealt with fairly or honourably, it's usually due to a pragmatic calculation rather than a perceived ethical obligation.
Ethics are most often seen in terms of duty to the family, clan or tribe. Consideration of humans outside the group is very often non-existent, and interactions with them don't fall under the field of ethics at all. When outsiders are dealt with fairly or honourably, it's usually due to a pragmatic calculation rather than a perceived ethical obligation.
Phase
I ethical systems are shaped by the need to preserve the culture as
an ongoing entity. As with most other biological entities, the main
competition for human groups comes from others such as themselves.
This often leads to a strong emphasis on martial capability. The
virtues of the warrior are a perennial favourite for Phase I systems.
Another quote, this time from the philosopher Heraclitus, shows the
recognition of the importance of the warrior code in the Phase I
world-view:
“War
is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and
some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen.”
Heraclitus.
Phase
I systems are not necessarily primitive. The Hellenic culture of
ancient Greece, the Roman Empire at its height, the great
civilisations of Asia, ancient Egypt and the great civilisations of
the middle-east prior to the Median/Persian Empire were all Phase
I.
It can be disputed that some of the more advanced cultures mentioned were strictly Phase I, with the complexity of classical Greek thought being an indicator of a greater level of ethical evolution and development, but the overriding priorities of the culture shine through even in intricate philosophical texts. For instance:
“Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you
It can be disputed that some of the more advanced cultures mentioned were strictly Phase I, with the complexity of classical Greek thought being an indicator of a greater level of ethical evolution and development, but the overriding priorities of the culture shine through even in intricate philosophical texts. For instance:
“Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you
in the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so, their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens
they are to regard as children of the
earth and their own brothers.”
Plato,
The Republic.
Phase
I ethical systems have not been absent from modern times. Nazi
Germany, Imperial Japan before the close of WWII, Fascist Italy, and
various fascist states around the world then and now were and are all
explicitly phase I entities. In a sense, WWII was a decisive battle
between the modern Phase I powers and a coalition of Phase III powers
in alliance with a Phase II power.
There
are characteristic problems which have arisen as a result of the
inability of Phase III administrators to properly understand the way
Phase I cultures see the world. An example of this would be the
corruption allegations which undid ATSIC in 2004. Indigenous
Australian cultures are fairly typical Phase I tribal cultures, and
as such see their particular tribe as the highest object of loyalty,
not 'indigenous Australians of all tribes'. As such, they don't
automatically think in terms of any kind of indigenous solidarity.
Their racial characteristics are European concepts. An indigenous
person will recognise anyone who has a claim to kinship, by blood or
by being otherwise accepted by their tribe (no matter their race), as
a fellow of theirs worthy of all the consideration typically bestowed
upon people who are part of their 'in' group. Someone who is not
recognised as such is an outsider no matter the colour of their skin
or their claim to indigenous status. In Australia, the damage was
limited to some misallocations of funding, which always went to the
relatives of the officials within ATSIC, as per standard operating
instructions for Phase I ethical systems. In some Commonwealth
countries in Africa, nations established along Phase III lines
swiftly stratified according to the Phase I divisions within them,
with violence often resulting.
Phase I systems are currently enjoying a great surge in popularity, especially in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe. National and regional identities are often the core around which new cultural identities are being established for individuals and communities in the post-communist world of the east and the post-Christian world of the west, and the pre-Christian traditions of various ethnic groups have been extensively tapped for this purpose.
Phase I systems are currently enjoying a great surge in popularity, especially in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe. National and regional identities are often the core around which new cultural identities are being established for individuals and communities in the post-communist world of the east and the post-Christian world of the west, and the pre-Christian traditions of various ethnic groups have been extensively tapped for this purpose.
Asatru
is possibly the best known of these in the west. Others include Sami
neoshamanism, the maausulised movement in Estonia, Yotengrit in
Hungary, and numerous others. Some have also endeavoured to claim
various traditional indigenous Phase I spiritualities, such as
Indigenous Australian and Indigenous American tribal belief systems,
Hinduism and so forth.
Well-known
Phase I ethical systems:
Indigenous/tribal
religions
Pre-Christian
classical religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Judaism).
Eastern
spiritual traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto,
Confucianism etc.).
National
Socialism
Fascism
Japanese
Imperialism
Asatru
Heathenism
Maausulised
Yotengrit
Typical
Characteristics:
Pragmatism
Parochialism
Militarism/imperialism
Duty-driven
Idiosyncrasy
Phase
II-
A
Phase II ethical system is one which holds itself to be the highest
object of loyalty. The first great phase transition in human ethical
systems came when enough people in a society were convinced that what
you thought counted more than who your parents were. As far as I have
been able to tell, this probably first occurred sometime in the early
part of the millennium which preceded the rise of Christianity, and
the first Phase II Great Prophet was Zarathustra, known in the west
as Zoroaster. He probably lived some time in the 8th
or 7th
century BCE.
Phase
II ethical systems are characterised by the abstraction of the
positive and negative facets of experience into archetypal concepts
of good and evil, usually personified in particular mythological
characters. Survival of the cultural unit continues to be an
important theme, but it is now relegated to a subordinate role in the
spreading of the ethical system itself. Adherents are expected to
govern themselves according to the precepts of the system. One major
effect of this change (and probably the main reason it became so
successful) is that the details on how to behave in a given situation
are delegated out to the individuals at the scene of the action
rather than being micromanaged by an extensive body of customary
prescriptions. Imposing a smaller set of generalised rules of conduct
across extensive regions means that people are able to interact more
confidently, knowing more or less what they can reasonably expect
from nearly anyone they encounter.
The
role of phase II systems in simplifying relations between smaller
cultural units to facilitate trade and economic development is most
likely responsible for the expansionist nature of most such systems.
Phase I cultures might or might not be particularly expansionist, but
Phase II cultures almost always are. To a Phase I adherent you are
either a member of their cultural unit with a well-defined nature, or
you are an outsider to be ignored, disposed of, or exploited. To a
Phase II adherent you are a potential member of the system and must
be either taken into the fold, or taken right out of the equation.
They're the original Borg. If you remain outside the system, you are
a component that doesn't fit, a potential source of dissension and
trouble. Phase II is ultra-inclusive, and it sees nothing as falling
outside the purview of its dogma.
Phase
II ethics contain certain flaws which have become only too obvious
over time. They're usually founded on the myth of a supremely
powerful creator god who is all good and who is opposed by a separate
powerful being of evil who has somehow corrupted the world, or
humanity, or both. History is seen as a battle between these two
spirits, with humans playing an important role. They are historical
rather than cyclical, with a narrative including the creation of the
universe, the subsequent unfolding of world history according to a
pre-ordained plan, and an end in which judgement takes place, the
good are rewarded and the evil are punished, the spirit of evil is
defeated, and the universe is made perfect. Messianic saviour figures
are often included as well.
One
problem with all these variants of the Zoroastrian pattern is that
only one of them at most can be literally true, so there is a certain
element of mutual exclusivity to these systems. This directly
contradicts the main function and virtue of them, which is the
unification of different cultures under one universally applicable
'operating system'. This has led to a Highlander-style “There can
only be one!” ideological battle between the feuding children of
Zoroastrianism down through the centuries, familiar to all students
of history. Another major problem has been the misconception of the
nature of evil, and its personification as a personal adversary. This
has led to a huge focus on 'Evil', and many a cultural obsession with
its extirpation, usually by identifying some hapless person or group
with that enemy, and doing many horrible things to them. So while
Phase II has certainly had its successes, it has also had its
failings, and the further a society develops under phase II tutelage,
the more counter-productive those failings become.
Phase
II systems are not necessarily supernaturalistic, and there are
secular examples in modern times. Marxist-Leninism is one of the more
obvious examples, but Ayn Rand's Objectivism also falls into the
category. In those cases, Marxism replaces God with 'The Historical
Process', and Rand replaces God with 'Reason', as she defines it,
which appears to be Rand's own particular set of opinions derived
before the age of forty, codified and rationalised and not to be
doubted in any serious way. There are a few traditions within
Neopaganism which fall into Phase II. Perhaps the most well-known of
these is the Dianic Wicca of Z. Budapest. Some aspects of the
reclaiming traditions might also be seen as falling within Phase
II.
Well-known Phase II ethical systems:
Christianity
Well-known Phase II ethical systems:
Christianity
Islam
Marxism
Objectivism
Zoroastrianism
Dianic
Wicca
Reclaiming
traditions
Typical characteristics:
Idealism
Typical characteristics:
Idealism
Personal
responsibility
Strong
sense of justice and propriety
Dualism
Conspiracy Theorism
Conspiracy Theorism
Messianic/
apocalyptic complex
Absolutism/radicalism
Prone
to schism
Phase
III-
We
have looked briefly at Phase I and II ethical systems and got a
handle on them through some fairly short and easily understood
definitions. Our present society is clearly in neither of these
phases. Our ethics are different, and most of us consider them
superior to what I have described earlier. Is there a similarly
short, concise definition for Phase III?
If
we are asked what the defining characteristics of ethics in the
modern world are, we might come up with a list of the features we
consider desirable, such as scientific enquiry, personal freedom,
high levels of tolerance for different customs and people,
inclusiveness in the political process, high material living
standards, good access to education and information, and many other
desirable characteristics of modern life. In any extended list we
come up with, are there any virtues or features which are more
fundamental than the rest, closer to the cause of such desirable
effects?
As far
as I can currently see, the heart, foundation and anchor of Phase III
is the elevation of freely contending ongoing discourse, with
conclusions always tested against reality and always subject to
change if new results warrant it, to the pinnacle of regard as the
method by which both individuals and groups should govern themselves.
This development has consequences right across the board. When you apply it to 'natural philosophy', you get the scientific method. Applied to politics, inclusive democratic and parliamentary systems result, which have critical discourse at the heart of their operations. Applied to economics and material production, various forms of competitive capitalism result. All these systems have critical discourse resulting in a self-correcting mental model of reality which is continually checked against external reality at the very core of their operation.
Phase
III ethical systems emerged in Europe over the last 400 or so years
in response to the problems caused by or insoluble with Phase II
Christianity. The precepts of phase III systems largely consist of
maintaining a stripped-down Phase II framework for ensuring a
workable civil society (maintaining prohibitions on such antisocial
activities as murder and robbery) while eliminating culture-specific
commandments and sanctions on which gods to worship and which
cultural institutions to compel adherence to. This evolutionary
process is currently ongoing in our society, and the final shape of a
mature Phase III ethical system is still a matter of some debate.
In some ways, specific ideologies or formal systems of thought are less important in Phase III than Phase I or II. Phase III is in some sense a victory for proceduralism. If there is a set of procedures which can be followed to attain a desirable result, there isn't so much need to package it in mythological justification. Nonetheless, there are a few ethical systems around which we might be justified in labelling as Phase III.
In some ways, specific ideologies or formal systems of thought are less important in Phase III than Phase I or II. Phase III is in some sense a victory for proceduralism. If there is a set of procedures which can be followed to attain a desirable result, there isn't so much need to package it in mythological justification. Nonetheless, there are a few ethical systems around which we might be justified in labelling as Phase III.
Secular
Humanism:
“Secular
humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and
moral without religion or a god.
It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil
or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to
nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasises the unique
responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human
decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the
strongly held viewpoint that ideology — be it religious or
political — must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not
simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential
part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth,
primarily through science
and philosophy.
Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of
utilitarianism,
ethical
naturalism, or evolutionary
ethics, and some, such as Sam
Harris, advocate a science
of morality.”
-Wikipedia.
Bahá'í:
Bahá'í
teachings on science have been pointed out as evidence that it is a
Phase III ethical system. My current opinuion is that it is a Phase
II ethical system which developed recently enough to be able to
incorporate some Phase III attributes within its dogma. Other parts
of Bahá'í doctrine assert the supremacy of justice, a typical Phase
II outlook.
The teachings state that whenever conflict arises between religion and science it is due to human error; either through misinterpretation of religious scriptures or the lack of a more complete understanding of science. `Abdu'l-Bahá explained that religious teachings which are at variance with science should not be accepted; he explained that religion has to be reasonable since God endowed humankind with reason so that they can discover truth.[3] Science and religion, in the Bahá'í writings, are compared to the two wings of a bird upon which a person's intelligence can increase, and upon which a person's soul can progress. Furthermore, the Bahá'í writings state that science without religion would lead to a person becoming totally materialistic, and religion without science would lead to a person falling into superstitious practices. `Abdu'l-Bahá in one of his public talks said:
"If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time."[9]The Bahá'í writings state that religion must always stand the analysis of reason, and agree with scientific statements of fact. Another teaching of the Bahá'í Faith, Independent investigation of truth, also uses the harmony of science and religion by stating that each individual should free themselves from all prejudices from learned belief, and then individually search for the truth.”
British Traditional Wicca:
The
usually accepted ethical tenet of BTW is the Rede, which states “An
it harm none, do what ye will'. There is no universally accepted
interpretation for the Rede, but there are two main contending
interpretations people commonly use to justify their particular
position. The first is “Do whatever you want as long as no harm is
caused to anyone or anything as a result of what you do.” This
interpretation is seen as specifically forbidding harmful outcomes,
and tends to be common among Gardnerian lines in the US. The other
main interpretation is “If an action harms nothing, then it is
absolutely permissible.”. This interpretation is a statement about
actions which cause no harm. It does not say anything g about actions
which do cause harm. This is usually interpreted to imply that
actions which might cause harm are not forbidden, but that it would
be wise to consider consequences and conduct yourself appropriately.
The
first interpretation has a Phase II air about it, while the second is
more in keeping with Phase III. But the most significant evidence of
the Phase III nature of BTW may come from the protocols governing
differences of opinion within the priesthood. Without giving too much
away, they boil down to schism being an acceptable method of
resolving differences. In other words, if someone has a different
opinion on how things should be done, they should go off and do it.
Schism is embraced rather than despised. This is a powerful
evolutionary adaptation, ensuring a rich and growing set of groups
exploring different ways of doing things, like a giant experimental
ethical laboratory.
The
Church Of Satan:
Many
have observed that the practical upshot of The COS system is very
similar to secular humanism (LaVey himself claimed similarity with
Ayn Rand's ideas, but it's clear LaVey wasn't as invested in
absolutist dogma as Rand).
The
Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
by Anton Szandor LaVey
© 1967
- Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
- Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
- When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
- If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
- Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
- Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
- Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
- Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
- Do not harm little children.
- Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
- When walking in open
territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop.
If he does not stop, destroy him.
The Nine Satanic Statements
by Anton Szandor LaVeyThe Nine Satanic Statements originally appeared in The Satanic Bible, © 1969
- Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
- Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
- Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
- Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
- Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
- Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
- Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
- Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
- Satan has been the best friend
the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these
years!
BTW
and the COS are often seen as antagonistic, with LaVey and his
disciples often attacking BTW for pandering to Christian ideas in
declaring themselves to be 'white witches' and attempting to sanitise
witchcraft for the sake of appeasing conventional critics. There is
some truth to this. All through the 50s, 60s and 70s, high-profile
Wiccans were forever assuring the press that they were white witches
who would never harm a fly, and that they were good, sane, healthy
folk, not at all like the stereotype of the evil Satanist. This may
have been a reasonable policy at a certain point in the development
of BTW, but members of COS can be forgiven for thinking that Wiccans
were constantly traducing them in the media. Later on, not just BTW
initiates, but the general neopagan community as well, often defended
their paths by denying that they worshipped Satan, saying that Satan
was a Christian concept and Satanists were therefore a subset of the
Christian religion. Even the briefest examination of COS literature
would have revealed this as nonsense in their case, but that
propaganda point is still circulated by neopagans (especially
newbies) even today.
The interesting thing about this antagonism is that when either tradition attacks the other, its always the perceived Phase II characteristics of the other which are attacked. This strongly implies that they are both implicit Phase III systems with a keen instinct for detecting dissonant 'out-of-phase' elements in the other.
Known or proposed Phase III ethical systems:
The interesting thing about this antagonism is that when either tradition attacks the other, its always the perceived Phase II characteristics of the other which are attacked. This strongly implies that they are both implicit Phase III systems with a keen instinct for detecting dissonant 'out-of-phase' elements in the other.
Known or proposed Phase III ethical systems:
Secular
Humanism
Bahá'í
British
Traditional Wicca
Anton
Szandor LaVey's Church Of Satan
Typical
Characteristics:
Open
discourse.
Science-based
policies.
Personal
Liberty.
Individual
rights.
High
information flow.
Constant
development.
Progressive.
