Global Ethic Framework

---
name: global-ethic-framework
description: 'Identify shared ethical principles across religious, cultural, or worldview divides to enable practical cooperation. Based on Hans Kung''s methodology: "No world peace without peace among religions....'
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.4096
  author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- global-ethic-framework
- writing
---

# Global Ethic Framework

Identify shared ethical principles across religious, cultural, or worldview divides to enable practical cooperation. Based on Hans Kung's methodology: "No world peace without peace among religions. No peace among religions without dialogue between the religions. No dialogue between the religions without accurate knowledge of one another."

---

## When to Use

- Multiple parties from different traditions need to cooperate
- Seeking common ground across religious or cultural divides
- Building coalitions that span worldview differences
- Establishing shared values for diverse organizations or communities
- Addressing global challenges requiring cross-cultural cooperation
- Mediating between groups with different ethical frameworks

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| parties | Yes | The groups or traditions that need to find common ground |
| context | Yes | The situation requiring cooperation (project, conflict, community) |
| current_tensions | No | Known areas of disagreement or friction |
| cooperation_goal | No | Specific outcome cooperation should achieve |

---

## The Global Ethic Methodology

### Foundational Principles

Kung identified two foundational principles shared across virtually all religious and ethical traditions:

1. **Humane Treatment Principle**
   Every human being must be treated humanely. This is not conditional on behavior, belief, or status.

2. **The Golden Rule**
   What you wish done to yourself, do to others. Found in Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and secular ethics.

> "What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others." - Confucius
> "Love your neighbor as yourself." - Jewish and Christian scriptures
> "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." - Muhammad's Farewell Sermon

### Four Irrevocable Directives

Beyond the foundational principles, Kung identified four ethical commitments shared across traditions:

#### 1. Commitment to a Culture of Nonviolence and Respect for Life
- All beings have value and deserve respect
- Violence is never the first resort; often not a resort at all
- Life - human and non-human - merits protection
- Ancient wisdom: "Do not kill" appears in virtually all ethical codes

#### 2. Commitment to a Culture of Solidarity and a Just Economic Order
- We are responsible for one another
- Economic systems must serve human flourishing, not vice versa
- Special obligation to the vulnerable, poor, and marginalized
- Ancient wisdom: "Do not steal" implies positive obligation to share

#### 3. Commitment to a Culture of Tolerance and a Life of Truthfulness
- Speak and act truthfully
- Distinguish between conviction and fanaticism
- Respect sincere differences while maintaining commitment to truth
- Ancient wisdom: "Do not lie" implies commitment to honest discourse

#### 4. Commitment to a Culture of Equal Rights and Partnership Between Men and Women
- Full human dignity is not conditional on gender
- Partnership rather than domination is the model
- Exploitation and discrimination against women is not sanctioned by any tradition's deepest values
- Ancient wisdom: "Do not commit adultery" implies respect for relationships

#### 5. Commitment to Sustainability and Care for the Earth (Added 2018)
- The Earth is not merely a resource but a home requiring stewardship
- Future generations have claims on present behavior
- Environmental responsibility is an ethical imperative

---

## Analysis Process

### Step 1: Identify the Parties and Their Traditions

Map the groups or traditions that need to cooperate:

| Party | Tradition/Worldview | Core Values | Sacred Texts/Sources |
|-------|---------------------|-------------|---------------------|
| [Party A] | [Tradition] | [Central values] | [Authoritative sources] |
| [Party B] | [Tradition] | [Central values] | [Authoritative sources] |
| [Party C] | [Tradition] | [Central values] | [Authoritative sources] |

### Step 2: Check Foundational Principles

Do all parties share the foundational principles?

| Principle | Party A | Party B | Party C | Notes |
|-----------|---------|---------|---------|-------|
| Humane treatment of all | [Yes/No/Qualified] | | | |
| Golden Rule equivalent | [Yes/No/Qualified] | | | |

**If foundational principles are not shared:** Dialogue must begin at a more basic level. Explore why and what preliminary trust-building is needed.

### Step 3: Map the Four Directives

For each directive, identify each party's position:

| Directive | Party A Position | Party B Position | Common Ground | Tensions |
|-----------|------------------|------------------|---------------|----------|
| Nonviolence/Respect for Life | | | | |
| Solidarity/Just Economic Order | | | | |
| Tolerance/Truthfulness | | | | |
| Equal Rights/Partnership | | | | |
| Sustainability/Earth Care | | | | |

### Step 4: Identify Surface Disagreements vs. Deep Agreement

Often parties disagree on applications while sharing underlying principles:

| Area of Apparent Disagreement | Party A View | Party B View | Underlying Shared Concern |
|-------------------------------|--------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| [Disagreement 1] | | | |
| [Disagreement 2] | | | |

**Questions to surface shared concerns:**
- What harm is each party trying to prevent?
- What good is each party trying to achieve?
- What fears drive the disagreement?
- What values do both parties claim to honor?

### Step 5: Define Cooperation Pathway

Based on shared principles and identified common ground:

**Shared Ethical Foundation:**
- [Principles all parties genuinely share]

**Areas of Overlap:**
- [Specific applications where parties agree]

**Respectful Boundaries:**
- [Areas where parties agree to disagree while maintaining cooperation]

**Practical Cooperation Proposals:**
- [Specific actions parties can take together based on shared values]

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Global Ethic Assessment: [Context]

### Parties and Traditions

| Party | Tradition | Core Values |
|-------|-----------|-------------|
| [Party A] | [Tradition] | [Values] |
| [Party B] | [Tradition] | [Values] |

### Foundational Principles Assessment

**Humane Treatment Principle:** [Shared / Partially Shared / Contested]
- [Evidence from each party's tradition]

**Golden Rule:** [Shared / Partially Shared / Contested]
- [How each party expresses this principle]

### Four Directives Mapping

| Directive | Shared Position | Points of Difference |
|-----------|-----------------|---------------------|
| Nonviolence | [Shared ground] | [Differences] |
| Solidarity | [Shared ground] | [Differences] |
| Truthfulness | [Shared ground] | [Differences] |
| Equal Rights | [Shared ground] | [Differences] |
| Sustainability | [Shared ground] | [Differences] |

### Surface Disagreements and Deeper Agreements

| Apparent Conflict | Underlying Shared Value |
|-------------------|------------------------|
| [Disagreement] | [Deeper agreement] |

### Cooperation Framework

**Shared Ethical Foundation:**
1. [Shared principle 1]
2. [Shared principle 2]

**Practical Cooperation Proposals:**
1. [Specific proposal based on shared values]
2. [Specific proposal]

**Boundaries for Respectful Difference:**
- [Areas where parties agree to disagree]

### Kung's Insight

> "[Relevant quote from Kung on interfaith cooperation or global ethic]"
```

---

## Constraints

- Do not impose agreement where genuine disagreement exists
- Respect that parties may have different emphases even where they share principles
- Acknowledge that "shared values" often have different applications
- Do not reduce traditions to their lowest common denominator
- Recognize that cooperation does not require agreement on everything
- Maintain each party's integrity while finding common ground

---

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| Parties do not share foundational principles | Acknowledge the deeper challenge; suggest preliminary trust-building before ethics discussion |
| One party rejects cooperation entirely | Analyze what blocks cooperation; may not be ethical disagreement but power/trust issues |
| "Shared values" mask incompatible applications | Be honest about the gap; cooperation may be limited to specific domains |
| Historical grievances prevent cooperation | Address historical wounds before ethical framework can function |

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Example

**Input:** "Our interfaith council includes Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and secular humanist members. We want to address homelessness in our city together. How do we establish shared ethical ground?"

**Output:**

## Global Ethic Assessment: Interfaith Coalition on Homelessness

### Parties and Traditions

| Party | Tradition | Core Values |
|-------|-----------|-------------|
| Christian members | Various denominations | Love of neighbor, dignity of the poor |
| Muslim members | Sunni/Shia | Zakat (charity), human dignity |
| Jewish members | Orthodox/Reform | Tzedakah (justice/charity), tikkun olam |
| Hindu members | Various | Seva (service), seeing divine in all |
| Secular humanists | Enlightenment ethics | Human rights, dignity, solidarity |

### Foundational Principles Assessment

**Humane Treatment Principle:** Fully Shared
- All traditions represented affirm intrinsic human dignity
- Christian: "Image of God" (imago Dei)
- Muslim: "Khalifah" (human as God's representative on earth)
- Jewish: "B'tselem Elohim" (in God's image)
- Hindu: "Atman" (divine presence in all beings)
- Secular: Inherent human rights and dignity

**Golden Rule:** Fully Shared
- All traditions have explicit Golden Rule formulations
- This provides strong foundation for cooperation

### Four Directives Mapping

| Directive | Shared Position | Points of Difference |
|-----------|-----------------|---------------------|
| Nonviolence | All affirm protecting vulnerable from harm | Degree of pacifism varies |
| Solidarity | Strong shared commitment; homelessness violates solidarity | Different theories of poverty causation |
| Truthfulness | All value honesty in advocacy | Some tensions around how to speak about root causes |
| Equal Rights | All affirm dignity regardless of housing status | Some differences on gender and sexuality |
| Sustainability | Growing consensus on housing as environmental issue | Varying priority levels |

### Surface Disagreements and Deeper Agreements

| Apparent Conflict | Underlying Shared Value |
|-------------------|------------------------|
| "Enabling" vs. "unconditional help" debate | Both want what genuinely helps people flourish |
| Religious vs. secular framing of dignity | Both affirm intrinsic worth of every person |
| Individual responsibility vs. systemic change | Both want effective solutions |

### Cooperation Framework

**Shared Ethical Foundation:**
1. Every homeless person has inherent dignity that demands response
2. We are obligated to help our neighbors in need (Golden Rule)
3. Economic solidarity requires action, not merely sympathy
4. Truthfulness about the problem and our efforts is essential

**Practical Cooperation Proposals:**
1. Joint shelter support without religious conditions
2. Shared advocacy for affordable housing policy
3. Coordinated meal programs drawing on each tradition's resources
4. Common fund for emergency assistance
5. Interfaith witness at city council on housing policy

**Boundaries for Respectful Difference:**
- Each group maintains its own identity and motivation
- No proselytizing in joint programs
- Acknowledge different views on root causes while cooperating on immediate needs
- Respect varying positions on related social issues

### Kung's Insight

> "No world peace without peace among religions. No peace among religions without dialogue between the religions. No dialogue between the religions without accurate knowledge of one another."

This coalition succeeds precisely because members know and respect one another's traditions. The shared commitment to human dignity - expressed differently in each tradition - provides a robust foundation for practical cooperation. Homelessness violates every tradition's core values; addressing it together honors all traditions.

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Hans Kung** expert persona. Use it when seeking common ethical ground across religious, cultural, or worldview divides. It pairs well with:
- **ecumenical-dialogue-method** for understanding positions before evaluating them
- **institutional-reform-analysis** when diverse stakeholders must reform shared institutions