8.1. Introduction: problematics

In this book, it has often been noted that our actions can be regulated or guided by morality or ethics. Their characteristics and differences were also measured. Between the two, it can be said that there is a fundamental difference: morality is a formal concept that can be standardized, while ethics depends on consciousness.

To simplify things, we could characterize ethics as follows: ethics is an intrinsic notion. It derives mainly from the convictions, culture and opinions of a person, accumulated and established over a lifetime through experiences. These elements cannot be modeled because the information technologies do not yet make it possible to process an in-depth knowledge of conciousness of a cognitive or emotional type.

Morality is first of extrinsic type: it comes from principles elaborated by groups of people such as a society, nation or religion, or professional organisms, etc. These are rules of behavior, which have been widely studied by philosophers and lawyers, and which can be formalized. We can see then that these concepts (ethics and morality) overlap in part, are in harmony (and in practice, there is much confusion between the two), and will complement each other. They are subject to practices, in our daily life, which are sometimes similar in order to achieve a common goal or practical result.

8.2. Truth: general characteristics of ethics and morals

Ethics and culture are not sufficient to counterbalance the drifts, deviances and deviations in a society: alone they can partly recover the morality and conscience of the people, then contribute to the regulation or governance of complex systems. Indeed, the main stakes of a management do not only lie at the level of economic, social or political crises: they are also related to equilibria, values and references on which we can rely to compare, relativize, understand, listen and forgive. In a word, one always needs to refer to a “truth”. It is in this area that ethics can bring a help.

To this, the advocates of “shaving gratis” propose a neutral concept that is called secularism. The problem is that this secularism does not reflect any truth. Worse, it becomes dangerous from the moment it is elevated to the rank of meta-religion (because it is used as a weapon of deterrence, as the factor of a dictatorship of thought, with its principles, its rules, its morality, its police character, etc.).

However [MAL 04], what is left for us to take a perspective? This is what the philosophers, the “ancients” and the religions have left and bequeathed to us. Some people will certainly criticize their associated or subjective truth, but it has at least one advantage: this truth exists and it is better than nothing!

This is all the more astonishing because those who criticize religion do not know it: they are often themselves born from religions and civilizations from past millenia. Moreover, in China, often regarded as a secular country, the Chinese population does not accept that their country, with a multi-millennial civilization, is ill-treated or dealt without respect. A civilization is a whole: it is based on a history, a theology, an art, a literature, a philosophy, a know-how, a belief and a conviction.

This culture (in the broad sense) is at least necessary for maintaining a credible, consistent and discerning dialogue, even if just to compare oneself to others.

In the professional industries, young recruits are embedded into the company’s operational departments for a minimum time to imbibe the corporate culture, philosophy and “religion”, to share knowledge, know-how, modes of human thought, understanding the stakes, convictions and concerns of everyone, etc., and then to better perform in their job.

It is thus through this immersion and practical training that a conviction, a fervor and a confidence in a system is developed. In the same way, a religion without practice is dead. Similarly, without practicing ethics, our daily life does not make any sense.

Nevertheless, it is always necessary to have a certain neutrality in the face of ideologies. Therefore, we have to differentiate between religion, technology and politics. We are far from the idea of separating the Church and the State, which in 1905 led Christians to exclude other Christians from society. In reaction to the 1905 decision, of a simplistic level, attempts have been made to separate the notions of temporal and spiritual.

According to Luc Ferry, wisdom can be seen as a secular spirituality: the Gospels are not only a Christian dogma: they contain a universal message of great depth and constitute a well of spirituality for the secular spirit. The Old Testament too contains many precepts and “lessons” that are common to many religions [FER 10]. There is therefore a complementarity between the temporal, the material and the spiritual. To evolve in a sustainable way, humankind must remain open to all the sources of wisdom and knowledge, because they are the assets of our civilization.

Opposing the Church and the State is the same inconsistency, especially when secularism is admittedly limited to rejecting certain ideas, beliefs and convictions. The general population is then subject to a phenomenon of speciation (the unique thought), opposed to that of diversity: the laws of evolution in nature involve finding the right balance between ambivalences, and differences of opinions; nature takes action and always drives the system with a minimum amount of energy. When humankind or governments reject diversity, it then decides to turn down the evolution or to reject some progresses or adaptation.

This explains why providential and peremptory decision makers, ignorant or unskilled politicians quickly become disappointing or tyrannical [HUM 15]. Indeed, the analysis they conduct is incomplete, false or contradictory, which hence leads to biased decisions, misinterpretations, and so on.

In addition, for better adaptive capabilities, evolution in nature is sometimes based on ambivalences, such as for “prey–predator” principles (according to the circumstances). This is the reason why in the systems developed by human species, when greed is exacerbated and decisions are always “short-term” oriented, this leads to unsustainable systems which themselves lead to death (or renewal) [MAS 15a]. In religion, by transposition, one would speak about “eternal life”.

To refer to the philosophy of a religion (in the broad sense of the word) is not to act as a militant of this religion, but to better know what can be brought to others. Nowadays, we often speak of collaborative systems, participative work and sharing resources: this is the opposite of unique thought, individualism, the rejection of the other: it is a matter of love, ethics, then sustainability.

To be credible, all spirituality needs to be connected to reality (as for innovation). We will recall here an important notion of human religion. It is of course an image, but with a strong meaning: in the Gospel (New Testament) it is said that God was reincarnated in Christ, in a human form (an external shape), to prove to mankind how “God is a God of love”, and to deliver understandable messages.

In business, this is the same type of immersion that companies have developed for their executives: to be credible, a young manager needs to know how to roll up the sleeves, to know the trade, and to prove himself on the ground. Christ, like the manager, is in the meaning of history. Just as a natural system tends towards more complexity (or sophistication) and does not evolve blindly, a management system cannot be based solely on providential uncertainties, but on global and generous objectives.

Again, this is why when we face deviances, we have to come back to simple and evident concepts such as CSR and ethics.

8.3. Ethics and morale

If ethics has developed in the Rotary, as elsewhere in some companies and other organizations (humanistic or governmental), the reason for this is simple: economic evolution, like scientific developments, poses new problems simultaneously to both scientists, jurists, governments, theologians, and to civil society as a whole (and this is also an opportunity to better exploit social networks).

Three stages can be considered in this continuum:

1. 1) The development of living species and our evolution naturally impacts all aspects of human life: work, organization of society, industry, industrial robotics that automates and replaces or simplifies material tasks, the global economy, productivity and the exclusive society.
2. 2) This evolution is now challenging the role of human beings in society: with transhumanism, cobotics, exoskeletons and cognitive robotics, which not only assist humans but also negate their direct and indirect handicaps, amplify their physical or intellectual capacities… there is a paradigm change!
3. 3) Finally, what is now at stake is the future of mankind: with biology, cloning, genetics, nanotechnology, transplantation or organ generation, and actions on the genome, we are not only saving lives, we are not only acting on the distress of human beings, but we are changing the basics of life, reproduction, sexuality and death [DAV 04].

Society, in general, did not anticipate these evolutions, but it undergoes them. It attempts to react and give answers by formalizing behaviors, protecting populations or the environment with laws, and by prohibiting reprehensible practices (that lead to an “evil” type of development). The law is therefore only a limited response to a limited immorality.

NOTE.– If the civil code is becoming more complex (as is the labor code with millions of statements) and more difficult to use, this is because a paradigm has been changed, and not yet integrated and assimilated in our society. Is it then the role of ethics to find solutions to such questionable situations? Is it correct not to think about a possible reengineering of these codes and rules with regards to their fundamental and underlying principles?

On the other hand, religions cannot find in their sacred texts explicit mentions, explanations and actions relevant to very recent techniques or technologies (we do not know what awaits us in the near future). They can only make a judgment based on general principles using the “divine” concept, and on transpositions or analogies based on past experiences already studied.

In the above two examples, we can see that there is some room to make real progresses and significant advances on the road to peace and sustainability.

However, as it is necessary to evolve, as humankind is only a creation of God, or an avatar of nature (for some people), as the evolution of nature is exponential and inevitable,… the only possible answer is to adapt and be reactive. This answer bears a name: ethics. We have to do our best or feel the best, from our personal consciousness, in the general interest.

8.4. Ethics and spirituality

The concept of ethics is an essentially dynamic concept and is therefore not a morality of circumstance.

It is not a matter of imagining business ethics as an accumulation of judgment procedures to be taken with regard to particular actions, or positions to be adopted in a given case. In business, in society and in personal life, it will be a matter of proposing a line of conduct first of all in relation to oneself (indeed, the example always comes from the top, that is to say, the authority, the strongest or the most influential person) and then to others. Ethics is made up of positive actions and not of judgments, and the ultimate goal is the human person. In this case, only one absolute reference exists; it is called: the Divine right.

Contrary to what Dawkins says, science cannot answer all the questions posed by advances in sciences (a discovery or a solution generates more questions than it brings solutions). We are certainly advancing our knowledge about the structure of the Universe, but we will never have the answer about the origin and “why” there is life, about the initial order of the world, on the fundamental rule of the universe, about the “one” of our evolution, etc. Ethics, which is the fruit of our consciousness, in the temporal world is always a subject of concern: it is what makes our greatness, a permanent awakening, and which makes us responsible for the “sustainability” of the whole.

Spirituality is not a personal adventure, the purpose of which is to reason or sanctify itself. Spirituality is a community adventure: it depends on our culture and evolves according to that of the community: we are all interacting with the notions of “secular” (the partners of society), the spiritual (or religious partners) and the “Divine” (the supreme order of nature, the absolute, the “One”).

Therefore, when we speak of spirituality, we consider both the efforts of the person to live according to this absolute or the ideal, and the efforts that the same person makes to help others live by these aims.

Ethics is thus made: it comes from a spirituality, and it is made to radiate and shine. It is a way to regulate a person’s relationships with others, to respect them, to guide them and to engage his responsibility in order to increase the well-being and general sustainability of our society.

There cannot be absolute moral principles [DAW 08]. We are thus very far from sophisticated moral concepts, which are the source of so many misunderstandings in the Christian testimony.

8.5. Application: ethics and bioethics

At present times, there are debates on bioethics in many countries. This is justified insofar as biological changes affecting humans’ call into question the purpose of our “being” and the general principles of life [DAV 04]. Any discussion on bioethics must respect the unity and uniqueness of the human person and the becoming of his “being” on the path of transcendence.

In fact, bioethics remains a subset of ethics. It will no longer be business ethics in a company or in society, but in life. This also means that it is the human person who is at the center of the bioethical problematics and not the instructions or precepts inherited and/or developed over time. The latter form a specific and historical framework which is a subject to discussion according to the social changes of every kind imposed by the evolution of history and sciences.

In the case of bioethics, if we want to stay connected with the economy, we have to consider an additional factor, the “Economy of Love”, which promotes and respects the humankind, that is to say his need to love and care, which is respecting others, trying to understand their emotions and respecting their spirituality. The aim is to allow, through morality and ethics, a person to flourish, to overcome pitfalls, to develop and to include them again in the society for his well-being.

It is difficult to propose ready-made solutions: they do not exist, the system being complex. But it is of key importance to be able to define consistent and coherent response possibilities that take into account the different situations to which each person can be subjected. It is ethics and not morale that makes it possible to respond to this need because, based on our own consciousness, it can concern itself with the “internal peace” and the well-being of a person. It is not just simple material satisfaction.

8.6. Ethics, spirituality, identity and religion

Excluded or rejected populations of society are seeking hope, comfort, help or listening, so that they can be comforted, encouraged and integrated. This phenomenon is very common. Unfortunately, in a democratic society, people who are disadvantaged or are suffering from poverty and exclusion rely on a system of assistance which often fails [PAU 01].

First of all, our society is fragile and many people, for example, who fear losing their jobs will act to the detriment of those who are already in misery … regardless of the proclaimed ideal of equality and justice of citizens and with no regard to basic rights.

Social disarray, in the face of this phenomenon, is all the more prevalent because societies have put in place social protection systems whose initial objective is to eradicate poverty permanently. These are material approaches that do not solve the underlying problem: how to develop an inclusive society, how can we bring hope to desperate people?

In addition, living standards continue to increase, and if total deprivation is now scarce, it is clear that some populations will continue to be far from the new standards of welfare and won’t benefit from health protection and security facilities.

Thus, inequalities and the gap between rich and poor is continuing to grow; criteria and forms of misery evolve and are renewed in a different way. Indeed, criteria may be linked to the inferiority of some social status of dependence related to social services, for example, and can generate at least as much dissatisfaction and frustration as the conventional forms of deprivation. It is a vicious circle that wealthy citizens often avoid looking at. However, such situations may directly concern part of a population (for example, parents or friends who are going to help the excluded people… because they are relatives or feel guilty). These are situations of injustice that can become unbearable and are easily translated into a phenomenon of revolt and that requires attention on behalf of ethics.

Under these conditions, it is difficult to innovate, and facing this persistence exclusion sometimes raises more spiritual question: here, everybody cannot ignore the measure of what a human person is, in his unicity, and unicity cemented by compassion, empathy or the love of the other.

In fact, every excluded minority who feels oppressed will seek to strengthen their links with a community of excluded people, their internal cohesion of spiritual or religious thoughts, a solution to their misfortunes. Unfortunate people will attribute their dissatisfaction or resentment to the society in which they live and who despise them. They will therefore be able to switch to a fundamentalism (religious, social, economic, political or otherwise) that will benefit neither the excluded nor the society. For an excluded person, the use of fundamentalism is linked to the search for a listening, an attempt at understanding, or a refuge, in reaction to the resentment or disregard they feel against leaders who neglect the notions of morality, ethics or divine rules.

1. 1) In ancient times, the Greek antiquity, we spoke only of the “Law of Nature” and of “Divine Right”. It was not until later that the “Human Right”, which led to the “Rights of Man and the Citizen” charter (in 1789), was introduced.
2. 2) But when we talk about the Human Right, we all know that this is a (social) interpretation of the Law of Nature … by our Western society of the 17th Century. For example, we are all born equal, etc.

   Nevertheless, we consider that the Rights of Nature (which have made human beings, and not the reverse!) have not been made alone, by their own: at the Origin, before the existence of humankind… there is necessarily an origin which can only be Divine.

   Therefore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, there is only one origin, or only one concept to consider: the “Divine Right”. Indeed, human law is a subordinate of natural law, which is itself subordinate to divine right.

3. 3) At present, the Human Right is often linked to “Democracy”, which is a variation (hence an interpretation) of human rights.

This democratization could be a confusion since it transforms the Human Right into the more global universal human right: the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) was replaced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

There is no human right with its civil code that can supplant the divine right. This is the reason why the solution for fighting misery cannot come from society, and therefore from human right, but from the spiritual or even from the divine right: therefore fundamentalism, because inclusivity and human rights are too important to be processed or assessed just by individuals. It is therefore a meta-rule that relies on meta-governance, which can only be regulated by ethics considerations.

8.7. Synthesis: hierarchy of ethics concepts

The objective of this section is to establish a hierarchy related to the various concepts introduced in ethics.

In recent philosophical concepts, the principle of spirituality is often dissociated from the existence of God. Indeed, spirituality has different meanings depending on the context of its use. It refers, from a philosophical point of view, to the opposition between the matter (or the body) and the spirit (or mind). One can also distinguish between interiority and exteriority.

Spirituality also refers to the quest for meaning, hope or liberation, and could also refer to processes associated with it (initiations, rituals, personal development, etc.). Therefore, spirituality can be related to God, can evoke a “spirituality without religion” or “spirituality without god” [DAW 08] separated from the mortal contingencies of Man (as in an instinct of survival). It depends on the context.

In the ultimate stage, spirituality is often understood as associated with religion or faith in a God. In the West and the Middle East, it is conventionally connected with religion in the perspective of the human being in relation to higher beings (gods, demons) and the salvation of the soul. It is therefore a very extensive sense to relate to God, to the divine, to justify the transcendent reality for linking Man to others, linking nature or the universe, linking Origin of the Universe with the Big Bang (that we will never prove), etc. We speak thus of Divine Right, of God’s Will, etc.

Religious spirituality is generally associated with the aspiration to “connect” together different concepts (from the Latin religare). Here, concerning ethics, it is essentially a matter of connecting with a transcendent reality, then the divine, then by extension to God. By transposing the concept and by extension: objective would lead human beings to connect themselves to others, then to nature, and then to the universe.

8.8. Spirituality out of the religion framework

For the sake of simplicity and for a simple question of lack of theological skills, we will not discuss God, but we will simply say that spirituality is a very ancient aspiration, which is declined in different ways, from humanism up to religion and ways of mysticism.

According to Claude Riviere [RIV 17], spirituality is “primarily assigned to personal experience and to the spiritual path of each person, … to the inclusion of health (therapy, healing) and happiness here below, on the earth, in the sighting toward salvation, (…) a monist view of the world without separating the natural (ecologism), the supernatural, science, religion and popular magical or esoteric practices”.

In philosophy, spirituality is founded on the more evasive and random notion of the “inner experience” of belief and intuition, which can lead us to the Truth.

8.9. Beyond ethics: the contribution of religious fact to excluded people

The impact of religion on marginalized people, or people excluded from society, is a common trend. Our experience in Haïti was symptomatic: after the 2011 earthquake and the recent 2016 tornado.

This suffering and the poor people in the world have never denied their link to the church. The religious fact is expressed in everyday life. The Rotary District 1700 funded the rebuilding of the elementary school of Port-de-Paix. The blessing of the new school was carried out with extraordinary fervor.

It was also noted that the most important donations came from the poorest class of the population, while rich people often remained insensitive to any form of sharing. These are therefore very opposite types of behaviors, one being related to the values of ethics and the other not.

More generally, many people confuse religion and spirituality, or certain mysterious and supernatural phenomena. For the excluded people in a society, the need to connect with the Divine is strong insofar as this approach connects them with the salvation of the Soul. Moreover, religion offers them an alternative to spirituality, as it is practiced nowadays, because the framework of religious practice is more constrained (Divine Law), and therefore more reassuring than the simple spirituality. Indeed it is based on an awareness of self, and is therefore a mental return on oneself.

To help us better distinguish what separates a religious fact (such as we find it, with varying degrees in religion and, to an extreme degree, in fundamentalism), we could quote some principles:

• – Religion makes you bow, spirituality releases you.
• – Religion shows you fear, spirituality shows you how to be courageous.
• – Religion tells you the truth, spirituality allows you to discover it.
• – Religion separates from other religions, spirituality unites them.
• – Religion creates dependence, spirituality makes you independent.
• – Religion puts repression into practice, spirituality puts Karma into practice.
• – Religion follows the path of another, spirituality makes it possible to create one’s own.

8.10. Conclusion

Quite often, a religious fact or the existence of a new religion has occurred through spirituality, through the journey through which a person has become a Prophet (or God). The details of history often show that it is a person who seeks to discover the truth.

Instead of talking about the links between religion and spirituality, we can transpose this approach to compare ethics and spirituality: ethics follows a similar evolution.

What we will keep in mind here in order to avoid misleading on the arguments in favor of the religious or non-religious is that:

1. 1) On the level of temporal power, ethics is the highest level of regulation and control of human actions, beyond morale and deontology. In everyday life, when you are in a tricky situation, in business or in everyday public life, the use of ethics will always make for a good decision and compensate for the possible shortcomings of the temporal power.
2. 2) On the spiritual level, the highest level to which one can relate is the Divine Right, or the belief in a religion, which goes beyond the spiritual; it is based on an introspective approach that many people practice today. Indeed, a religion contains a message that shares peace and truth: “the divine code of the human heart” that harmoniously resonates through each and every one of us.

Finally, in order to respond to detractors, ethics is part of the temporal world; however, in view of the interactions existing between all the concepts, one cannot say that there is no relationship between ethics and spirituality.