rmation Age, where the barriers to communication have dissolved in the realm of the internet, the need for a common approach as to what constitutes ethical behavior cannot be disputed. The three most important ideas, which are relevant to any debate on a common ethical framework for humanity, are the failure of faith as a criterion for ethics,
the need to avoid the imposition of one particular system as the universal answer, and the absolute necessity for a global definition of ethics, which incorporates various perspectives.
When faith, or religion, is adopted as the foundation of ethical belief, it can only lead to dissension. All religious views of values and ideals are obviously based on the divine authority and revelations particular to a certain religion. Any religious justification of ethics can belong only to one particular faith, as each religion has its own unique perspective of the individual and his relationship with the world. It would be difficult to reconcile all religions. For example, the Buddhist view of the personal self as a delusion is completely opposed to the Judeo-Christian emphasis on individualism. Likewise, the Eastern faiths are to a large extent mystical, in contrast to the realism of the Western religions. The holistic, cyclic oriental perspective is again totally different from the dualistic, linear approach of the West. Religions advocate absolute truths. When each faith proposes its own absolute truth, it is obvious that religion cannot be an acceptable basis for ethics.
The irreconcilable differences in the world religions make it evident that faith-based ethics can only serve as a personal guide to ideals. They cannot be accepted as a universal framework for humanity. Religious fundamentalism is the most blatant origin of discord and violence today, and warns us that any religious basis of ethics is impossible. Morality, based on religion, can only lead to war.