Universal Ethical Principles book 7

UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES TO BUILD A
CULTURE OF PEACE
VOLUME VII
Copyright © Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
First English Edition: 2018
ISBN: 978-1984256003
Edited by the author: Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
email: famcano2004@gmail.com
Cover Design: Sunil Cano

Everyone agrees that we live in a time of crisis. It is a
generalized crisis of values. In science and philosophy the
search for truth, certitude or rationality is in a dead end. In the
sphere of ethics, there is a total confusion about what is right
or wrong.
Society is plagued by problems, ranging from the increase in
youth violence, including child abuse, to problems such as
abusive use of alcohol and drugs, sexual offenses, abuse and
violence within the family, until the corruption of political and
financial elites.
Moreover, at the global level, we are immersed in a series of
regional wars and exposed to the growing danger of conflicts
or clashes between different nations, cultures and civilizations,
in addition to the serious threat of international terrorism.
INTRODUCTION

«Man, having been transformed into a thing, is anxious,
without faith, without conviction, with little capacity for
love. He escapes into empty busy-ness, alcoholism, extreme
sexual promiscuity, and psychosomatic symptoms of all
kinds, which can best be explained by the theory of stress.
Paradoxically, the wealthiest societies turn out to be the
sickest, and the progress of medicine in them is matched by
a great increase of all forms of psychic and psychosomatic
illness.»
Erich Fromm, On Being Human, Continuum, New York, 1994, pp.
36-37.
As Erich Fromm rightly points out in the following quote, it is
paradoxical that opulent societies are the ones who are plagued with most
psychological problems caused by conflicting human relationships that
lead many people to loneliness, depression and even suicide.

The root of current problems lies in the moral
emptiness created by the crisis of values.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to research
for core values and universal ethical principles
that can be shared and accepted by all nations,
cultures and religions.
These universally shared values should serve as
a basis for a peace education that fosters
peaceful coexistence among individuals, families,
races, nations and civilizations, in order to
achieve a stable and lasting world peace.

In this volume, entitled Universal
Ethical Principles, as summary and
conclusion of our research, we will list a
number of basic and fundamental
assertions that could be elevated to the
category of universal ethical principles.
Throughout our research work, we
have been defending the need to
advance the dialogue and
understanding between different
cultural, philosophical, religious,
scientific and ideological traditions in
order to reach a Socratic consensus on
universal ethical principles.
These ethical principles could help to
resolve cultural, religious, nationalist
or political conflicts between nations,
as well as the problems of world
hunger, corruption of ruling elites,
social injustices and evils, and moral
degradation of families and
individuals.
They could also serve to regulate
harmonious and peaceful coexistence
between individuals, families,
communities, nations and civilizations
that ultimately leads to a stable and
lasting world peace.

The source of inspiration and motivation
for this research has been the philosophical,
ethical and religious thinking of Sun Myung
Moon, an extraordinary man who dedicated
his whole life to world peace.
He founded the Unification Movement and
numerous organizations and institutions in
all fields of culture. He brought together
scientists, teachers, communicators,
educators, religious leaders, and political
leaders to participate in numerous
international conferences in order to work
for world peace, transcending national,
cultural, racial and religious barriers.
Like other great visionaries as
Jesus, Buddha or Socrates, he has
never written anything, but
throughout his life he has given a
vivid education through lectures,
sermons and public conferences.
For this reason, Dr. Sung Hun Lee,
a Korean scholar, put in order and
systematize the philosophical
thinking of Sun Myung Moon, which
is called “Unification Thought”,
because its claim is to harmonize all
contradictory schools and currents of
human thought throughout history.

«Humankind’s destiny is to bring together all the
points of view that are now divided against each
other. The philosophy that will lead humanity in the
future must be able to bring together all religions
and philosophies.(…)
If we continue the era of people congregating
together only by religion or race, then humanity
cannot avoid a repetition of war. The age of peace
absolutely cannot come unless we transcend
cultural customs and traditions.»
Sun Myung Moon, As a Peace-loving Global Citizen,TheWashingtonTimes
Foundation, USA, 2009, p. 291.

This is a proposal that could help to generate a
universal consensus that could bring together
most of the philosophical and religious views of
the different cultures and civilizations, which
currently make up the world, and thus contribute
significantly to world peace.
The ethical principles that we enunciate here
synthesize the most common and universal
ethical principles present in the main or most
influential cultural traditions.
UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES PROPOSAL

Of course, most of these ethical principles are well known.
Some of them are almost as old as man himself, while others
are more novel —at least in the terms in which they are
formulated— although in essence they are not new. It is not
a matter of wanting to discover the gunpowder.
Rather, the originality of this proposal for universal ethical
principles lies mainly in the attempt to connect and
interrelate these basic principles in a rational and coherent
way, framing them in a global vision as comprehensible and
complete as possible. It is something like to recompose a
complicated puzzle, finding the precise site of each piece.
In this way, we depart from the usual list of values or
ethical principles, adequately defined and commented, but
dispersed and disconnected from each other.
Originality of the universal ethical principles

1. They are the most reasonable, simple
and accordance with common sense.
2. They explain the greater number of
phenomena and problems
3. They are not dogmatic or irrational
4. They are compatible with the current
knowledge of science, without having
to accept all its unfounded dogmas
5. They bring together the most universal
of all cultural traditions
We have tried that this ethical principles listed below have the
following characteristics:
6. They are inclusive and conciliators
7. They build bridges between the ancient
religious and philosophical traditions and
the modern Enlightened and scientific
traditions
8. They serve to mediate between the liberal,
and defender of individual rights,Western
tradition, and the communitarian, and
defender of social order, Eastern tradition
9. They also serve to offer practical solutions
to current moral and ethical problems.
Characteristics of the universal ethical principles

Since nature is the most objective data or object of study
shared by sciences, philosophies and religions, we will
defend the objectivity of these ethical principles by
deriving them in some extend from the general principles
of nature, highlighting the similarities and analogies that
exist between the moral laws and the laws of nature.
In addition, in order to raise them to axioms or
unchanging first principles, we will not formulate our
proposal in the classic form of catalogs of rights and duties,
or list of moral prescriptions and prohibitions, but in the
form of general principles.
Universal ethical principles derived from nature and formulated in the
form of general principles

1. PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON ORIGIN OF
HUMANITY AND THE NATURAL AND MORAL
LEGAL ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE
2. PRINCIPLE OF DIGNITY AND EQUALITY
3. PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY
AND CREATIVITY
4. PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS
OR LAW OF GIVE AND RECEIVE
5. PRINCIPLE OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH THREE STAGES
6. PRINCIPLE OF THE THREE LEVELS OF
MORALITY
PROPOSAL OF 12 UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
7. PRINCIPLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE
AND THE PURPOSE FOR THE WHOLE
8. PRINCIPLE OF THE PROGRESSIVE
ELEVATION OF HUMAN VALUE
9. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT THROUGH
COOPERATION CENTERED ON A COMMON
PURPOSE
10. PRINCIPLE OF ORDER
11. PRINCIPLE OF THE MEANING
12. PRINCIPLE OF THE THREE GREAT
UNIVERSAL GOALS OR ASPIRATIONS OF
HUMANITY

PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON ORIGIN OF HUMANITY AND
THE NATURAL AND MORAL LEGAL ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE

The common origin, God or the first cause of
humanity and the universe, could be defined
as an energetic mind or a mental energy that
gave rise to the universe through a first stage
of design and a second stage of formation or
evolution, establishing a legal order based on
natural laws and universal moral laws.

 “Matter and mind merge into one
thing”
 The common origin includes the
mental and material aspect
 A first cause defined as an
energetic mind or a mental energy
 Generalized presence of
intelligent designs
 The two stages of the creative
processes
 ¿Are we the fruit of chance or are we
designed for an end?
 From the multiplicity of gods to the belief
in one God
 From an impersonal God, or an inflexible
judge, to a personal God in the form of a
loving and kind father or mother
 A universal love and a universal moral
order
 The God of the philosophers

From a scientific point of view, this
principle is based, first, on the hypothesis
or basic supposition that mental and
material processes are two inseparable
aspects that are present to a greater or
lesser degree in all entities of the universe.
This is the most probable hypothesis
after the overwhelming evidence that
comes to light as a result of the latest
advances in science.
Especially in quantum physics the
classical concept of matter has practically
vanished, being replaced by a continuum
of matter and spirit, as can be seen in the
following quotes from Bohm, Jeans, and
Eddington.
«If we delve deeper and deeper into the immanence that
resides in matter, I believe that we will eventually arrive at
the current which we also feel as mind, so that mind and
matter merge into one thing.»
David Bohm, El Paradigma Holográfico, Kairós, Barcelona, 1987, p. 218.
«The mind has ceased to be regarded as an intruder in
the domain of matter;We are beginning to suspect that we
should rather greet her as the creator and governor of the
realm of matter.»
Sir James Jeans, Cuestiones Cuánticas, ed. K. Wilber, Kairós, Barcelona,
1987, p. 196.
«To put it bluntly, my conclusion is that the world is
composed of mental “matter.”»
Sir Arthur Eddington, Cuestiones Cuánticas, ed. K. Wilber, Kairós,
Barcelona, 1987, p. 259.
“Mind and matter merge into one thing”

Second, it is based on the assumption that both
aspects share a common origin that includes both
aspects, material and mental.
This is the most reasonable hypothesis given the
evidence of the impossibility of reducing to a purely
material first cause of the universe all the emerging
levels of mental processes and higher degrees of
consciousness.
The hypothesis of a first cause, in which all
emerging mental and material aspects merge, is far
more reasonable than to believe in the miraculous
emergence of consciousness and mind from a
material first cause without consciousness or mind.
The common origin includes the mental and material aspect
Matter
Mind
Mind
Matter
Matter
Mind
Matter

In an international
conference of scientists, Sun
Myung Moon explained in a
simple and concise way this
hypothesis of a first cause that
combines the essence of mind
and matter, as we can see in
the following quote:
«However, because the world of effect is made
of unified beings with two natures, the cause
must be a monistic being with the essence of the
two natures of matter and mind unified into one.
In other words, the ultimate cause must be an
absolute, unified being with two natures that can
create the attributes of mind and matter
respectively. Only from a unified and monistic
cause can a unified world of effect be brought
into existence.
That is, the unified effect must have a unified,
monistic being as its cause.»
Sun Myung Moon, The Role of Unified Science in the Moral
Orientation of the World, November 26, 1972, NewYork, USA.
A first cause that combines the essence of mind and matter

Therefore, it is easy to suppose that in the
beginning there would be not only fields of
physical forces but also fields of vegetable and
animal life.
All of them would be included in an upper
field, which might be called the mind of the
universe, whose material support would be the
primary and basic energy from which all kinds of
matter were formed.
In fact, in this first cause, mind and energy
would be one and the same thing, a
homogeneous substance, which could be
defined as an energetic mind or a mental energy.
As a logical consequence of this hypothesis,
the affirmation of the existence of a first
intelligent cause is inferred.
This statement does not need to imply belief
in a God with a completely different nature
from the rest of the universe, and who
intervenes in nature in a miraculous and
supernatural way.
Rather, it would be a God, in whom the
mental and material aspects merge, who
thinks, projects, plans and acts; who made
matter with his own energy and directed its
evolution through the different fields of forces
that already existed from the beginning.
A first cause defined as an energetic mind or a mental energy

Upper Level Fields
(Self-awareness
Unique Identity, Reason)
Life fields
(Autonomy, creativity)
Fields of forces
Energy
Quantum
World
Energy
Instinct
Life
Self-awareness
Unique Identity
Reason
Life Fields
(Autonomy, Creativity)
Fields of Forces
Energy
First Cause
Energetic Mind or
Mental Energy
Quantum
World
Energy
Instinct
Life
Quantum
World
Energy
Atoms
Molecules
Living
Beings
Human
Beings
A first cause defined as an energetic mind or a mental energy

Thirdly, the principle of the common origin is also
supported by evidence of the widespread presence
of intelligent designs in the universe and indications
that there is a cosmic project.
This assumption, which has a long philosophical
and scientific tradition that goes back to Socrates,
has been banished from science because of the
dogma of the objectivity of science, which excludes
the final causes, and the dogma of faith of the
Darwinian evolution theory.
However, there are a number of new scientific
theories that suggest that this old science prejudice
against intelligent designs needs to be discarded, as
you can see in the examples that follow.
Generalized presence of intelligent designs

The mere existence of the laws of
nature and its mechanisms governed by
them, obviously imply the existence of
an intelligent designer.
The physicist Steven Weinberg,
despite not believing in any intelligence
inherent in nature, asserts that in the
only place where it would be possible to
find evidences of intelligence would be in
these final laws of nature, and that such
considerations are what make almost
irresistible to use the metaphor of the
Mind of God.
«If there were anything we could discover
in nature that would give us any special
insight into the work of God, they would have
to be the final laws of nature.(...)
Whatever one's religion, or the lack of it, it
is an irresistible metaphor to speak of the
final laws of nature in terms of the Mind of
God.»
Steven Weinberg, El sueño de una teoría final, Crítica,
Barcelona, 1994, pp. 192-193.
The metaphor of the Mind of God

The belief in God as a mathematician
who has designed the universe through
laws and mathematical formulas is part of
the ancient and current tradition of science.
It dates back to Pythagoras and has
remained throughout its history, even to
the present day.
In fact, almost all the great physicists,
astronomers and mathematicians of the
20th Century, such as Planck, Einstein,
Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli or Eddington, share
this Pythagorean or Platonic view of the
universe, as we can see in this Heisenberg
quote:
«I think that, at this point, modern
physics has definitively decided in favor of
Plato.
Because the small portions of matter are
not in fact physical objects in the ordinary
sense of the word; they are forms,
structures, or —in the sense that Plato
gives them— Ideas, which can be described
without ambiguity in a mathematical
language.»
Werner Heisenberg, Cuestiones Cuánticas, ed. K. Wilber,
Kairós, Barcelona, 1987, p. 85.
God as a mathematician

Many scientists, such as Freeman
Dyson, have pointed out the vital
importance of the exact numerical
values of certain constants or forces
for the future of the evolution of the
universe, and especially for the
appearance of life and humans.
This fact has led them to suggest
the existence of a general plan or a
soul of the world.
These accidents or significant
coincidences have become very
popular in science with the name of
Anthropic Principle.
«From these accidents in physics and astronomy, I
conclude that the universe is an unexpectedly
hospitable place for living beings to make it their
home…
The peculiar harmony between the structure of the
universe and the needs of life and intelligence is ... a
manifestation of the importance of mind in the scheme
of things.
As individuals, some of us may be willing to go
further... to support the hypothesis that there is a
universal spirit or soul of the world, underlying the
manifestations of intelligence that we observe.»
Freeman Dyson, Trastornando el universo, F.C.E., México, 1982, pp.
282-284.
The Anthropic Principle

The physicist Paul Davies also suggests
the existence of a Cosmic Blueprint
behind the evolution of the universe, in
the form laws of a higher level or some
creative and self-organizing principle
inherent in nature.
Similar ideas are held by biologist
Rupert Sheldrake, who speculates on the
existence of a higher level unified super
field that includes physical forces fields
and morphic or biological fields.
«The very fact that the universe is
creative, and that the laws have
permitted complex structures to
emerge and develop to the point of
consciousness… is for me powerful
evidence that there is “something
going on” behind it all.The impression
of design is overwhelming.»
Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries
in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1988, p. 203.
The Cosmic Blueprint

“Intelligent Design”Theory
At the end of the last century, a group ofAmerican
scientists formulated a new theory, called "intelligent
design", which is in direct opposition to the dogma of
the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Basically, this new evolutionary paradigm states that
it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that
certain features of the universe and of living things are
best explained by an intelligent cause, not by an
undirected process such as natural selection.
In 1996, Behe argued in Darwin’s Black Box:The
BiochemicalChallenge to Evolution that some features
of living cells are characterized by an “irreducible
complexity” that cannot be explained by Darwinian
processes but points instead to intelligent design.
The bacterial flagellar motor
As Behe himself explains: “By irreducibly
complexity I mean a single system composed of
several well-matched interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, wherein the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system
to effectively cease functioning”
Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box:The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution. NewYork:The Free Press, 1996, p. 39.

Fourthly, the supposition of the
existence of an intelligent cause, both
mental and material, that gave rise to
the universe through a first process of
designing a cosmic blueprint, or Logos,
and a second process of evolution or
materialization of that Logos, allows us
to unify into a single universal model the
process of formation and evolution of
the universe —the work of God's
creative productivity— with the
technological and cultural evolution —
the work of human beings’ creative
productivity.
The hypothesis of the existence of a
Logos or cosmic project, the fruit of a
first process of intentional mental
design, which latter directed the
formation and evolution of the universe,
manages to explain better the
directionality of evolution and the
functionality of living organisms.
Besides this, it can serve as a bridge
between scientific, philosophical and
religious visions, and opens the door to
the search for a meaning to human
existence.
The two stages of the creative processes

Previous design process
Process of materialization of the Logos
Origin
Motive
Main
Purpose
General
Logos
Global
Project
Specific
logos
Human
beings
Living
beings
Material
structure of
the universe
Mental process of design of the Logos

There are two possibilities.The first is
that we are a product of chance, in which
case we would have no objective function
or purpose to fulfill.
Each individual or each society
determines its own ends and,
consequently, the values are irremediably
relative.
Based on this assumption, the only
thing we can aspire to is to reach
temporary and changeable agreements
on ethical values and norms.
If, on the contrary, we had
been designed for a purpose,
our value or goodness would
depend on whether or not we
fulfill that purpose.
Moreover, in case there is an
objective plan or project for us,
we could then speak of a
common and universal
standard for determining
values and norms.
¿Are we the fruit of chance or are we designed for an end?

From the religious perspective, Mythic
tales and primitive religions that spoke of a
multiplicity of anthropomorphic gods
appeared in all cultures.
However, in the so-called axial epoch,
there was a reaction against this
proliferation of gods who exhibited the
same low passions of humans, and seemed
to handle them as mere puppets, forcing
them to make bloody and immoral
sacrifices.
The characteristic or essential aspect of
this axial epoch was the appearance of
reformers who affirmed the existence of a
unique God and a universal moral law.
For example, Moses proclaimed the existence of
a singleGod,Yahweh, who promulgated moral
commandments that all men should obey. He also
encouraged the fight against idolatry or worship of
the ancient immoral gods.
Christianity and Islam later inherited this Semitic
belief in a singleGod, creator of heaven and earth.
In a similar way, Zoroaster reacted against the
beliefs of the warlike nomadic tribes —who
worshiped ancient Iranian deities and offered
bloody sacrifices— affirming the existence of a
single good God, the Wise Lord (Ahura Mazda) who
taught to live according to right thoughts, right
words and right actions.
From the multiplicity of gods to the belief in one God

Also in the axial epoch, the Chinese sages, setting
aside the ancient Chinese deities and deified
ancestors, relied on the more abstract and impersonal
concepts ofTao and Heaven, which were as a first
creative principle and a universal moral law.Confucius,
in particular, emphasized moral education and human
responsibility in fulfilling this universal moral law or
mandates from Heaven.
In a similar way, the mystics of the Upanisads tried
to reduce all the ancientVeda gods to a triad of gods
centered on an impersonal Brahman, the One or the
Absolute Spirit, and emphasized man's responsibility
to free himself from the illusory Maya (appearances of
the sensitive world) and melt their Atman (soul) with
Brahman, the Ultimate Reality.
A phenomenon very similar to the Hindu
occurred in Greece. Xenophanes criticized the
ancient semi-humanGreek gods and advocated
for a single God without passions and human
appearance.The One of Pythagoras, the Idea of
the Good of Plato, the motionless motor of
Aristotle, the Logos of the Stoics, they were all
very similar concepts to the Hindu Brahman.
In addition, Greek philosophers, like Hindu
thinkers, emphasized the responsibility of
humans to leave this sensitive world of shadows
and appearances and reach knowledge, and
also highlighting the human obligation to live
according to a natural moral law.
From the anthropomorphic gods to the abstract and
impersonal first principles

Instead, Buddha denied the relevance of all
Hindu deities, and even challenged the belief in
an eternal and ever-present Brahman, motivated
by the eagerness to emphasize individual moral
responsibility in gaining one's own perfection.
Buddha emphasized that only self-cultivation
and self-control were the most appropriate
means of attaining inner peace. No external rite,
sacrifice or divine help served to achieve that
goal.
Even so, Buddha maintained the Hindu belief
in eternal moral norms or Dharma and in the
inexorable law of Karma.
The negation of the gods for ethical reasons of Buddhism

Ethical atheism of Jains
«The Jains believe the universe is
eternal so there is no need for a First
Cause.They say the world of matter
has always existed so there is no
purpose in assuming the hypothesis
of a Creator.
And they are convinced that man
himself has the power to subjugate
his passions and liberate himself from
worldly attachments, so why
speculate about the value of a savior
from beyond? (...)
They raise all of the objections to the
theory of the creator-God which
Europeans and Americans are familiar
with. If God creates it must be to satisfy
some inclination or to remove some wants
in His nature. But this makes God clearly
imperfect.
Secondly, if the world is the handiwork
of a perfect God, how is it His creatures
suffer so much sorrow and evil?»
Y.O. Kim, World Religions, vol. 2, Golden Gate, New
York, 1976, pp. 83-84.
According toYoung Oon Kim, the Jains explicitly denied the existence of any
God for the following reasons:

Several centuries later, unlike his Jewish and Eastern
predecessors —who regarded God as an inflexible judge, or
was depersonalized and even denied in order to emphasize
the importance of individual moral responsibility and the
inexorable moral law, Jesus compared God to a loving father
who is willing to forgive his children if they repent and turn
their hearts to him, as is clearly expressed in the parable of
the prodigal son.
Thus, although Jesus did not deny the existence of a
universal moral law nor the responsibility that man has to
fulfill it, he did put above that divine law a God of love ready
to embrace and forgive even his enemies.
From an impersonal God, or an inflexible judge, to a personal God in
the form of a loving and kind father or mother

This belief in an ultimate source of love, or a
personal God in the form of a loving father or
mother, became widespread at the grassroots level
in all religions. It was also adopted by most of the
mystical branches of Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and
Muslim traditions.
This is because the only control that man willingly
admits is a control of love. For a beloved one
anything can be done. A husband and wife who
deeply love each other do not feel dominated for
one another. If there is an atmosphere of love and
understanding in the family, the children will not
feel oppressed or controlled.
We all like the idea of living in a
warm and affectionate universe
controlled by love.
Instead, we instinctively reject
the cold control of an inflexible
judge or an inexorable moral law
that makes us pay the
consequences of our acts, because
these beliefs create the image of a
universe governed by a rigid, cold
and inhospitable moral order, in
which we would not like to live.
Why does belief in a personal God in the form of a loving and kind
father tend to generalize?

However, placing divine love and
grace above the law, without denying
the law and the individual human
responsibility, has great advantages.
Since then the law becomes flexible,
and we are induced to forgive and be
forgiven, to repent of mistakes and to
reconcile with one another, to love
even enemies and wrongdoers, and
not only to demand justice or claim for
punishment, without mercy or
forgiveness.
On the other hand, the belief in a loving
God who pours his grace on men can
degenerate into primitive and childlike
forms of religiosity.
That is, to foster a passive, beggarly and
dependent attitude in people.This makes
them always expect to be helped and
unable to do something for themselves.
In this way, they are prevented from
fulfilling their individual responsibility to
develop their moral qualities and perfect
themselves.
Advantages and disadvantages of the belief in a loving and kind God

The Heart MotivationTheory
Sun Myung Moon not only
regards God as a loving father
and mother, but also asserts that
the fundamental motivation that
led Him to create sprang from His
Heart, His deepest essence, as
UnificationThought explains:
«Thus, God’s Heart can also be expressed
as the “emotional impulse to love infinitely.”
Love necessarily requires an object partner.
Especially, the love of God is an
irrepressible impulse and therefore, an object
partner of love was absolutely necessary for
God…
With Heart serving as the motive, God
created human beings and all things as His
object partners of love.»
Sung Hun Lee, New Essentials of Unification Thought, UTI,
Korea, 2006, p. 24.

God created the world for the realization of love
This vision of a warm and
harmonious universe created
and ruled by love fits better, of
course, with the way of being
and aspirations of happiness of
human beings, as Sun Myung
Moon expresses it poetically:
«God wanted to rejoice; therefore, He created this
world for the realization of love.
God wanted to rejoice over a world of warm and
harmonious love, where human beings and all creatures
would dwell as one in God’s love.
God wanted to rejoice over men and women who
would form true conjugal relationships in His love, and
then build families, tribes, nations and a world of love;
and God would taste the joy of love through the loving
oneness of these human beings.This was the very ideal
of God’s creation.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 113:312.

All religions agree on the idea that all humanity
should live in peace and harmony with each other and
with nature, as one big family united by a universal love
of divine, heavenly or cosmic origin. For all of them this
universal love is the supreme value, the purpose of the
universe, the meaning of life and the complete
happiness.
At the same time, all religious traditions agree on the
belief that there is an objective moral order in the
universe.That is, a divine, natural law or cosmic
principle that should regulate individual and social
human behavior. In fact, there is an astonishing
coincidence among all of them in the most important
and essential ethical precepts and principles.
Universal love and universal moral order

Ibn Arabi, Sufi mystic andalusí, and Gandhi illustrate these two
concepts common to all religions.
«There was a time when I criticized my neighbor if his religion
was not close to mine. But now my heart is capable of becoming all
religious forms: a prairie for the gazelles, the cloister of a Christian
monk, a temple for idols, the tables of the Mosaic Law, the book of
Koran. I profess the religion of love. And whatever direction the
horse may take, love is my creed and my faith.»
Ibn Arabi, citado por Joaquín Lomba, «El pensamiento islámico occidental», en Filosofías
no occidentales, Miguel Cruz Hernández, ed.,Trotta, Madrid, 1999, p. 271.
«Truly, religion should penetrate every one of our actions. Here
religion does not mean sectarianism. It means believing in a moral
order that governs the universe, which is no less real because it is
invisible.This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.
It does not replace them, it harmonizes them and gives them
reality.»
Mahatma Gandhi, All men are brothers, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmendabad, 1960, p. 77.

As we discussed earlier, in the
axial epoch the early Greek
philosophers, like the Hindu
philosophers, reduced all
anthropomorphic gods to a single
impersonal God, such as the One of
Xenophanes and Pythagoras.
With Pythagoreanism, in
particular, started the belief in a God
as a mathematician who ordered
the universe with numerical reasons.
This is a vision that has had a long
philosophical and scientific
tradition, even to current days.
Socrates picked up the concept of Nous or ordering
intelligence from Anaximenes, and elaborated for the
first time in history the argument of design to try to
prove his existence.
Plato's Idea of Good, Aristotle's first cause, the
motionless motor, and the Logos of the Stoics were
concepts assimilated by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
philosophers to explain rationally the Semitic God and
the process of creation of the world.
From this tradition comes the God of Descartes, the
God postulated by Kant and his concept of universal
moral law, the deist God identified with the rational
moral laws, as well as the modern concepts of natural
law and human rights.
The God of the philosophers

Monistic and pantheistic visions
Neoplatonism, with its monistic vision and the
theory of emanation from the One, has been
another tradition that has had greater influence
on later philosophers and scientists, such as the
One of Giorgiano Bruno, the God as Unit and
Totality of the nature of Spinoza, the Infinite
Monad of Leibniz and the Absolute Spirit of
Hegel. Other later philosophers spoke of God as
the infinite, the absolute, the unconditioned, the
transcendence, etc.

The denial of God among the Greek philosophers
However, from the beginning of
philosophy some Greek philosophers
denied the existence of the gods,
curiously for the same ethical
motivations and logical arguments with
which Buddhism and Jainism denied the
Hindu gods.
Epicurus denied the existence of any
god for ethical reasons. He thought that a
God who allows the evils and miseries of
the world would be a cruel God, and he
considered immoral to torment people
with the threat of eternal punishments in
the hereafter.
For this reason, he adopted the atomism
of Democritus, who for similar motivations
had also denied the existence of an ordering
intelligence (Nous) of the cosmos claiming
that it was the fruit of a random
combination of atoms.
These same motivations and rational
justifications are those that have maintained
the materialist tradition in philosophy and
the later science, along with other skeptical
reasons, that Protagoras already maintained
when saying that about the gods he could
not tell that they exist or not, because the
darkness of the matter.

From his skeptical position, Hume denied
the validity of the design argument, citing
the atomist explanation and arguing that
Godin the case that he exists, he would be a
cruel God for allowing evil in the world and
for creating an eternal hell, and also for
encouraging the wars of religions.
Feuerbach, from a humanist vision similar
to the Jain, asserted that man, out of
weakness, creates God in the image of a
perfect idealized man, and so his devotion
to God prevents him from valuing and
perfecting himself.
Nietzsche proclaimed the death of
God because he thought that belief in
God was dwarfing and greatly
weakening man by assuming life-
denying values.
And Marx affirmed that religion is
the opium of the people, an ideology
at the service of the ruling class with
which they narcotizes people, so
people resign themselves to the social
injustices of this world and put their
hopes only in heaven.
Modern atheism

In the scientific field, the prevailing view for
several centuries was the materialistic
mechanicism that excluded God, or made him
unnecessary.
However, with the fall of the materialist
paradigm in the last century, materialistic scientists
have lost the main rational argument for denying
the existence of God.
Nevertheless, since the scientific revolution of
the seventeenth century until today, scientists
have maintained a very large diversity of beliefs in
God, Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Christians,
Hebrews, Islamic, Hindu, Stoic, panpsychist,
skeptical, atheist, deists, etc.
The God of scientists

People, who have purely humanistic,
agnostic, materialistic, or naturalistic visions
of the world, in fact also share the concepts
of universal love and a universal moral order.
The difference lies simply in the fact that
the secular humanists or agnostics consider
that this valuable universal love and solidarity
towards the human race has a purely human
origin, and that the necessary universal moral
order that should govern society must be the
fruit of human reason or universal consensus.
Whereas Darwinian materialists
and naturalists often accept these
two concepts for purely pragmatic
reasons.
That is to say, they think that it is
something beneficial to humanity,
even though their ultimate beliefs
induce them to think that the
universe has no meaning, that they
are here by pure chance, and that in
nature there is no moral order
except the struggle for survival.
Universal love and universal moral order for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons

PRINCIPLE OF DIGNITY AND EQUALITY

Each and every human being, regardless of gender,
race, class or social status, possesses the same special
dignity, conferred by God or nature, which
distinguishes them from the rest of the creatures, and
bearers of the same sacred, unique, cosmic and
eternal value, which is innate and intrinsic to its
human condition. And, therefore, they are essentially
equal and deserve the same consideration and high
respect.

 The special dignity and the intrinsic
and innate value of each person
 The unique, unrepeatable and
irreplaceable value of each human
individual
 Cosmic value of the human being as
the ultimate goal, center and
microcosm of the universe
 Eternal value of human beings for
having an immortal soul
 Equality in dignity and value of men
and women
 Masculinity and femininity, and the
differences between men and
women
 The essential equality of all human
beings
 Equality of basic rights, equality
before the law and equal
opportunities

As we have just explained in the previous principle, we have
defended the existence of an intelligent first cause, both material
and mental, and a cosmic project behind the evolution of the
universe.
This is an essential assumption to be able to speak of human
value or dignity, since if the human being is made with a purpose
or configured for an end, then it is possible to affirm that he has an
intrinsic, objective and innate value by the simple fact of being a
man.
But in the case that human beings were a casual product of a
series of explosions or fortuitous accidents, as many scientists
believe, it would not be possible to hold that the human being has
an intrinsic value by his mere human condition, but only a type of
conventional, utilitarian and variable value that we could grant
each other through pacts of convenience.
The special dignity and the intrinsic and innate value of each person

The special dignity and intrinsic value that distinguishes
human beings from the rest of the creatures and objects,
from a scientific point of view, can be recognized due to the
fact that —despite sharing a biological nature very similar to
the rest of the living beings— humans stand out for their
ability to perform mental processes of a level far superior to
them (ability to conceptualize, infer general laws, make a
speech, etc.) and for possessing a higher degree of self-
awareness (ability to reflect on ourselves).
And also because humans have the highest degree of
autonomy, freedom and creativity to pursue their own goals
and transform their environment.
Beings with capacity to perform mental processes of higher level and with
higher degree of self-awareness

The intrinsic value and human dignity,
from a purely rationalist or humanistic
philosophical perspective, is recognized by
the fact that every human being has a
common human nature in which reason
stands out, which enables us to have, unlike
animals, the ability to speak and dialogue
with other human beings, and also to be
endowed with freedom and responsibility to
develop our own character and direct our
lives.
Beings with capacity for speech, dialogue, freedom and responsibility

From the religious point of view, all religions
share the belief that all human beings possess a
special dignity and a sacred or divine value.
According to biblical tradition, this sacred value
derives from the fact that they were created as
sons and daughters of God in His image and
likeness; and according to other traditions, for
being the bearers of a logos or soul that is a part or
spark of the same and common Logos,Tao or
Absolute Spirit, which is the Ultimate Reality or
the Cosmic Principle that governs the universe.
For all these reasons, we have always
sensed that each human being has a
special dignity and a great intrinsic
value as an individual, and not only as a
member of the human species.
This belief in the special dignity of
human beings is the foundation of the
concepts of equality and human
freedom, as well as of the current
defense of human rights.
The special dignity and sacred value of people from religious perspective

Something in which scientific, philosophical and
religious tradition coincide is in recognizing that
human beings possess a unique value, that is, a
unique and unrepeatable individuality.
Despite sharing a common biological and psychic
nature, each human individual has unique
characteristics that differentiate him from the rest
of the individuals, both in his physiological structure
or external appearance as in his character qualities
or innate talents, which gives him an extraordinary
value.
Humans could resemble unique, unrepeatable
and irreplaceable pieces of great machinery, which
have a value equivalent to the whole, because
without these unique pieces the machinery would
not function properly or be complete.
From the religious perspective, as stated in
the Divine Principle, it could be said that each
human person was created by God with a
unique, unrepeatable and irreplaceable
personality in order to be able to love him in a
unique, personal and exclusive way, in the
same way that parents feel a unique joy in
loving each of their sons and daughters, who
are for them unique, unrepeatable and
irreplaceable treasures that are priceless.
Divine Principle, Part I, Chap.VII, Sec. I.
The unique, unrepeatable and irreplaceable value of each human individual

Although everyone has eyes, nose and mouth,
the different size, color, arrangement and relative
proportion between these same elements make the
face of each individual unique.
Likewise, although we all possess the same
mental capacities, basic desires and creativity, there
are differences of temperaments and talents that
makes each one of us possess a unique personality.
For example, one can see that there are more
sensitive and emotional people gifted with artistic
talents; others more intellectual with scientific
concerns; and other more willful ones with an
inclination towards practical activities.
Thus, each individual has a physical constitution,
semblance, temperament, talents and personality
unique and unrepeatable.
In addition to sharing a largely homogeneous
nature, each individual human being has
peculiar and unique characteristics. Out of the
billions of people on earth, you cannot find two
people exactly identical.

There are marked differences between
humans and animals.We have been
endowed with a great autonomy, freedom
and responsibility to develop our own
potential in a creative and unique way.
On the other hand, animals —unlike
humans— lack that potential and ability to
model their own personality, because they
are controlled by rigid and repetitive innate
instincts.Thus, its value lies more in the
value of each species as a whole than in its
individual members.
Differences between humans and other creatures

However, higher animals also show certain
unique individual characteristics, although to
a lesser extent than human individuals do.
As one descends on the scale of living
beings, these unique individual
characteristics fade to be almost confused
with the unique characteristics of the
species.
In the mineral world, the unique individual
characteristics of the materials are already
exactly identical to the characteristics of the
simple chemical elements that make up that
material, without any individualization.
Thus, for example, a piece of pure gold is
exactly like any other piece.

Admirable
Chameleon
Unlike animals, the
human being is configured
so that he can mold himself
—in a free and responsible
way— developing his
potential innate talents.
Man is like a chameleon, a
rough diamond that has the
responsibility of carving or
perfecting himself in order
to create a unique work of
art, as Pico Della Mirandola
says in his famous Oration
on the Dignity of Man.
«I have not given you, ohAdam, a definite seat or a special
appearance, or any function of your own.The seat or the
appearance or the function which you want, you may have and
keep by your own desire and your own counsel.The other creatures
have a defined nature which is fixed within limits prescribed by me.
You, unhampered, may determine your own limits according to
your own will, into whose power I have placed you. I have set you in
the center of the world; from there you can better see whatever is
in the world.
I have made you neither heavenly nor terrestrial, neither mortal
nor immortal, in order that, like a free and sovereign artificer, you
can fashion your own form out of your own substance.You can
degenerate to the lower orders of the brutes; you can, according to
your own will, recreate yourself in those higher creatures which are
divine. (...)Who will not admire our chameleon? Or rather, who will
admire anything more?»
Pico Della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man,The Renaissance Philosophy of
Man, University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 224-225.

This unique personality of each individual,
whose genetic basis lies in the unique
character of their DNA is not lost despite the
influence of the environmental
circumstances.
During a person's growth period, it is
evident that the climate and the place where
he lives, the food he eats and other
environmental circumstances influence his
physical constitution, but what the
environment cannot do is to convert one
person to another.
People are easily recognizable by their
unique facial expression in spite of the
changes produced by the passage of time or
diseases.
Environmental conditions may in the long run produce
deeper transformations, such as microevolution
phenomena, or biological mechanisms of adaptation to
the environment, which were the ones that gave rise to
the differences between human races. But even these
changes have not altered the unique characteristics of the
human species nor those of its individuals.
That is why it is absurd to speak —as Social Darwinists
and Nazi did— of higher and more evolved races and less
developed races, in order to justify wars and colonialism
by saying that these are processes of natural selection or
struggle for the survival of the fittest.
All persons of any color of skin or race possess an
equivalent human nature and an equally valuable unique
individuality.
DNA and the influence of environmental circumstances

In the Enlightenment, the idea that education
largely conformed the character and way of being
of people became very popular.
It is evident that the family and social
circumstances, the cultural environment of the
time in which one lives, the studies and the
education received, the work that is performed and
the personal experiences influence the formation
of the character or the personality of people.
However, they do not to the point of modifying
that unique congenital individuality. In addition, we
must take into account that the human being has
sufficient autonomy and creativity to not let
oneself be influenced by others, make their own
decisions and even change their social
circumstances.
This type of Enlightened ideas, carried to
an extreme, made believe communist
dictators like Stalin that people were
completely conditioned by the social system,
and that they could be eliminated if they
refused to cooperate with the revolution,
with the same tranquility that cattle afflicted
with an infectious disease is sacrificed.
Also, current Darwinian biologists strive to
homologate us with animals —denying the
value of our unique individuality and special
dignity— ignoring or minimizing the great
differences that exist between the other
species and ours. All this stops to show that
we come from the monkeys.With them, we
run the risk of becoming guinea pigs in their
hands.
The influence of education and social circumstances

With regard to the cosmic value of human
beings, even famous Darwinian biologists, such
as Dobzhansky, begin by recognizing that
«evolution as a whole undoubtedly had a general
direction, from simple to complex, from
dependence to relative independence from the
environment, to an ever-increasing autonomy of
the individuals, (...) and finally an increasing of
the consciousness», and end up saying
something as inconsistent with their Darwinian
beliefs as that «evolution resembles an artistic
creation. His masterpiece is man.»
T. Dobzhansky, «El azar y la creatividad en la evolución», en
Estudios sobre la filosofía de la biología, F. J. Ayala yT.
Dobzhansky, Ariel, Barcelona, 1983, pp. 397, 428.
In fact, in modern science the so-called
Anthropic Principle has become very
popular, which goes to say that there are
many numerical coincidences in distances,
measures of forces, universal constants, etc.,
which seem to indicate that the universe was
already preconfigured in advance so that the
human being could appear.
Thus, the value of man is greatly
enhanced, especially when compared to the
role that the old mechanistic science had
assigned to him as the insignificant speck of
dust on a tiny planet in the midst of the
immensity of the universe.
Cosmic value of the human being as the ultimate goal, center and
microcosm of the universe

The centrality of human beings
Although we have a microscopic size
when we compare with the dimensions of
galaxies, and although we inhabit a humble
planet of one of the innumerable galaxies of
the universe, we can consider ourselves as
the ultimate fruit of the evolution of the
universe.
This is because we are the organized
systems of maximum complexity, far
superior to the complexity of the galactic
systems, and with a level of mental
processes that qualifies us to occupy that
central position as the “observers” that has
the capacity to know, to study and to value
the universe as a whole.This is very well
expressed in the following quote from the
Divine Principle:
«If there were no people to appreciate the universe,
then it could be likened to a museum without any
visitors.The articles on display in a museum attain
their true value and are cherished as historical relics
only when there are people who appreciate, love and
take delight in them.
Their relationship with human beings gives value to
their existence. If there were no one to appreciate
them, then what meaning would their existence have?
The same holds true for the universe, whose lords are
human beings. (…)
The diverse things in creation enter into mutual
relationships with a common purpose when human
beings discover the source and nature of matter, and
when they identify and classify plants and animals of
the water, land and air, and all the stars in the sky.»
Divine Principle, Part I, Chap. I, Sec. II, 3.4.

In fact, now the classical ancient view of man as the
ultimate goal, center and microcosm of the universe is
being re-established.This is because, although man
does not live —as was previously believed— in the
center of the universe, there is indications that he is
the center because of his complexity, for including
within him all lower strata and because it seems that
the universe was constituted as it is so that those who
could know and appreciate the universe could appear
and live in it.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to attribute a
cosmic and sacred value to every human being, as
many philosophers intuitively defended from the
earliest antiquity, as is clear from the following
quotations:
The metaphor of man as the ultimate goal, center and microcosm of the universe

Each man is an image of God in miniature.
Manilio 4, 895
For this reason man is called microcosm,
because there is in him a similarity to the
whole universe.
While his body is on the scale of the bodily
world, his soul is in the rank of the spiritual
world.
In this sense, philosophers, defining
philosophy, said that philosophy is the
knowledge of man, of his soul, since starting
from his own knowledge man knows the
totality (of the existing).
Ibn Saddiq, Microcosm
Man is a world in miniature.
Democritus, Frag. 34
Man is a sacred thing for man.
Seneca, Epistles 95, 33
Man is the intermediary of all
creatures, related to the superiors, king
of the inferiors, by the insight of his
senses, by the inquisitive penetration of
his reason, by the light of his intelligence,
interpreter of nature, intersection of the
stable eternity with the flowing time, and
dome of the world.
Pico Della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of
Man
Man as the ultimate goal, center and microcosm of the universe

In the realm of the ends, everything has
a price or a dignity.
That which has price can be replaced by
something equivalent; on the other hand,
that which is above all price [the human
being] and, therefore, does not admit
anything equivalent, that has a dignity.
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
In what a wonderful way man has been
created and configured, when one
penetrates into his true being ... and in his
greatness —think about this— that there is
nothing in heaven or on earth that is not
found in man.
Paracelsus, EssentialTexts
An individual human being is more precious
than the universe. Each person’s value is
infinite, because he or she is created as God’s
partner of love.
Sun Myung Moon
A human being is a small universe, the
microcosm of the great universe of God’s
creation. God, the Source of the great universe,
is also the source of our energy.
As small individual universes, each of us
stands in the presence of the great universe and
receives its energy into our heart.Thus, we are
connected to a source of unending power, and
as its counterpart we are endowed with cosmic
value.
Sun Myung Moon
Man as the ultimate goal, center and microcosm of the universe

From the point of view of the diverse religious
traditions, the human being has always been
valued as the center of the universe,
microcosms, lord of creation, vicar of God on
earth or harmonizer of Heaven and Earth.
In addition, most of them also affirm that the
human soul is immortal, which emphasizes even
more the special dignity of being human.
Kant postulated the immortality of the human
soul for ethical reasons, because he thought that
the goal of perfection needs eternity to be
fulfilled, and because the righteous should be
rewarded in the afterlife with happiness that he
does not experience on earth.
These are, in essence, the very reasons why
religions have postulated eternal life. Eternal
life is necessary for a second chance to be
redeemed and for justice to be done.
If bad people are not punished, and if good
people who have suffered because of them are
not vindicated in the afterlife, the world would
be completely unfair.
Eternal value of human beings for having an immortal soul

«If God is an eternal, absolute being,
the object partner He can love should
also live eternally.
That is why people have longed for an
eternal life since time immemorial.
Therefore, God the Absolute Being,
cannot help but look for a loving son and
daughter who possess the value of
eternal life.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-
UWC, 39:342, (January 16, 1971).
The logic of love and eternity
Apart from these ethical reasons, belief
in eternity is based on the logic of love.
If two people love each other deeply
they want to live for eternity together.
If human beings have a special dignity
because they are sons and daughters
loved by God with a unique and
irreplaceable personality, they must also
exist eternally.
This gives human beings eternal value,
as Sun Myung Moon maintains in the
following quote:

Equality in dignity and value of men and women
Men and women, as persons and as
members of the two halves that make up
humanity, share the same special dignity
and the same intrinsic, sacred, unique,
cosmic and eternal value that each person
possesses as a member of the great
human family.

All of us, men and women, have a common nature that is
basically homogeneous and consists of a mental and a
corporal aspect. As far as the corporal aspect is concerned,
we all have the same organs and limbs, that is, eyes, nose,
mouth, ears, head, trunk, hands and legs, and the same
physical needs, such as breathing and eating food. In the
mental aspect we also possess the same capacities to think,
feel and make decisions, as well as the same basic desires to
know, appreciate beauty and act correctly, and to have love
relationships with our loved ones.
In other words, we all have the same level of mental
processes.These mental processes are precisely those that
allow us to have a wide margin of autonomy or freedom, and
a great inventiveness or creativity, which is expressed in the
ability to communicate through an articulated language and
in all cultural, technical, scientific, artistic and normative
productions and creations.
The same common mental and material nature

The differentiation in men and women in humanity
Human beings, like most living
beings, are differentiated in men and
women, but this differentiation is not
basic or fundamental, because
―despite the biological and
psychological differences between
them― both men and women have
exactly the same mental capacities,
autonomy, creativity, desires,
aspirations and basic physical needs.
That is why men and women share the
same dignity and value as human
beings.

In nature all beings and things appear in
the form of complementary pairs of parts,
or opposing poles: men and women, male
and female animals, stamen and pistil in
plants, cation and anion in molecules, and
proton and electron in the atoms.
The dynamic interaction between these
couples or parts, and opposite poles are
the source of generating forces that
produce the existence, development,
multiplication, and even give meaning to
life.
Human life is generated from the union
of a man and a woman.The love between
men and women gives meaning to their
lives, and their union becomes the center
of the family and lineage.
The animals are reproduced by the
union of males and females, and the plants
by the interaction between the stamen
and the pistil.The minerals, formed by
molecules and atoms, exist by the
interaction between the cation and the
anion, and the protons and electrons.
In the universe all beings and things exist in the form of pairs of masculine and
feminine entities, and opposite poles

Particles Positive Negative
Molecules Cation Anion
Atoms Proton Electron
Plants Stamen Pistil
Animals Male Female
Human beings Man Woman

The first cause or God must contain the essence of the masculine and feminine facets,
or Yang and Yin, which are manifested in all beings and things of the universe
Faced with the evidence of the universal
presence of complementary pairs of beings and
things masculine and feminine, orYang andYin,
which are crucial for their existence and
multiplication, the UnificationThought reasons as
follows:
If in all beings and things of the universe there
are masculine and feminine facets, orYang and
Yin, and since the effect must reflect the nature of
its cause ―like the work reflects its creator― the
first cause or God must also contain the essence
of the masculine facets, orYang, and the feminine
facets, orYin, and be the origin of both aspects. Masculine and feminine facets
Yang and Yin
The first cause or God

Masculinity and femininity, and the differences between men and women
Unlike traditional Chinese philosophy which tend to
personify the concepts ofYang andYin qualifying, for
example, man asYang and woman asYin, in the
UnificationThought Yang andYin are secondary attributes
or qualities present, to a greater or lesser degree, in the
corporal and mental aspects of both man and woman,
and other beings and things.
Thus, the masculinity and femininity that characterize
men and women cannot be directly identified with the
Yang andYin aspects of mind and body (clarity/obscurity,
lucidity/vagueness, joy/sadness, active/passive,
strong/weak, hard/soft, concave/convex, etc.). And much
less use these opposite qualities to justify a difference in
value or dignity of man and woman, as occurs in ancient
philosophies and cultures.
Mind
Body
Yang
Yin
Yang
Yin

How, then, can the masculine character or masculinity and the feminine character or
femininity be defined in relation to theYang andYin facets?
At the biological or corporal level, despite a
quite homogeneous common biological
constitution, there are obvious differences
between men and women, such as chromosomal
differences, the hormones and, above all, the
sexual organs, apart from other aspects of the
female body adequate to her role of
motherhood and childrearing.
Therefore, it can be said that, although there
areYang andYin attributes in both man’s body
and woman’s body, there is a relatively higher
proportion ofYin attributes in the woman's
body, and ofYang attributes in the man's body.
Corporal aspects

In the mental aspect, both men and women have the
same intellectual, emotional and volitional capacities, as
well as the same basic desires and aspirations to acquire
knowledge, appreciate beauty and act well, and have love
relationships with their loved ones. And, of course, both
have the same dignity and value as human beings.
However, there are certain qualitative differences with
respect to theYang/Yin facets of their mental faculties.
To give some examples, generally the masculine intellect
focuses on questions of general scope, or in synthesizing all
the time more universal principles, and the feminine
intellect is oriented more in analyzing the concrete details
and the circumstances. In addition, men have more
capacity for visual-spatial processing and skill with number
management, and women have more capacity in verbal
processing and language skills.
Mental aspects

Therefore, it could be said that feminine
character or femininity is a differentiated
and qualified expression of theYang/Yin
facets of human mind, with a certainYin
stamp. And masculine character or
masculinity is another differentiated and
qualified expression of the sameYang/Yin
facets of human mind, with a certainYang
mark.
Both characters, masculine and
feminine, are opposite and at the same
time complementary, which makes men
and women feel a great attraction and
mutual fascination, and they can help and
support each other.
As for emotions, women have greater
emotional empathy and ability to express
her feelings of joy and sadness, laughter and
crying, while man internalizes more his
emotions.There is also a qualitative
difference between maternal love, more
complacent and unconditional towards her
children, and parental love, more
demanding and conditioned by the
fulfillment of his expectations.
Regarding the volitional aspects, man
shows a more aggressive, impulsive and
independent will, and woman shows a
greater delicacy, reflection and dependence
in her decisions.

However, in the same way that there areYang/Yin
facets within man and woman, in both certain masculine
and feminine aspects also coexist. Carl Jung affirmed that
within the psyche of man there are feminine qualities in a
latent state (animus), and within the soul of the woman
there is a masculine part in a latent state (anima).
Apart from the generic considerations about masculine
and feminine character, it can be observed that there are
men with a marked masculine character, and others
more sensitive and feminine.There are also delicate and
feminine women, and others stronger or manly.The
same can be said about the masculine and feminine traits
of the mind. All men and women have the capacity to
develop the traits that are the strengths of the opposite
sex. For this reason there are numerous examples of
women who have excelled in all fields of science, arts,
religion, economics and politics.
Hipatia
Helen Keller Marie Curie
Catherine the Great
Joan
of
Arc
Ada Lovelace

The UnificationThought, when affirming that the
masculine and feminine aspects that are manifested
in the universe must come from the first cause or
God, and that thereforeGod has to gather in Himself
the essence of masculinity and femininity, grants to
women, as the embodiment of the essence of the
divine femininity, an extraordinary value, just as it is
for man, which embodies the essence of the divine
masculinity. It is as if the man and the woman were
the reflection of the two faces of God.
In most religions, the masculine facet of God has
always been highlighted, relegating or ignoring His
feminine facet. However, in Genesis 1:27 it is said:
«God created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created
them» implying that man and woman together
reflect the complete image of God.
Sun Myung Moon, in many of his talks,
emphasizes the sacred value of man and woman,
affirming that they are the masterpieces of
creation. Man is made for the sake of woman, and
woman for the sake of man.They are like two
pieces that fit perfectly one into another, as we can
see by their sexual organs, so that isolated can be
said to be incomplete.
Man has been created to love, serve and make
woman happy, and woman has been created to
love, serve and make man happy.Thus, the union
of man and woman through deep true love has a
great sacred and cosmic significance and a crucial
importance, not only for the happiness of the
family, but to solve many of the problems that
affect humanity and achieve world peace.
Man and woman, the two faces of God

«Why do you have to marry? It is because God exists with dual
characteristics [masculinity and femininity]. A man and a woman each
reflect one of these aspects of divinity. Therefore, they must come
together and unite to manifest the fullness of God’s image. That is why
marriage is the essential condition for your complete growth in the ideal of
human love.
Marriage blends men and women into the semblance of the divine unity,
so that human beings might fully become the image of God. God created
human beings and all things for the purpose of consummating His love.
Where do you consummate that love? It is while you live on earth, in the
relationship between husband and wife, in the family. That is why your
wedding day is the most joyful day in your lives.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 123:217, (January 2, 1983).
Sun Myung Moon highlights in this quote the importance of the union of man and
woman to manifest the complete image of God and consummate love.

Today, the discrimination and historical
domination suffered by women has been largely
reversed thanks to the movement for equal rights
between men and women that emerged at the
beginning of the last century.
However, there are still many forms of
discrimination and degradation of women, such as
pornography, prostitution and sexual slavery, in
which women and girls are used as sexual
commodities, as well as rape and sexual abuse and
domestic male violence.
Although legal measures and protection of
victims are absolutely necessary, only with them
these problems cannot be solved at the root.
Only conjugal love, not gender confrontation
or hatred can solve these problems and make
men and women really equal.
If the husband loves, serves and venerates his
wife, he will appreciate and respect equally the
rest of the women of the world.And if the wife
loves, serves and venerates her husband, she will
appreciate and respect the rest of the men
equally
This is because in a love relationship, in which
both parties wish to serve other more be served,
neither of the two feel slaves or dominated by the
other party, but quite the opposite.
Only conjugal love, not gender confrontation or hatred, can make men and women
really equal

«How are you going to assure equal rights? By force? External laws?
Emotional persuasion? It is through love. It is through love that women
can be equal to men. Through love, a mother can be equal to her son,
even though he may be the president of a nation. Where there is love,
everything can be equal. In this sense, we have to understand that the
central core of equality lies in men and women who hope for a peaceful
family centered on true love.
A husband wants to return to his wife’s bosom and a wife wants to
return to her husband’s bosom and become one. There, nothing is high
or low. They are indeed experiencing equality. Can there be equality in
any other place? Equal rights for men and women exist only in a
peaceful family [united by true love].»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 129:51-52, (October 1,
1983).
Sun Myung Moon explains that true equality of rights between men and women can
only be achieved in peaceful families united by true love.

As for the essential equality of all human beings, this is a
logical consequence of the special dignity that each human
being has.
The Stoics —assuming that all men participate in the same
Universal Logos— defended human equality and
condemned slavery.
Christians, believing that all men and women are sons and
daughters of God, advocated for a universal human
fraternity.
Even before, Buddha and the Jains tried to abolish the
Hindu caste system, and Confucius tried to universalize
education and access to public office in China.
As can be seen in the quotes that follow, in virtually all
cultures voices that advocated for human equality emerged.
The essential equality of all human beings

To those who descend from
distinguished parents we respect
and honor them; On the other
hand, those who are not of
distinguished class do not respect
or honor them.
Therein we behave each other
as barbarians, since by nature we
have been created equal in all
aspects, thus barbarians as
Hellenes.
Antiphon of Athens
Divinity has created equal to all
men; Nature has made no one slave.
Alcidamas of Elaea
The world of heart is a world
where everyone is equal.
The Kingdom of Heaven, which is
the expansion of one family, is the
world of brotherhood.
Sun Myung Moon

Have we not all one father? Has
not one God created us?
Malachi 2.10
So what of all these titles,
names, and races?They are mere
worldly conventions.
Sutta Nipata 648
I look upon all creatures equally;
none are less dear to me and none
more dear.
Bhagavad Gita IX, 29
Know all human beings to be
repositories of Divine Light; Stop not to
inquire about their caste; In the hereafter
there are no castes.
Adi Granth: Asa, M.1
Master said:Transmit the culture to
everyone, without distinction of races or
categories.
Confucius, Hia-LunV.38
Their Lord answered them, saying, "I
will never demean the work of any of you,
whether man or woman! Because you
descend from one another.”
Koran 3.195

Equality was one of the great revolutionary
concepts that raised the emerging bourgeois
class against the aristocrats and kings of the Old
Regime.
In the first place, the basic equality in value,
dignity and natural rights of each human being
was affirmed, as opposed to the old custom of
granting dignity and special privileges to certain
people by their lineage, class or social condition,
while others of humbler origin were treated in
an inhuman way, relegating them to servitude.
They thus tried to put into practice the old
Stoic and Christian ideals of the ecumene or
universal fraternity.
Secondly, the equality of all citizens before a
single law was affirmed, against the medieval
tradition in which people belonging to certain
classes or social estates were tried in different
courts.
They tried, in this way, to revive the old Jewish
and Stoic beliefs in the existence of the same Law
or Logos common to all mankind.
Third, against the monopoly of public offices,
land and wealth by the aristocracy, they
advocated equal opportunity, stating that people
should be rewarded according to their merits or
contributions to society.
Equality of basic rights, equality before the law and equal opportunities

The idea of the distribution of public offices and riches
according to merit was revolutionary at that time, in the
sense that it denied that arbitrary assignments of kings or
inherited titles were the criteria for distributing public
offices and wealth.
The classical liberals understood that the free election of
the political representatives and the free market would
guarantee the equal opportunity necessary for their "fair
meritocracy.“
However, it is obvious that the natural inequalities of
talents and abilities, and the social inequalities generated
by education and inherited fortunes, make it possible for
privileged people to emerge from a more advantageous
initial position than other people, which makes equality of
opportunities purely formal and non-existent in practice.
Therefore, with the passage of time
and under the pressure of new
revolutionaries who denounced the
miseries of the working class and
advocated for an egalitarian social
justice that distributed wealth
according to the basic needs of
people, in the end the liberals had no
choice but to accept paternalistic
interventions by the State, especially
in the field of public health, education
and certain social welfare measures
that could generate a greater equality
of opportunity.
Social inequalities and the welfare state

PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY
AND CREATIVITY

PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY
AND CREATIVITY
Each and every human being, without
distinction of genre or race, is configured to
have the highest degree of freedom,
responsibility and creativity among all
creatures, at the same time that is subject —
as a biological organism similar to other
living things— to the same deterministic
laws of nature.

Following the latest advances in
science, especially quantum physics,
there is a general consensus about the
fundamental indeterminacy of nature,
which refutes the old mechanistic image
of a universe-clock governed by
deterministic natural laws that left no
margin of freedom, nor even for man.
It can be concluded that the most
reasonable supposition is to affirm the
character at the same time deterministic
and indeterministic of the universe.
Intentionality, autonomy and creativity and
the mechanisms governed by laws are two
complementary aspects inherent to all levels of
nature that always go together, just as the same
way that mental and material aspects are
complementary and inseparable from one
another.
The only distinction is a difference of degree,
since at the lower levels there are more legal and
mechanical than intentional elements, and in the
higher levels intentionality, autonomy and
creativity are predominant over the mechanical
aspects.
The character, at the same time, deterministic (rational capacity, intentionality,
autonomy, freedom, creativity) and indeterminist (mechanisms governed by laws)
of the universe

Rational Capacity
Intentionality, Freedom
Autonomy and Creativity
Laws
Mechanisms
Rational Capacity
Intentionality
Laws
Mechanisms
Rational Capacity
Intentionality
Laws
Mechanisms
Autorregula-ción
(razón)
Laws
Mechanisms
Self-Regulation
Human beings
Animals
Vegetables
Minerals
RATIONAL CAPACITY LAWS
INTENTIONALITY MECHANISMS
AUTONOMY AND CREATIVITY
INDETERMINISM DETERMINISM
Staggered distribution of rational capacity, intentionality, autonomy and
creativity (indeterminism) and mechanisms governed by laws (determinism) in
the different levels of reality

It can be seen that the mineral world
composed of particles, atoms and molecules is
governed by physical fields that have a minimum
of rational capacity or intentionality and a
maximum of laws.
Then, on the base of the mineral world, living
beings governed by biological life-fields
appeared with ever-higher intentional ability
elements as well as legal and mechanical
elements.
Therefore, living beings have an ability to
perform more and more intentional mental
processes.This allows them to have an
increasingly high autonomy and creativity,
despite being at the same time mechanisms
governed by laws.
Until reaching the human beings, who are the
beings with greater rational capacity, which allows
them to process information in a more complex way,
and to have more autonomy and creativity than the
rest of the animated beings, in spite of being also at
the same time mechanisms governed by laws.
This assumption is the only one that allows us to
speak of freedom united with a moral responsibility
in the case of human beings, who have the widest
margin of autonomy and creativity.
Given that if you believe in a completely
deterministic nature it would be absurd to speak of
freedom or moral responsibility.And, if nature were
governed by chance, one could speak of freedom but
not of moral responsibility.
Staggered distribution of rational capacity and mechanisms governed by laws

Freedom and Laws
Many people have the
misconception that laws are opposed
to freedom. It's just the opposite.
Laws are precisely those that
guarantee freedom.
UnificationThought holds this
position on the basis that
intentionality and autonomy or
freedom, on the one hand, and
mechanisms governed by laws, on the
other, are present to a greater or
lesser extent in the constitution of all
beings and things in the universe, As
Sung Hun Lee explains in the following
quote:
«Thus, freedom and necessity, purposefulness and
mechanicalness operate in an integrated fashion in the
existence and movement of all things.
In other words, freedom functions in connection with
necessity, and purposefulness operates together with
mechanicalness.
Until now, the relationship between freedom and
necessity has often been understood as one of antinomy:
freedom and necessity were regarded as opposite concepts
in the same way that liberty and restraint might be
understood to be in tension.
In UnificationThought, however, reason and law in Logos
are seen not as being in a relationship of antinomy, but of
unity.»
Sung Hun Lee, New Essentials of UnificationThought, UTI, Korea, 2006,
pag. 29.

PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY AND CREATIVITY
1) Freedom, autonomy and creativity are not
absolute or unrestricted, but can only exist
within a natural and moral legal order
2) Freedom and creativity implies being
responsible for oneself and for others
3) When people's freedom is constrained, they
are prevented from being responsible
4) An irresponsible and transgressive freedom
causes self-destruction

Neither freedom (autonomy) nor human
creativity are unrestricted and absolute,
since the exercise of these capacities only
allow human beings to have wide margin for
maneuver, but always within a natural and
moral legal order.
Thus, freedom, creativity, and respect for a
legal and moral order are elements that
always go together.
1) Freedom, autonomy and creativity are not absolute or
unrestricted, but can only exist within a natural and moral
legal order

It is just as absurd to suppose that we are
completely conditioned by deterministic
laws like to think that we have a complete
freedom to do everything we want, without
being bound by any law or subject to any
responsibility.
In fact, freedom, creativity, legal and
moral order, and responsibility are
inseparable elements that cannot be
maintained without each other.
To have autonomy means to have a
margin of maneuver or choice between
several possibilities. For example, a car is a
machine made to fulfill a certain purpose,
which is to serve us as a means of transport.
The car does not have complete freedom of
movement, but it can only move forward, backward,
turn left and right. Nor can fly or float in the water,
because it was not designed and constructed for that,
and like any mechanism operates according to
mechanical laws.
No driver complains about those laws. He does not
forget to check the engine, nor does he intend to drive
on a stony ground, because he knows that his car will
break down and stop working if he ignores the
mechanical laws.
Following with our analogy, we humans have a certain
freedom of choice or room for maneuver, but always
within limits, because our body —like a car— is a
mechanism that works according to natural laws.
To have autonomy means to have a margin of maneuver or choice

No one feels forced or complains
about having to breathe, or dares to
defy the law of gravity without having
a parachute.
On the contrary, we try to know
how our body works and respect its
laws to enjoy better health and
therefore maximum freedom of
movement.
In our relations with other human
beings, we also have a wide margin of
choice and creativity, but we are also
subject to certain laws, which in that
case are called moral or ethical laws.
The difference between planets, animals and men
consists of the following:
The interrelationships between the planets are
completely determined by mechanical laws and function
as a clock.
The interrelationships between animals —although they
have a certain autonomy and creativity of their own— are
guided by strong innate instincts.
Instead, human beings —who have the highest degree
of autonomy and creativity— are configured to respect the
moral laws that regulate human relationships by their own
free will, in a responsible and creative way, and not being
forced by others.
We are subject to natural laws and moral laws that we must respect
on a voluntary basis

Because we are made to respect
natural and moral laws in a voluntary
way, we can even violate them
consciously, causing us damage,
something very rare in the animal world.
Moral laws are meant to guarantee
the stability and continuity of human
relationships, or to protect them from
interference from others. A relationship
is a flow of giving and receiving, that is, a
reciprocal exchange of goods, services,
emotions and knowledge.
If this flow each time more is increased creates
greater unity and harmony among people, and
as a result, people feel more happy being
together.
If, on the contrary, a husband lies or deceives
his wife, it will arises mistrust that damages or
paralyzes the flow of giving and receiving, which
in the end will cause separation and suffering.
Thus, the moral law has the function of
enabling and guaranteeing the free flow or
exchange of goods and affections between
people.
Moral laws are meant to guarantee the stability of human relationships

Freedom and creativity are the capacities that
make it possible for individuals to fulfill the
ends of their lives, that is, to become
responsible for themselves —preserving their
existence and cultivating their own and
unique talents and capacities— and also to be
responsible for others —contributing in a
voluntary and creative way to the well-being
and happiness of their family, community,
nation and world.
2) Freedom and creativity implies being responsible for oneself
and for others

Just as there is no freedom without
law, there is also no freedom without
responsibility.
For example, to use freedom only to
demand individual rights and to seek
exclusively individual self-satisfaction,
ignoring the duties towards one's family,
community or nation, is an irresponsible
behavior that not only destroys family
relationships and community ties but also
eventually uproots and damages own
individuals.
There is no freedom without responsibility
Following with the analogy of the car,
one could say that the function or
responsibility of a car is to fulfill the
purpose for which it has been made or
the aim of its existence.
Similarly, the human being has
freedom to be responsible for fulfilling
both the individual purpose of
maintaining individual existence and
cultivating himself, and also the purpose
of using, in a free and creative way, the
own talents to serve the family,
community, nation or world.

Freedom, then, rather than an end in itself,
is an instrumental value, which is a means for
the fulfillment of the ends of our life in order to
attain fulfillment or full happiness.
For example, it is entirely legitimate for
individuals to freely pursue their own interests,
whether they are studies, work or material
well-being, provided that it is not overlooked
that the primary purpose or primary
responsibility is to use the talents, work or own
resources to do things that benefit broader
social groups.
Freedom is not an end in itself, but is an instrument to fulfill the goals in life and
achieve full happiness

Adult individuals should not be treated as
eternal children, animals or machines
keeping them subject to a forced and
continuous external coercion that restricts
their freedom and creativity, thus
preventing them from being responsible for
themselves and others, fulfill the ends of
their life, and enhance their value as a
person.
3) When people's freedom is constrained, they are
prevented from being responsible

An overprotective, oppressive or
tyrannical paternalism, such as that of
the old monarchies or the most recent
totalitarian political systems, which
limits the freedom of the people,
intending that they remain in an eternal
childhood, condemning them to a
situation of servitude or dependency, or
forcing them to sacrifice themselves for
the common good, is obviously
something nefarious that prevents
human beings from being responsible
not only for maintaining themselves but
also for helping or serving others.
Many thinkers, ideologues, and
politicians who were worried about social
order and the common good —whether
they were traditional monarchists,
conservatives, Hobbesians,
authoritarians or communists— thought
that the only way to secure social order
and the common good was to limit or
suppress the freedom of individuals,
whether by force or criminal penalties.
If freedom is curtailed, responsibility is prevented

However, when the human being is
deprived of his freedom, he also loses his
dignity and value, since he cannot be
responsible for himself or for others. It is as
if he, at best, is considered a perpetual
infant, and, in the worst case, as if he is
treated like an animal.
That is to say, depriving man of his
freedom, it can be avoided, to a certain
extent, that he may harm others, but he is
also prevented from loving, helping and
benefiting others. by his own initiative,
which is what gives value to the people.
What value does one have to serve by
force others or being coerced to do so?
Freedom is fundamental for individuals
to perfect themselves and to develop
freely and creatively their unique
character, personality and talents, and
then to put them at the service of
others in a voluntary, responsible and
creative way.
If man is deprived of his freedom, he also loses his dignity and value

When people use their liberty and creativity in
an irresponsible way (failing to fulfill the ends
of their life) and in a transgressive way
(violating the legal and moral order), they will
cause self-destruction or degradation of
themselves, seriously losing or deteriorating
their own freedom and creativity.
4) An irresponsible and transgressive freedom causes self-destruction

As we said before, freedom is never
unrestricted or unlimited.
Locke himself, the father of modern
liberals, was of the accurate opinion that
freedom is only possible within a legal
order, and it is precisely the respect for
that legal order —composed, according to
Locke, by natural law and civic law— which
guarantees the exercise of freedom. Locke
did not designate the violation of that legal
order as freedom but as licentiousness or
debauchery.
Today, since the belief in natural law
has long ago fallen into academic
discredit and also due to the validity of
the dogma of moral autonomy —in the
sense that each individual can choose or
invent his own moral code— freedom is
defined simply as being able to do
everything you want except what is
prohibited by the current civic law.
Freedom is not the same as licentiousness

However, the law only prescribes respect
for the most basic rights of others and
compliance with a minimum of social duties,
so there are still many things that should not
be done even if they are not prohibited by
law.
«What does not prohibit the law, is
prohibited by the honesty», Seneca said.
There are many duties and responsibilities
towards others that should be fulfilled, but
they that are not prescribed by the law, since
these have to be fulfilled in a voluntary way.
Séneca, Troades 334, en Aurea Dicta. Dichos y proverbios del
mundo clásico, Selección de Eduard Valentí, Crítica,
Barcelona, 1987, p. 399.
In addition, due to the atomistic
and individualistic traditional liberal
view, people tend to emphasize that
all human beings should be free to
enjoy the highest individual legal
rights possible, and have the greatest
individual freedom to pursue
personal satisfaction or enrichment,
ignoring or placing in second place
duties towards parents, children or
grandparents, and towards the
community, nation or world.
"What does not prohibit the law, is prohibited by the honesty"

When individuals or groups exclusively
pursue their private enrichment or enjoyment
even at the expense of neglecting their
responsibilities to others, they conduct
themselves in a manner that, at least, it can be
described as irresponsible, if not criminal.
Thus, freedom, respect for a legal and moral
order, and duties towards others, are elements
that cannot be separated.An irresponsible and
transgressive freedom, although within the
limits of the current legality, is corrosive, self-
destructive and suicidal, both for families and
for societies as for the individuals themselves.
This is the problem that currently
occurs in modern democracies, where a
corrosive selfish individualism prevails,
which, apart from destroying family and
social ties, causes people to fall into all
kinds of compulsive and corrupt behavior
at the individual, family, social and
political levels, which are so prevalent in
all today's opulent societies.
An irresponsible freedom causes destruction

PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS

PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS
Human beings —like all other creatures and things— are not
meant to exist in isolation, but are configured to maintain
multiple physiological interactions within oneself and with the
environment, as well as to establish —in a free, responsible and
creative way— a series of stable and harmonious relationships
of reciprocal exchanges of love, affections, knowledge, goods
and services with other human beings and the rest of the
creatures of nature, which are vital for their existence and
multiplication, and to be able to experience the higher degree of
joy and shared happiness.

«What is the heavenly law of the universe? What is
the law of existence? It is giving and receiving.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 157:266, (April
10, 1967).
«When all beings in the whole universe, with subject
and object partners well adjusted to each other, are
linked to one another in harmony for a common
purpose, there is completion and perfection.
The universe is a balanced whole composed of
reciprocal relationships, large and small. Without
reciprocal relationships, nothing can exist. Anything
that ceases to relate becomes extinct.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 391:174,
(August 21, 2002).
UNIVERSALITY OF THE
RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS
Despite being a principle in
many of its aspects widely
recognized by all philosophical
and religious traditions, Sun
Myung Moon is the first one that
elevates it to a cosmic and
universal dimension.
It may be said, then, that it is
one of his great discoveries which
forms an essential part of his
philosophical thought, as
reflected in UnificationThought
and many of his lectures.

UNIVERSALITY OF THE RECIPROCAL INTERACTIONS
Give
Receive
Nothing can exist without reciprocal interaction
There can be no movement without reciprocal interactions
Multiplication without reciprocal interactions is not possible
There is no satisfaction, joy or happiness without relations of
reciprocal exchanges between human beings
Subject Object
S O S O
Within each individual entity Among different individual entities

It can be seen that the smaller entities or
units establish reciprocal relationships with
each other, forming larger units, which again
interact with each other and create new larger
units or systems, and so on to form a whole,
which is interconnected and interrelated
between all its parts.
Atoms maintain their existence through
interactions between protons and electrons. A
simple cell is kept alive through interrelations
between its nucleus and cytoplasm, and of
exchanges of elements with its environment.
Living organisms maintain their life
through relations of exchange between their
cells, tissues and organs, while exchanging
elements with the environment.
All processes of multiplication occur
through relations of exchanges between male
and female parts or beings. Plants absorb
minerals at the same time as they transform
the earth and enrich the atmosphere with
oxygen. Animals absorb oxygen while
releasing the carbon dioxide needed by
plants.
All beings and things exist and multiply through reciprocal interactions

The human being —like all living beings—
exists, moves and multiplies due to the
multiple relations of reciprocal exchanges
that are established within the body, such as
blood circulation, and with the
environment, such as inhaling or exhaling
air.
Also, families, enterprises, institutions
and societies are formed and held together
when individuals establish relations of
giving and receiving, reciprocal exchanges
of love, affections, knowledge, goods and
services.
Human beings also exist, multiply and form families and societies through
reciprocal interactions or giving and receiving relationships
Thus, it can be concluded that the
simplest, basic and fundamental law
of the universe is that all beings and
things are made to maintain relations
of reciprocal exchanges of elements.

Many scientists or philosophers recognize the
importance of reciprocal relationships among all
things but ignore or deny that there is a
common purpose behind them.
However, a relationship of reciprocal
exchanges between various parties or entities
cannot be established or maintained if there is
no prior common purpose.
No one enters into a relationship of exchange
with others if they do not have the hope of
acquiring through that relationship a superior
status, a greater value or some mutual benefit.
A common purpose that guarantees
at least a benefit for both parties is a
prerequisite for all types of
relationships established by humans.
No one consciously enters into a
relationship that damages or degrades
their value.
No one marries thinking that he or
she is going to be unhappy. No one
starts a business with their partners
thinking they are going broke.
For a reciprocal interaction between two complementary parts to begin and
endure over time, it is imperative that there be a prior common purpose

Universality of the Common Purpose
Common
Purpose
Object
Cohesion, existence, movement, action,
multiplication, progress and development of all
individual entities, systems and organisms
Subject

From an ethical point of view, the natural,
healthy and good in a family would be a fluid
and intense exchange of love, goods, care,
attention, ideas and affection among all its
members.
The more free, fluid and intense the
relationship of giving and receiving in the family
is, the more harmony and common happiness
can experience together.
The unnatural, sickly or bad would be that the
reciprocal relations of exchange will be hindered
or deteriorated, or that, instead of a harmonious
exchange of goods, there would be quarrels and
violence between family members.
The same can be applied to relationships
between families, social groups or nations.
In order for a relationship of exchange to be
established, someone must first initiate it by giving
something. Between two people who just want to
receive it is impossible for an exchange to exist.
In the event that both parties give things hoping to
receive more than they have given, even if they start a
relationship, it will gradually weaken until
disappearing.
In order for the relationship to be maintained, at
least, there must be equivalence between what is
given and what is received.
But when both parties want to give more than what
they receive, a spiral of thanks, affections and goods
will be generated.Then, the give and take circuit
cannot only be maintained but it will be continuously
increased.
Ethical Implications of the Law of Give and Receive

The principle of reciprocal interactions or
the law of giving and receiving is the
fundamental principle on which the most
elementary, common and universal moral
norms are based.
This is so because all of them can be
reinterpreted as variations of this simple
law of giving and receiving.
LAW OF GIVE AND RECEIVE AND THE MORAL NORMS

Universal Ethical Principles book 7

Universal Ethical Principles book 7

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Universal Ethical Principles book 7

Similar to Universal Ethical Principles book 7 (20)

More from Miguel Cano

More from Miguel Cano (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Universal Ethical Principles book 7