ebay.com.au/itm/Terror-Peace … _537wt_964
Hi Stuart –
It does look interesting indeed. But I thought I ought to tell you something – just in case you order it and get disappointed. From the publishers blurb I see that the argument of the book is structured around the ethical principles of Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s ethics ‘universalism’ means something slightly different to universal salvation. Rather it means the ethical perspective which argues that the way we can judge rationally between right and wrong actions as individuals in society is th followng: to say to ourselves about any course of ‘what would happen if everyone did this’. For example, stealing something may seem expedient – it enables you to get what you desire – but if everyone did it trust would break down and society would disintegrate. So if stealing was universal life would be unbearable and unliveable – therefore all acts of stealing are wrong. Likewise, with terrorism as a means to an end. If every one engaged in it life would be unbearable and unliveable – therefore it is wrong in terms of a ‘universalist’ ethic. Of course there are other reasons that people can put forward to make distinction between right and wrong actions – including religious ones - but I’m certain this is how ‘universalism’ is being used in the title of this book
All the best old chum
Dick 
Stuart you got me thinking in my sleep last night –
I was thinking about how Kant’s ethics and the ethics of a Christian Universalist might differ. My very uncertain answer is that they probably will often agree – because of the emphasis on the universality of ethical principles in both.
But I guess the premise of the Kantian system is different from a Christian Universalist one. Kant’s principle – known as the ‘categorical imperative – of universalistic ethics which I gave a stumbling definition of in my last post – is, in some ways, analogous to Jesus’ ‘Golden Rule’. But where i feel it differs is that the other to whom we should do good (because we would wish them to do good to us is the specific individual that I meet at a given time in my life; someone with whom I am drawn into relationship. Whereas Kant’s ‘universal other’ seems a bit abstract to me (and I’m aware of many individuals in history who have loved humanity while being absolutely beastly to the people they related to in their everyday lives).
In addition, Kants’ universal principle is based on autonomous human reason. I guess the ethics of a Christian Universalist will somehow be based, by way of contrast, in the knowledge of the worth of each person as created in the image of God and as loved and redeemed by God – and the worth of all humans as being members of God’s family. Regarding terrorism – as well as rejecting it on the grounds of the Golden Rule, I think Universalists’ will also argue that Terrorism is not in harmony with the character of God as revealed in Jesus – because the God that Jesus reveals is not a God of terror and hellfire.
Thanks for getting my grey cells going - its a subject I’m thinking about at the moment quite a lot (ethics and Universalism)