Academic program on Western Civilisation

The University of Wollongong has recently accepted the Ramsay Centre-funded degree on western civilisation. The media that day felt that staff believed the acceptance was a 'Betrayal,' as the Ramsay deal was accepted without consultation.

There is little doubt that the staff would have rejected the offer had they been consulted. This is now the third university where staff have rejected the offer or would have rejected the offer if given the chance.

Quadrant magazine published an article by Tony Abbott some while ago setting out his reasons for teaching Western Civilisation at, initially, Australian National University . One of the reasons he gives is that "Largely missing, even from Catholic schools, was a deep focus on the Christian faith." This assertion ,however, could not be further from the truth.

It is time the reasons behind the series of rejections were set out. There are several. This article adds yet another. That the teaching of western civilisation is not in the interests of those who take the degree, that in fact it is contrary to their personal and academic interests. But first, the reasons why the universities are rejecting the offer.

The President of the Students Representative Council at the University of Sydney, Imogen Grant, published an article a little while ago in Honi Soit, the student newspaper, arguing that students should protest against the Ramsay Centre's financing of a Bachelor of Western Civilisation at the university. She gave two reasons for the rejection; one was a failure to emphasize diversity: "the Ramsay Centre's programme would be a violation of our crucial role in promoting a society of diversity, inclusiveness and mutual respect. "The second was that the university's processes are being "corrupted by finance."

These are powerful reasons. The Sydney Morning Herald published a counter reply on November 2, Shame if Sydney Uni drops education's biggest hot potato. The Herald writer, Salvatore Babones, presumably a European, did point out that university staff voted against the plan but he adds that Ramsay's critics are wrong to say that the Centre has a "right-wing political agenda". He argued that the proposed centre is studiously and (seemingly) sincerely non-partisan. This despite the chairman of the board being John Howard, and Tony Abbott "the most outspoken member".

The article was followed up by Jordan Baker noting that thirteen signatories were in support, from departments as diverse as medicine, dentistry and geosciences (six wanted to remain anonymous). Hundreds, however, had "signed an open letter opposing a deal with Ramsay in July".

The Ramsay Centre website is "chock full of pictures and quotes glorifying the West".Babones tells us. One article on that websites argues that Liberals are undermining western civlisation. This then is the third reason for the rejection.

University staff are openly liberal, and are likely to reject proposals that have such a conservative background.

This article asserts that there is an even more powerful reason to reject the teaching of western civilisation. It builds on, and extends Imogene Grant's reasons – the need for cultural diversity. That is the failure of Western civilisation to give us a moral code, or even a thinking process, by which we can manage our lives, and our civilisations. The mess that the world find's itself in at the moment is due to our inheritance from the west.

We have a multitude of these arguments today. Same sex marriage, the death penalty, climate management, gun control and health care in the US, abortion and stem cell research, treatment of refugees. All are ethical issues. Western civilisation has given us no way to resolve them. We need to determine whether Eastern, or Asian philosophy has given us. Whether the Buddhists, Hinduism, the Jains, even Islam has answers. And I would argue that they have – the concept of non- violence, of helping those who need help, is Buddhist, but it can be found across Eastern and western philosophies

Europe has been constantly at war for some 2000 years. Much of that war has been over the Christian faith. The 30 year war, a religious war, was probably the greatest killing field in our history. It resulted in eight million fatalities not only from military engagements but also from violence, famine, and plague The relatively peaceful years since the end of World War II have given us some hope that common sense and democracy may have prevailed. But we are not sure. Britain's withdrawal from a united Europe may be relatively peaceful, but it was solely self- serving and does send some shivers of concern down some spines.

But the big failure of western civilisation has been morally. If you open up John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, you will find this failure set out in the first paragraph:

From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning …the foundation of morality, …has occupied the most gifted intellects, …carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another. And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue, philosophers are still ranged under the same contending banners, and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous on the subject, than… Socrates …

If you attend one of the ethics courses offered by most faculties or departments at your university or college, you will learn that well over 20 theories moral theories have been developed over the centuries. In actuality, you will be told only of the major four or five theories, unless you are doing a philosophy degree. They are all Western theories. No Asian morality is taught.

And the Western theories conflict. They can be used to justify almost any position that you wish to argue. One of the theories that you will learn will be Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it (your belief) become a universal law."

So whatever side you fall on in the multitude of arguments and differences of opinion that face us today, Kant gives you the OK. Be it same sex marriage, the death penalty, global warming, etc., etc.. You can say that your belief is supported by Kant's universal law – that everyone should follow you; that every other belief is wrong.

To get a little technical, there are three other moral theories that endorse J Mill's Utilitarianism. They are Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics, William Frankena's Ethics, Bernard Gert's Common Morality All of them argue against harming others. Mill's Utilitarianism states:

• "The moral rules which forbid mankind to hurt one another… are more vital to human well-being than any maxims, however important, which only point out the best mode of managing some department of human affairs." (Utilitarianism, Chapter 5, para 31).
• "A person may possibly not need the benefits of others; but he always needs that they should not do him hurt." (Ch. 5, para 31).
• "(U)tility includes not solely the pursuit of happiness, but the prevention or mitigation of unhappiness..." (Ch.2, para 13).

Mill also promotes happiness. He describes utility as the "Greatest Happiness Principle".

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

The Asian philosophies hold the same position, be they Buddhism, the Jains, Hinduism, Islam. In the words of the Dalai Lama it is "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." It is the concept of Ahimsa, a Sanskrit word which denotes respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others.

Only the four Western moral theories out of close to thirty incorporate this "Do no harm concept".

If then, we adopt " Do no harm" as a combined universal Eastern and Western moral theory, will it have a greater impact? Will we be more moral? The answer must be yes, for we will not be able to hide behind the slogans we now use, or the political positions we now advocate. We may at times, be forced to balance one harm against a lesser harm, but this will only require us to use the analytical methods of the sciences, instead of argument. If you employ the "Do no harm; help others' guideline, you will find that it resolves most of the current left- right political disputes.

This then is the reason behind rejecting a course on Western Civilisation. Wollongong University will be all the poorer for its acceptance. Such a course may have much to tell us - the birth of democracy in Greece, the many lessons of the Roman Republic, the unshackling of human thinking in the Enlightenment. But if we widen it The History of Civilisation and bring in Eastern thinking as well, the world, and our universities, will be better off for it. They will have a wider, a more embracing concept of the growth of our civilisations.