I'm reading Steven Lukes's "Liberals and Cannibals" and the book seems to me to be an attempt to answer the question "Is universalism ethnocentric." By universalism he means that in some sense there is a standpoint from which we can judge other cultures (and the disparate elements within our own) for certain actions-- or does a liberal society simply have to choose its liberalism for itself and leave "cannibalism" so to speak to the cannibals without judgement? I don't know Lukes's answer yet, though he wants to say there is such a standpoint-- at least in theory. So what about you guys? Any thoughts?
I am philosophically trained with a long history in interfaith work. I left the church and faith to practice what I call "natural spirituality." Now I write and teach on this concept (sometimes referring to the "wild gospel of Nature" (a la Muir) or the "green god" (guided by Whitman and Burroughs). Does anyone else find this concept of "natural spirituality" helpful or do you sense that we ought to simply release the term "spiritual?" Chris
