What’s ethics again? And could we build it together?

Nemethics:
The name “Nemethics“ is not accidental. If we take a look at the origins of the word, we learn that it is built from the verb “nem“, which means “to distribute“ and the noun “ethics“, which is derived from the Greek word “ἔθος“ (ethos), which means “custom“, or “habit“. The name “Nemethics“ therefore means “to distribute a habit“, or “a custom of distribution“. If we, moreover, in a wider sense of the words, understand “ethos“ also as values (namely the values which stand behind the specific customs and habits), and “nem“ as spreading, or sharing, then “Nemethics“ also means “to spread and share ethical values“ (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics))

What values?
But what does “ethics“ actually mean? Above, we just saw, that the Greek word “ethos“ means “custom“, or “habit“. And we, furthermore, said behind such customs and habits we find values, which are represented in these customs and habits. But where do these values come from? Are they given by nature, as naturalists believe, or by God, as it is the case in religious commandments, or rather by ourselves, as positivists argue, according to our humans interests of stability, order, but also power? These are difficult questions, which require sophisticated answers.

Our traditions:
Besides the great religions, which developed in many cases very similar ethical codexes, over the centuries also philosophers have tried to find universal principles and systems to describe and justify certain ethical convictions. Examples include virtue ethics in Aristotle, duty ethics in Kant, compassion ethics in Schopenhauer, Utilitarianism in Mill, master morality in Nietzsche, or a theory of justice in Rawls, to name just some of the classics. All these views, and many more not mentioned, have contributed to enrich human ethical reflexions and practices. By now, in our more and more globalised world, we find ourselves amid a pluralism of ethical systems, which go from religious creeds to specific ethical views, but also indifference and nihilism of values ( (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).

The status quo:
Do we still know, which values we hold on to, and why so? Or, are we, as it often seems to be the case in the pluralistic world today, also lacking a final orientation in ethical matters? We live in complex times, in which we are confronted with several, so far unseen conditions in the history of mankind. For the first time, as humans, we are confronted with:

• Globalisation on a political, ecological, cultural, and medial level.
• The problem of energy, as well as the upcoming danger of limited resources.
• The risk of global over-population.
• The boundaries of the exponential growth of the economy
• The risk of a downfall of the global finance system.
• The climate change and the irreversibility of environmental damage.
• The problem of nuclear energy resources and weapons.
• Technological advance in unimagined and ethically critical realms.
  These are some of the new phenomena, we can interpret as challenges to us humans at the beginning of the third millennium. But with new challenges come also new opportunities.

New ethics?
Our exceptional times call for new ways how to organise our life on this planet. This naturally has a bearing also on our understanding of ethics. And here we come back again to Nemethics. Given the abovementioned, we believe that it’s time to reconsider our existing ethical systems and reflect about possible new approaches to ethics for our time and the future. But how should we tackle this? Is there mostly a need to globalize ethics, as cosmopolitanism believes? Should we rather reflect about the rules we apply, in order to communicate successfully together, as discourse ethics is concerned with? Or should we instead prioritise ethics of technology? Or do we, in fact, need a totally new approach? A new approach, in which we do not only reflect our values, but together spread and share them?