In the value systems of all cultures and societies there is a framework of ethics. Ethical issues, non-economic and nonscientific, are always charged with emotion and tend to have an importance which cannot precisely be given a monetary worth. They are often elusive to adequate definition, yet are the adhesives for the fabric of society. To overlook this framework, to fail to understand its significance, is to prevent the possibility of ecological sustainability. The expression of the essence of the ethical framework is embodied in the word quality.
If ecological sustainability is prosperity, society will ask concerning the quality of that prosperity. Quality should begin with the common stewardship ethic. A stewardship ethic relates for intrinsic value, stanching from God, in the nonhuman natural world, and it as well gives guidelines for acceptable human action in that world to protect the formation. This ascription of intrinsic value is Christianity’s chief involvement to, or similar with, the ethic they wishes to construct (Sarkar, R.L. , 2000).
The great appeal to be retained is the manner in which Hollis conceptualizes roles as ‘intelligent stewardship’ and their rations as entailing something both more linking and demanding than a mechanical reading of the small print. In short, since roles are not completely prescribed, it is better to think of individuals as exemplifying roles that is monitoring them in order to take the character to life, rather than extinguishing themselves by just impersonating characters.
This makes them into loyal servants rather than compliant dopes, and it have the supreme advantage of conceptualizing social selves for Adam and Eve which, whilst dependent upon society, also facilitate them to meet the strict criterion of identity as particular persons. Multi religious society’s pretense a singular challenge to human rights inquisitions into religion.
Given the single-religion center of the bulk of this human rights scholarship rights in Islam, for example the stage is now set for a more general and nuance comparative analysis. In light of growing global modernization, communication, and transfers of population (voluntary and instinctive temporary and permanent), very few societies can claim unfamiliarity with Multi religious existence. A relative human rights approach optimally would be interested in the protection of the religious rights of not just one community but of all.
Further, in their aspiration to ground peaceful coexistence in existing traditions as developing new ideas when faced with excessive traditions, human rights theorists and promotes searches for a common language in which religions may “talk to” each other, and build common ground for passive interaction and coexistence in an unavoidably Multi religious world. This means that human rights, in considerate and execution, must interact in a jointly constitutive relationship with other frameworks of belief, together with religion and culture, if it is to have significance.
Indeed, scholars and activists like Abdullahi An-Na’im hold that “since people are more likely to view normative propositions if they believe them to be authorized by their own cultural traditions, observance of human rights standards can be improved through the cultural legitimacy of those standards” (1992). Since religion is typically an influential constituent of cultural practices, a closer look at religion will always lead to a broader understanding of prevalent culture.