Science, technology and economy connect all inhabitants of the earth, and humankind is experiencing a global crisis in ecology, politics and economy. Such problems as environmental pollution, the gap between the rich and the poor, inequality between men and women, political and economic oppression are troubling us more than ever, and a global ethic is indeed necessary to deal with those problems. However, we cannot avoid the problem of how it is possible to arrive at a consensus concerning ethical values among the people whose political and economic interests, cultural traditions and social institutions are different. This is the main issue with which the following article deals. Its response is that human beings have the same structure of consciousness, exist in similar life-worlds, and together confront global problems, so that they can share their historic experiences, communicate their information, exchange their ideas, and jointly set up new ethical standards. Moral practice demands that we develop a transcendent spirit, namely one capable of transcending various kinds of selfishness.

Inasmuch as all the main traditions of human culture encourage a transcendent spirit we can expect that human beings can reach a moral consensus and put it into practice. Values (ethical ideals and standards) come from and guide our social life. Values are contingent upon present social institutions, but they also go beyond the ordinary limits of the present institutions and cause their transformation. In a changing world the people’s concepts of what is right, worthwhile or desirable are changing. The change of political and economic institutions causes changes in people’s concepts of value, whereas the change of people’s concepts of value causes changes in institutions.

Values are plural and it is necessary to achieve a coherence and harmony among different values. Although the values of diffe-rent cultures differ, still we can find some resemblances; although people’s concepts of value have been changing all the time in history, nevertheless we can discovery something relatively stable. It is important to distinguish what is changeable and what stable concerning value. Through reflection and dialogue we can reach a consensus regarding a basis for a stable set of values.

Values tell us what we should do; they are not descriptions of fact, but guides of action. We perform a task, because we think it valuable; when it leads to a good life, we continue, otherwise we revise our concepts of value. However, the real situation is very complicated, for different people have different answers to what is a good life, because their interests and experiences are not the same. An idea or action is valuable insofar as the conditions are fit for it; it is meaningless to talk about values without regard to the real situation.

Concepts of value are closely connected with social institutions: people in a feudal society usually regarded a high social rank as honor; people in a capitalist society especially admire money. Nowadays Chinese society has been transforming from a planned to a market economy; correspondingly the Chinese people have been changing their concepts of value. The consciousness of a market economy as free competition, making one’s own decisions and individual responsibility are gradually growing among the Chinese people. However, the social institution is not the only factor that determines the concept of value and we always can find some people whose concepts of value transcend the social institutions of their time.

In a feudal society some people disregard high social rank; in a capitalist society there are some people who dislike riches. Philosophers such as Socrates and Wittgenstein rose above the ordinary limits of their time, not only in their thoughts but also in their conduct. New concepts of value can cause a transformation of an old social institution. The voice for new value often is very weak at the beginning, but grows stronger and at last overcomes the domination of the old ideas and establishes a new institution. Hence, in history we see the concept of political equality coming into being in the feudal society where political privilege was characteristic, and the concept of social welfare and insurance emerging in a capitalist societies that gave priority to free competition.

We must not overlook that the conflicts of different values kept company with conflicts of interest and that due to their many did not accept new concepts of value. In the past we paid a disastrous price for the conflicts between new values and established interests. People inherit their concepts of value largely from the traditional culture which became such only after its doctrines had been practiced. Confucian thought became Chinese culture because it has been carried out by Chinese people for more than two thousand years; its values have been institutionalized both in family life and in political activity and are manifested also in literature and the arts. As customary forces they still affect us, but while recognizing their traditional efficacy, we see that people tend to modify their ideas of value according to their practical experience.

As values are tied to everyone’s concrete life, they should not be talked about only in the abstract. One forms one’s values finally on the basis of one’s personal encounters. Some people attach a great deal of value to safety and trust, while the others put a high value on enterprise and adventure. Usually children, the aged and the disabled need social protection, whereas youths, adults, the intelligent and the strong prefer to have more opportunities. Some hold persistently to their concept of value, while others change their values several times in their life along with the development of their personal experience and ability. Therefore we need to keep a balance of different values in a society, and social institutions can regulate the combination of various values such as freedom, equality and security by means of education, praise or punishment, etc. What would be the best combination is a very complicated issue, probably to be worked out through reflection on historic experiences and the dialogue among different individuals and communities. We believe human beings can find a good solution, even though the way is zigzag.

In recent times Chinese society has undergone a great change. Old institutions have been abolished, whereas the new ones are far from perfect. We see conflicts between the old values and new institutions, between traditional values and modern values. The smooth transition into a new economic and social order depends on an open-minded attitude to different opinions. Only a democratic manner of dealing with divergence can give peace and satisfaction.

Nowadays science, technology and economy connect all inhabitants of the earth, while humankind experiences a global crisis in ecology, politics and the economy. Such problems as environmental pollution, the gap between the extremely poor and well-off countries, the conflict between the rich and the poor, the inequality between men and women, the confrontation between those ruling and those ruled disturb us more than ever. A global ethics is indeed necessary to deal with these global problems. However, we cannot ignore the fact that in the different social systems and different national cultures the dominant conceptions of value differ, and that people with different political and economic interests insist upon different concepts of value. When we say that we can solve the conflict of divergent values by means of dialogue, we must consider the basis or conditions for this dialogue. What make it possible, and how can we successfully achieve our goal?

Human beings can exchange their concepts of value because in a general way they have the same structure of consciousness, a similar life-world, many similar actual and historic experiences, and many common problems. We can share our experiences and ideas for dealing with our common problems.

Human beings have the same structure of consciousness; our consciousness is consciousness of something, its acts are intentionally related to a combination of intentional content and objective reference. For instance, when I see a tree my seeing is the intentional act, whose mental image of the tree is the intentional content, while the real tree in time and space is the objective reference. My mental image may be different from yours as I have my image, and you have yours. So the mental image is immanent, and to a certain degree private. However, we can talk about the same thing, because we have the same objective reference, which is one of the conditions that make intersubjective communication possible. As our language is formed on the basis of this objective reference, we can understand each other.

It might be objected that a tree is a real thing and therefore we can exchange ideas about the tree, whereas ideas of values are not real things and so we cannot exchange ideas of value. It is true that values are not real things, but still they have objective reference. The intentional content of values should be distinguished from its objective reference. The objective reference of value is not only real things, but also people’s actions, behaviors and operation. Our concepts of value manifest themselves in our life-world: we work hard for valuable things; we feel sorry over bad conduct; we are glad to meet good friends; we enjoy a new opera or beautiful scenery; and we are moved and inspired by an heroic deed. As long as people’s consciousness is consciousness of something, and their praxes are intentional actions, we can discern their ideas of value by observing their behavior and reflecting on our own intentions. We have empathy toward other persons, because we live together with them in a common life-world and share feelings and experiences. Intersubjective understanding is based on the combination of consciousness with bodily behavior which is intersubjectively observable.

There are various kinds of cognitive objects such as real objects (physical things), mathematical and logical objects, and such objects as ideas of value; each has its various particular cognitive approach. Empirical observation and experiment are suitable for research on physical objects. Formal analysis, deduction and inference are proper for investigations of mathematical and logical objects. Hermeneutics is appropriate for the comprehension of values. Here I do not want to deal with the problem of hermeneutics. Concerning the understanding of values I would only point out that hermeneutics has three basic moments: present life, past experience, future actions and their consequences. Interpretation moves back and forth in the three dimensions, so as to help people to comprehend what is really right, worthwhile and significant for their life.

Usually we take the present life as the starting point for interpretation, because the present life provides us with lively experiences. We know what we are seeing now, what we are thinking now, what we like or dislike now, and so on; we know how we get along with other people and the surrounding environment; we always meet some new problems and have to solve them; we need to do something to improve our life. In these cases we consider whether our actions are correct, suitable and valuable. Sometimes our ethical choices are very complicated. When our present ex-periences are not enough, we turn to historic knowledge for help. We need to consult all human history, which includes not only that of our nation, but also that of other nations. We must pay attention to the consequence of our actions and always stand prepared to remove errors and make adjustments at any time.

Present experience, historic knowledge and the consequences of action are resources from which we learn values. By means of reflection and interpretation on them we distinguish between prolonged and short-term welfare, between necessary and limitless consumption, between socially beneficial and non-beneficial uses of property, between justified and unjustified uses of natural resources, and between a profit-only and a socially beneficial and ecologically-oriented market economy. The hermeneutic method helps us to understand better ethical values and leads us to recognize the ultimate meaning of human existence.

There are several difficulties in intercultural dialogue and intersubjective understanding which we should seriously consider.

The first difficulty: When each party in a dialogue insists upon its own faith, how can the participants reach a consensus? In the case of dialogue among different religions, Christians believe Jesus Christ; the Buddhists believe Buddha; Confucians believe the teachings of Confucius. It seems impossible to reach an agreement when all maintain their own faith and call the others to conversion thereto.

But a distinction must be made between religious faiths and ethical values. Many religious traditions hold that their faith or creed came from revelation, and therefore that we cannot reach a consensus concerning faith or creed by means of dialogue on the basis of human understanding in the empirical world. Values, how-ever, are something different. Religious faiths have great influence on ethical values, but values are constituted mainly on practical human experiences. In addition, religious faiths should stand in harmony with human understanding.

In Christianity, Thomas Aquinas affirmed that the revealed and rational truths ought not conflict with each other, for in the final analysis they all stem from God. In the Buddhist tradition, three kinds of knowledge are classified, that is, knowledge based on Buddhist holy doctrine, the knowledge based on intuition, and the knowledge based on comparison. The knowledge based on Buddhist holy doctrine, in spite of its importance, is not held to be superior to the knowledge based on intuition and on comparison, for Buddha himself established his doctrine on the basis of intuition and comparison.

In the Confucian tradition, people believe in Heaven and Divine guidance. Confucius said: "There are three things that a gentleman fears: he fears the will of Heaven, he fears great men, he fears the words of the Divine Sages" (The Analects of Con-fucius, 16:8). On the other hand, the Confucians emphasized empirical knowledge. They held that the Divine Sages established their knowledge on the basis of observation of phenomena in heaven, circumstances on earth, behavior of the body, and the process of thinking (ref. The Book of Change, XICI II). This means that Christendom, Buddhism, and Confucianism all stress the importance of empirical knowledge and rational inquiry. Thus we can set up an epistemological principle for intercultural dialogue without which intersubjective understanding and consensus on value are not possible.

The second difficulty: Human beings do not have the ability to know good and evil because of their deep sins; hence, practice and interpretation are useless for their moral improvement. It is true that there have been many evils in human history. In the classical Confucian book Spring and Autumn we see that the first recorded Chinese history was merely one of bloody killing between monarchs, between king and administrators, between father and son, or between brother and brother.

In the Bible we see also what sinful deeds men committed. For instance, Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, killed his brother Abel, because he was jealous of his brother. No wonder we read the sentences in the Bible: "The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain" (Genesis 6:5-6:6).

However, we should see another fact that human beings are able to know good and evil, even though they do many evil things. When a person commits a crime, usually he knows his guilt. For example, at the moment a person lies, he knows he intends to deceive. Owing to ignorance we may do some false things, but we will not do so when we are instructed or well informed. The Chinese scholar commented: Confucius wrote Spring and Autumn, so the rebellious administrators and bandits feared. This means that they knew their guilt, for otherwise they would not fear that their misdeeds would be exposed. The story of "original sin" in the Bible is of great significance. The event that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of wisdom symbolizes the beginning of human sin and suffering, on the one hand, and the beginning of human knowledge of good and evil, on the other. Since everyone has the ability to know good and evil, it is possible to awaken a human being from his evil state and for him to become a new moral person.

The third difficulty: Human beings are selfish. Their selfishness prevents them from doing good works and accepting good instructions, even though they know good and evil. This is a strong argument against the possibility of intersubjective understanding and intercultural dialogue. Indeed, human beings have different interests. Usually they put their own interests first and when these conflict with moral principles, often they are unwilling to observe moral principles. I would not deny these facts. However, we should consider some other facts which show that people transcend their individual interests. These unselfish deeds give us the hope for political and economic coexistence and ethical consensus. Human beings can change their ethical values on the following grounds.

Firstly, ethical values should not be in conflict with the total interests of humanity, inasmuch as ethical values serve the fundamental interests of human beings. On this basis obligatory ethics can be combined with utilitarian ethics, and a common ethical code can be established. When all people in a country observe this common ethical code, the people certainly will have a prosperous and secure life. When all nations in the world observe this common ethical code, world peace and prosperity will be guaranteed.

Secondly, human beings can go beyond the limits of individual interest to a certain extent. We see that a mother usually loves her child; many individuals gladly help their relations or friends; many people contribute their money and other belongings for victims of a natural calamity, the disabled and the poor. This means that people have a transcendent spirit in some degree. This transcendent spirit proceeds from what is near to distant domains. Although this benevolence is shown only in a limited relationship, still it should be praised. While we see the evil side of human conduct, we should see also the good side and encourage this transcendent spirit through ethical education.

Finally, all great cultural traditions in the world advocate the transcendent spirit. In the tradition of Christianity this transcendent spirit is epitomized in Jesus’s redemptive action. He devoted his life for the salvation of humankind. To the Christians who have used the cross as a symbol of their faith, it has seemed that in his willing-ness to suffer death for the redemption of his fellow men and women Jesus has given to them their clearest insight into the quality of the redemptive love of God himself.

In the Buddhist tradition a transcendent benevolence (love without attachment) is encouraged. Buddha charged his disciples to love all humanity with a mother’s love:

"As a mother, even at the risk of her own life, protects her son, her only son, so let him cultivate love without measure toward all beings. Let him cultivate toward the whole world — above, below, around — a heart of love unstinted, unmixed with the sense of differing or opposing interests"(Sacred Books of the East, Vol. X, Part 2, The Sutta Nipata, translated by V. Fausboell [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1881], p. 25).

It should be noted that the transcendental Buddhist spirit of salvation is embodied by Bodhisattvas. Especially in China and Japan, these have been regarded as beings who, out of love and pity for suffering humanity, transfer their merit, as need arises, to those who call upon them in prayer or in devotional reflection, so that they postpone their entrance into Nirvana, even readily falling into hell.

In the Confucian tradition, benevolence (ren) has been postulated as the first principle of the universe and of human life. Confucius said: "No people with lofty ideals and benevolent minds will ever seek life at the expense of benevolence; and it may be that they have to give their life in order to achieve benevolence" (The Analects of Confucius, Book 15:8).

Thus it can be seen that all three great religions advocate the transcendent spirit. Inspired by this spirit people rise above the ordinary attitude for human life and society, and do things not primarily referring to their own interests, but in consideration of the welfare of the whole of humankind and of future generations. This transcendent spirit is the essence of all truthful religions. Owing to this the religions have developed into notable cultures. This presents a striking contrast to secular culture which is so much involved in profit-oriented economic activity that it has become a vulgar culture. Our sentiments and ideas of value need to be fostered by a notable culture for our social institutions are forever changing.

What remains stable in the ever changing societies is this transcendent spirit. Without this, human beings would fall into ruin our conflicts of interest. With this spirit, intersubjective understanding and intercultural exchange is possible. Human beings have the same structure of consciousness, exist in a similar life-world, confront together global problems, and are inspired by the humanitarian spirit, so that they can share their historical experiences, communicate their thoughts, exchange their values, and jointly set up a better ethical code. Here the key lies in the transcendent spirit. Moral practice requires that we develop altruism, namely, transcend various kinds of selfishness. Given that all main traditions of human culture encourage the transcendent spirit, we can expect that human beings can reach moral consensus and have a glorious future.