What is fair?

Today I saw on the news that many people in the world demonstrated because of an Egyptian woman who got killed in Germany. There were many different responses, some were just sad, others vowed to help make the world more peaceful, and some were just "death to Germany". This made me watch some videos about religions, atheism and world peace again.

One thing I realised is that it's all about the question "what is fair?". And that's what seems to make peace on earth impossible.

Growing up in "the West", I used to believe that there could be peace as long as people focus on what is common sense. There is this idea of the so called golden rule, an idea that is somehow present in most religions, philosophies and ways of life. It's the idea that, whatever you don't want to be done to you, you should not do to others either. Or to treat others the way you want to be treated.

The problem I noticed is that it doesn't work in reality because the definition of justice and fairness is different. Believing that all people could make an agreement and follow some basic rules is only wishful thinking because not all people would submit to such ideas.

I notice two systems that are in conflict with each other:

The secular world: This is mainly the western world, the civilised world, the highly advanced world, the countries that practice democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. Their idea is that everyone has a different opinion, and therefore, it makes sense to just respect each other. Due to its nature, the secular world also consists of people of all kinds of different backgrounds. They have different beliefs, and it's commonly accepted that "you can't know the truth". You can believe in what you think is true, but you have to accept that other people may as well be right about what they believe in. In this world, "fair" is to let other people believe what is right for them, because you want to be treated fair and also have a chance to practice your faith. Nobody knows what is right, so it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, changing or giving up one's religion, and even arguing about religion.

The theocratic world: This applies to countries that have a state religion and where usually more than 90 per cent of the population believe in the same religion. There may be similar characteristics as above (human rights etc.), but they may also not be present, it depends. In this society, there is only one truth that is accepted, and it is undoubtedly perceived as real and undeniable. The system has very clear rules and laws and there is not as much confusion, discussion or arguing about how to deal with certain situations because the rules state clearly what to do and what to not do, what to believe and not believe. Justice and fairness does not come from individuality, because God knows everything and decides what is right and wrong. There is no need to allow opinions that differ, it can actually be a sin to allow other people to do what appears to be wrong. Fair equals just. If a person does what is religiously wrong, it is just to punish the person accordingly. In other words, fair is what God says is okay. Everyone follows that and everything is fine.

In the secular world, the definition of fairness depends on everyone's attempt to go their own way of life that appears to be right to them. In the theocratic world, justice comes from above, whatever a person does, it is only good if the respective holy book says so.

So what are the reasons that there will always be conflicts and no world peace? Well, there are many different scenarios that can show us what's wrong, and I will just name some:

1. Freedom of speech

In the secular world, almost everything can be said. But what is not allowed to be said, is not forbidden to be said in the theocratic world. And vice versa. One example:

Secular world:
allowed: caricatures, parodies and satires on religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.
forbidden: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people.

theocratic world:
allowed: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people (unless it's about the state religion).
forbidden: anything that goes against the state religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.

This sounds a little one-sided, I am aware of that. What I wanted to show here is that just because policital correctness exists where we live, it doesn't mean that the other side of the world will not fire back with what seems totally inappropriate to us. In other words, we act in a perfectly legitimate way (from out point of view), while the other ones will perceive our actions as intrusive and disrespectful. They will answer with something that is righteous in their society (expressing the wrath of God), but when it arrives here, it provokes a lot of counter-hate.

2. Freedom of religion

In the secular world, most religions can be practised. Some religions have limited actions available if the country thinks of them as consitutionally dangerous. In the theocratic society, it may be allowed to have a religion other than the state religion, but it can cause to disadvantages, or you are automatically considered relgion x and have to announce that you are, however, part of religion y. But it's also possible that there is no freedom of religion because changing or losing one's religion is a sin. As we saw earlier, right and wrong is not up to humans to decide in this society.
The freedom of religion or "Unfreedom" of religion can also interfere with people getting married, people being gay, and all kinds of other "small" things that world peace does not have to depend on, but local peace can.

3. Entitlement to territory

This is often a problem that two theocratic or religious countries have with each other. The religion of each country tells them that they have a holy right to claim the territory of the other or deserve more territory than they have at the moment. There is no way to discuss this in an earthly manner because the instructions (what is right and wrong) come from above, again. The eagerness to claim territory is not based on anything that you could bargain for. Money, resources, political power, they all don't matter because it's about something religious. And as long as at least one side screams for death, it's where talking becomes useless.

Imagine this as a line that I draw to demonstrate that this list is over

The only way I can see to achieve anything like world peace would be if people actually DID agree on a codex that comes first. And I have to be honest, it would have to be something that comes before religion. Before all the verses regarding "kill those who...." take effect, this would have to be considered first. But how could it be possible anyway? Why would a religious father accept that his son is gay when it's a deadly sin in his opinion? And that's just a very individual matter, there are probably other things like this whole Israel question that have a bigger effect on the whole debate.

I had to become 26 years old to finally understand what the big deal with world peace is. The problem is not the useless fighting, the wars, or the greed. It's the impossibility of establishing one common law for everyone. And that's because there are different answers to "what is fair?"