Editor's Choice -- Ismaili Ignition -- Cosmopolitan Ethics vs. Pluralism: Have the two been conflated and fundamentally misunderstood?

Cosmopolitan ethics and pluralism are two concepts Mawlana Hazar Imam talks about often. However, they are often conflated and bandied about as if they are similar, if not the same, ideas. If asked, could you explain that the difference between cosmopolitan ethics and pluralism, or you do think they are the essentially the same?

In this pair of Ignition Questions, we take a fresh look at some two dozen of Hazar Imam's quotes on cosmopolitan ethics and pluralism to see if he sees these two concepts as the same. For clarity, we crystallised our understanding of Hazar Imam's explanations (and that for him, they are indeed two fundamentally different, but related, ideas) with a simple, easy-to-understand diagram.

Related to this difference, we found another important aspect of pluralism is often misunderstood: that pluralism has limits, boundaries.

Inclusivity without judgement (i.e. indiscriminate inclusivity) for the sake of pluralism -- that is, pluralism without limits (i.e. unfettered pluralism) -- insists we uncritically respect and treat all differences, all values, ethics and morals as equally valid, without discrimination. However, this flavour of "pluralism," is simply unfettered, individual freedom masquerading with an air of legitimacy. It is just license by another name and, as we know, Hazar Imam unequivocally rejects license.

Although firm boundaries, which include this and exclude that, may not sound very "progressive," "inclusive" or "pluralistic," what is not widely known is Hazar Imam himself has, time and time again, not only explained that pluralism has limits, has boundaries, but has even drawn them himself, as we show from extensive quotes from him.

If you've been confused about the difference between cosmopolitan ethics and pluralism, you might find these two Ignition Questions helpful.

Warm regards
Ismaili Digest