Can religions supply an ethics that can unite rather than divide peoples? In ancient times, many people believed in super-human powers spatially beyond them, whether above or below them. They conceived of them in anthropomorphic terms, and developed symbols, rituals, and general ways of life to court their favor because they felt dependent upon these powers for certain essentials of daily living such as warmth, water, or good health. Some deities were believed to have personally intervened in human history, and took a human form to fight their enemies, provided humans with rules for living, or re-created the world after its destruction. As time passed, these claims became more comprehensive, finally universal, even Absolute, even as the process of questioning the claims, which is called "desacralization," became more widespread. Many sensed that if their absolutized deity were dislodged by doubt, the world would flounder without an ethic. Some religions tried to defend their deity by emphasizing that it was really beyond any "attributes," beyond human reason. It became the Ineffable, the Incommensurable, even the "Wholly-Other." If it was thought to have become Incarnate, that had to be defended in a similar way. In order to solve the problem of the Absolute, W. Royce Clark analyzes the thought of four prominent Christian theologians and philosophers- Friedrich Schleiermacher, G.W.F. Hegel, Paul Tillich, and Robert P. Scharlemann-as the grounds for the basis of a possible universal ethic.

The American justice system was founded on the idea of "majority-rule," but in a democracy this is achievable only if the majority has the interests of the whole at heart. Since the days of America's founding, white, Christian males created laws from their standpoint as the majority, leading them to exercise power in a largely "majoritarian" way rather than upholding the interests of all citizens. The nation has not realized its stated ideals of equality of liberty, opportunity and justice for all. As a solution, W. Royce Clark formulates a non-majoritarian ethic based not on any majority but on a universal instinct, the combination of Albert Schweitzer's "will-to-live" and Friedrich Nietzsche's "will-to-power," along with democratic principles articulated by John Rawls and James Madison, which would represent all citizens.

The proximity of many different religions, each with its own unique metaphysics and ethics, did not exist in the ancient world when those religions came into existence. Many went uncontested for centuries, and many merged with governments to shape the laws for the entire people of a culture or nation. Theocracies can exist only where there is no plurality of religions or where the minor religions do not mind the dominant one dictating policy for all citizens. In the word's two greatest democracies, the U.S. and India, despite the diversity that a democratic society presupposes, a majoritarian religion continues to assert an advantage over others to shape the social contract. An Ethic of Trust: Mutual Autonomy and the Common Will-to-Live addresses this problem, moving beyond sheer utilitarianism. W. Royce Clark argues that because of religious pluralism, a nation's ethic must be grounded on "freestanding" principles. This means that its base must be universally obvious, and its principles must be agreeable to all citizens. The base is instinctual, the "will-to-live" which is present in all living creatures, and the recognition of that can influence people to agree to a voluntary unity and a couple of other basic principles to which all would agree, principles which embrace differences within relationships, whether in a marriage or a constitutional republic. But to voluntarily agree to these requires a genuine mutual trust and mutual autonomy which can maximize unity while allowing individual liberties. To arrive at this point, Clark blends scholars who are often cast as opposites-Albert Schweitzer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Rawls-to forge a new path for an inclusive ethic for a nation, within which both the religious and non-religious will have equal freedom and stability.

When the "human sciences" in the West followed the physical sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries with new measurements, methods, and language, the "metaphysics of infinity" lost its credibility. The response of Western religions was to retrench in a stronger authoritarianism, especially by the last half of the 19th century. While the new human sciences were being extended even to study the history and philosophy of religions, those religions themselves placed more emphasis on their understanding of the Absolute or Unquestionable. That split became a burden both to those who were religious and to those who were not. Here, W. Royce Clark argues that humanity's survival may depend on the development of a universal or inclusive ethic in which religions move beyond their Absolutes. Clark poses the sharp challenge: Are religious communities ready to abandon the foundations that until now they have insisted were the only adequate foundation for ethics?