Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[joe1776]

But ultimately you define the global community in terms of your own culturally conditioned values.

Are you saying that my ideas are conditioned by the American culture I live in?

In terms of a personal philosophy fair enough, but in terms of something that leads to global governance it's utopian.

I don't foresee one global government. That isn't required. All that's required is an upgrade in the decision-making model for governing. When governments make the right decisions, they will see the advantages of acting with the benefit of the global community in mind.

 

[YmirGF]

I was born with a mind incapable of faith. Consequently, early in life, I rejected the Catholic faith that was a tradition in my family. That put me on my own to find a direction for my life. Here's a sample of what I came up with:

But you do have faith. I would assume you have faith in yourself and your inherent ability to tackle life head on?

Global citizenship is a very old idea.

Diogenes (400–325 BC) said: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." When the leaders of our social groups, our nations and our religions, advise selfish behavior that will conflict with the welfare of the global community, a global citizen will ignore them.

Which will end up marginalizing you to the fringes which will only succeed in working against your lofty goal.

The goal is global harmony.

We humans are at our best when we cooperate in a worthy cause. And there is no cause more worthy than global harmony. When we think of ourselves, first and foremost, as global citizens, we give our lives meaning beyond survival and our own interests.

I far prefer the model wherein the individual works to improve their lot and therefore the quality of life of those around them. I am also concerned that your idea could be a psychological setup that might actually lead to depression because the goal is virtually unattainable. The first lesson in goal setting is to make ones goals within reach. Then push the envelope towards you next goal and so on and so on.

Global citizenship eliminates group pride.

Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue. Yet we know intuitively that a man very proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as superior because he is superior and they are his groups. Group pride is disguised arrogance. Moreover, group pride and group prejudice are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Our group is superior to their group!)

I hear you and there is some truth to this however our species tribal nature is now well documented. It isn't just a social construct and appears to be something that is hardwired. Overt nationalism isn't healthy, like any kind of fanaticism, but basic pride in ones culture is the norm rather than the exception. Try visiting Russia and telling a Russian you meet that Russia is not the greatest country on Earth. (Be prepared to duck and cover -- quickly.)

"All for one, one for all"

A global citizen will take for granted that the global community has, since the origin of our species, been involved a cooperative endeavor. The motto "all for one and one for all" efficiently and effectively describes the essential nature of any worthwhile cooperation. Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

Warmed over Maxism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. And we all know how well Marxism has worked out over the years.

I'm more inclined to help the individual grow and blossom. I'm in favor of equal opportunity and am decidedly against equality of outcome. Equality of outcome cannot help but destroy or greatly hamper incentive to achieve.

A global citizen will support the idea that every child in the global community should be born with rights that are actually equal.

The right to own private property is not actually an equal right, for example. People born genetically predisposed to high arrogance, high intelligence, greed, and to wealthy parents, can hoard community resources far beyond their fair share. Consequently, the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate?

More Marxist drivel. The weird part of this idea is rather and everyone getting rich and comfortable this ideal only can result in making everyone poor and miserable. Look how well that worked in the Soviet Union and in Communist China. Yeehaw, eh?

The Selfishness Paradox applies:

When our selfish interests cause harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

If I smile sweetly can I have your big screen TV? That would be so kind AND it would make you feel so good. PM me for details on where to ship my new TV!

 

[David T]

I was born with a mind incapable of faith. Consequently, early in life, I rejected the Catholic faith that was a tradition in my family. That put me on my own to find a direction for my life. Here's a sample of what I came up with:

Global citizenship is a very old idea. Diogenes (400–325 BC) said: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." When the leaders of our social groups, our nations and our religions, advise selfish behavior that will conflict with the welfare of the global community, a global citizen will ignore them.

The goal is global harmony. We humans are at our best when we cooperate in a worthy cause. And there is no cause more worthy than global harmony. When we think of ourselves, first and foremost, as global citizens, we give our lives meaning beyond survival and our own interests.

Global citizenship eliminates group pride. Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue. Yet we know intuitively that a man very proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as superior because he is superior and they are his groups. Group pride is disguised arrogance. Moreover, group pride and group prejudice are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Our group is superior to their group!)

"All for one, one for all" A global citizen will take for granted that the global community has, since the origin of our species, been involved a cooperative endeavor. The motto "all for one and one for all" efficiently and effectively describes the essential nature of any worthwhile cooperation. Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

A global citizen will support the idea that every child in the global community should be born with rights that are actually equal. The right to own private property is not actually an equal right, for example. People born genetically predisposed to high arrogance, high intelligence, greed, and to wealthy parents, can hoard community resources far beyond their fair share. Consequently, the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate?

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When our selfish interests cause harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

Comments? I have thick skin so please feel free to criticize.

I went to nature and went to the mountain to get real, and god said, "people must get along." so cutting in line is not right!!!!

 

[joe1776]

But you do have faith. I would assume you have faith in yourself and your inherent ability to tackle life head on?

You are using a different definition of the word. In the context, I used it as a belief without evidence or proof.

I far prefer the model wherein the individual works to improve their lot and therefore the quality of life of those around them.

Offering your preference is your idea of debate?

I am also concerned that your idea could be a psychological setup that might actually lead to depression because the goal is virtually unattainable. The first lesson in goal setting is to make ones goals within reach. Then push the envelope towards you next goal and so on and so on.

We humans are making moral progress and we don't backslide. It's not likely we will return to a world where slavery is condoned, for example. If we make moral progress and don't backslide , global harmony is inevitable in time.

I hear you and there is some truth to this however our species tribal nature is now well documented. It isn't just a social construct and appears to be something that is hardwired. Overt nationalism isn't healthy, like any kind of fanaticism, but basic pride in ones culture is the norm rather than the exception. Try visiting Russia and telling a Russian you meet that Russia is not the greatest country on Earth. (Be prepared to duck and cover -- quickly.)

You are talking about a human failing that is on the wane. We humans do actually learn from experience. American propaganda in WWII portrayed the Japanese as a sub-human species. That made dropping the bomb on Hiroshima OK. That couldn't happen with today's more sophisticated people.

Warmed over Maxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. And we all know how well Marxism has worked out over the years.

(1) Marx was right on that point; (2) You jump to the conclusion that he was wrong because the idea was attempted and botched by a incompetent and corrupt government.

I'm more inclined to help the individual grow and blossom. I'm in favor of equal opportunity and am decidedly against equality of outcome. Equality of outcome cannot help but destroy or greatly hamper incentive to achieve.

I was lucky enough to be born a bright, white male in a system created by and for bright, white males. But it isn't fair.

More Marxist drivel. The weird part of this idea is rather and everyone getting rich and comfortable this ideal only can result in making everyone poor and miserable. Look how well that worked in the Soviet Union and in Communist China. Yeehaw, eh?

I eagerly concede that Capitalism, and an unregulated free market, is better than Socialism when governments are incompetent, corrupt , or both.

The free market's value is limited to products which the educated consumer can see, comparison shop, and buy with his own money. But that's only a small share of the market. The free market is the wrong tool for the job for healthcare where lawyers and drug companies can abuse deep-pocket insurance companies who don't care because they can pass the costs on to a consumer.

 

[YmirGF]

You are using a different definition of the word. In the context, I used it as a belief without evidence or proof.

My reading comprehension is very good. I understood precisely how you meant it, but your exact comment, without qualification, was: "I was born with a mind incapable of faith", which is not likely or particularly honest.

Offering your preference is your idea of debate?

When it is directly germane to the discussion, sure, why not? Nice deflection in order to minimize my comments on setting achievable goals.

We humans are making moral progress and we don't backslide. It's not likely we will return to a world where slavery is condoned, for example. If we make moral progress and don't backslide , global harmony is inevitable in time.

We don't backslide? LOL. I thought we were supposed to be leaving our opinions out of this? Notice how you say in one sentence "we don't backslide" and a sentence later you say "and don't backslide". Nice work at defeating you argument. So which is it?

You are talking about a human failing that is on the wane. We humans do actually learn from experience. American propaganda in WWII portrayed the Japanese as a sub-human species. That made dropping the bomb on Hiroshima OK. That couldn't happen with today's more sophisticated people.

I guess all this talk of getting into a nuclear conflict with North Korea is nothing, eh? Good to know. Even your comment about nuking Japan is not particularly accurate.

(1) Marx was right on that point; (2) You jump to the conclusion that he was wrong because the idea was attempted and botched by a incompetent and corrupt government.

Strange how so many people could got a "right idea" so very, very wrong, by repeating virtually all the same mistakes. They didn't fail because they got it wrong, they failed because they got it right.

I was lucky enough to be born a bright, white male in a system created by and for bright, white males. But it isn't fair.

I smell intersectionality dogma! Should we make a system that allows a person with a 98 IQ to achieve a doctorate?

I eagerly concede that Capitalism, and an unregulated free market, is better than Socialism when governments are incompetent, corrupt , or both.

I don't think anyone, in their right mind, would call for an unregulated "free" market. Heck, I identify as a strong atheist and a neoConservative and I wouldn't want ALL regulations swept aside. That would be insane.

The free market's value is limited to products which the educated consumer can see, comparison shop, and buy with his own money. But that's only a small share of the market. The free market is the wrong tool for the job for healthcare where lawyers and drug companies can abuse deep-pocket insurance companies who don't care because they can pass the costs on to a consumer.

You are talking to an angry, old, white, gay Canadian who thinks the American "for profit" business model for healthcare is completely bonkers.

Dare I ask how old you are? If you are under 25, I'm quite impressed with your thinking. If you are over 50 then I'm a little concerned that you have not thought this out for very long or in much depth.

 

[joe1776]

My reading comprehension is very good. I understood precisely how you meant it, but your exact comment, without qualification, was: "I was born with a mind incapable of faith", which is not likely or particularly honest.

I put your words "without qualification" in bold. What you mean is "If I take this sentence out of the context of the paragraph, I can screw with the definition of the word the way you meant it."

When it is directly germane to the discussion, sure, why not?

Obviously because I don't regard simple preferences as having merit in debate.

We don't backslide? LOL. I thought we were supposed to be leaving our opinions out of this?

No, it's your preferences that don't interest me. In your opinion is it likely that humanity will backslide and someday condone slavery as it once did?

I guess all this talk of getting into a nuclear conflict with North Korea is nothing, eh? Good to know.

I'm unable to see how this comment relates to what I said.

Even your comment about nuking Japan is not particularly accurate.

Why not?

Strange how so many people could get a "right idea" so very, very wrong, by repeating virtually all the same mistakes. They didn't fail because they got it wrong, they failed because they got it right.

Are you claiming that Marx's idea was tried by an effective, clean government and failed? If so, when and where?

I smell intersectionality dogma! Should we make a system that allows a person with a 98 IQ to achieve a doctorate?

No. I foresee a system in which someone gifted with high intelligence will feel obligated to use it for the benefit of all rather than feeling entitled to greater reward because he was born lucky.

Dare I ask how old you are? If you are under 25, I'm quite impressed with your thinking. If you are over 50 then I'm a little concerned that you have not thought this out for very long or in much depth.

I'm 82 and although there's plenty of rust on it, my IQ was clocked at 150 at one time so it isn't likely that you have put more thought into this than I have.

 

[Prestor John]

I was born with a mind incapable of faith. Consequently, early in life, I rejected the Catholic faith that was a tradition in my family. That put me on my own to find a direction for my life. Here's a sample of what I came up with:

Global citizenship is a very old idea. Diogenes (400–325 BC) said: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." When the leaders of our social groups, our nations and our religions, advise selfish behavior that will conflict with the welfare of the global community, a global citizen will ignore them.

The goal is global harmony. We humans are at our best when we cooperate in a worthy cause. And there is no cause more worthy than global harmony. When we think of ourselves, first and foremost, as global citizens, we give our lives meaning beyond survival and our own interests.

Global citizenship eliminates group pride. Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue. Yet we know intuitively that a man very proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as superior because he is superior and they are his groups. Group pride is disguised arrogance. Moreover, group pride and group prejudice are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Our group is superior to their group!)

"All for one, one for all" A global citizen will take for granted that the global community has, since the origin of our species, been involved a cooperative endeavor. The motto "all for one and one for all" efficiently and effectively describes the essential nature of any worthwhile cooperation. Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

A global citizen will support the idea that every child in the global community should be born with rights that are actually equal. The right to own private property is not actually an equal right, for example. People born genetically predisposed to high arrogance, high intelligence, greed, and to wealthy parents, can hoard community resources far beyond their fair share. Consequently, the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate?

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When our selfish interests cause harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

Comments? I have thick skin so please feel free to criticize.

Not only do I believe that the ideals of globalism are unrealistic, but they are evil to boot. Truly a doctrine of devils.

Nations have risen and borders laid out because people prefer to associate with those whom they share common virtues and ideals.

You claim that everyone would have equal rights in a global government, but who gets to decide what a "right" is?

At the very start of this idea we come to realize that if someone is set up to decide what is or is not a right, there will be those who will disagree.

What are the virtues of this global society? How are they decided?

However they are decided, there will be those who disagree.

Even if you put it to a vote, where the voices of all people is heard, you will create a system of majority and minority on every single issue.

Globalism is a one-way ticket to dictatorship.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm 82 and although there's plenty of rust on it, my IQ was clocked at 150 at one time so it isn't likely that you have put more thought into this than I have.

Have it your way, though I am a bit surprised that for all your thought you haven't given a very persuasive argument.

 

[joe1776]

Not only do I believe that the ideals of globalism are unrealistic, but they are evil to boot. Truly a doctrine of devils.

Why?

Nations have risen and borders laid out because people prefer to associate with those whom they share common virtues and ideals.

And the nations have battled each other rather than learning to cooperate.

You claim that everyone would have equal rights in a global government, but who gets to decide what a "right" is?

I didn't propose a global government. That isn't necessary. However, governments have always decided on rights; that won't change but my premise is that governments of the future will be better at decision-making than the current ones.

At the very start of this idea we come to realize that if someone is set up to decide what is or is not a right, there will be those who will disagree.

Sure, but people will have more faith if the decision-making process is wisely done.

What are the virtues of this global society?

The greatest virtue of a cooperative society is that its benefits will be fairly distributed.

Even if you put it to a vote, where the voices of all people is heard, you will create a system of majority and minority on every single issue.

You wouldn't put things to a popular vote because then the decision is being made by people of average intelligence, a lot like the election of a president of the USA.

Globalism is a one-way ticket to dictatorship.

The future government probably won't use leaders. So, a dictatorship would be impossible.

 

[joe1776]

Have it your way, though I am a bit surprised that for all your thought you haven't given a very persuasive argument.

I'm surprised too. With all your argument-by-labeling -- Utopian! Marxist! -- I expected more of a challenge.

 

[metis]

It reflects Catholic teaching on Social Justice. Globalization must include a global 'ethic' and is that not anything more than the thorough working-out of the Golden Rule in every area of life, economic, political, social and cultural?

Absolutely, as Catholicism is a lifestyle and not just a matter of a few beliefs.

When doing my undergrad work, I took a class entitled "Catholic Moral Theology", and I wasn't even Catholic but I still could very much relate to many of the teachings that I felt were spot-on. Thus the OP of @joe1776 post actually does very much reflect to those teachings as well as what we hear from PF himself.

 

[metis]

I'm happy to see that that the Church's hierarchy has made moral progress in my lifetime. But I was right to leave it because I was able to apply conscience, and my ability to reason, to move faster in making moral growth on my own.

The reality is that you had that right of decision all along.

The church is like a Roman traffic cop, whereas many of the people will ignore the cop at times. But if some conflict does occur, then the cop is here to sort things out.

If you can still find it, an excellent book on this is "May Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide], which spells this out in some detail.

BTW, I'm not a Catholic.

 

[joe1776]

The reality is that you had that right of decision all along.

The church is like a Roman traffic cop, whereas many of the people will ignore the cop at times. But if some conflict does occur, then the cop is here to sort things out.

If you can still find it, an excellent book on this is "May Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide], which spells this out in some detail.

BTW, I'm not a Catholic.

It's been years since I gave this much thought. However, I recall that the Catechism explained that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason. I think Aquinas is responsible for that opinion.

If that's true, then conscience can be taught and learned. Moreover, that gives the Church the responsibility for instruction to "inform the conscience." They sometimes speak of a Catholic conscience and a Protestant conscience.

I figured out years ago that the the judgments of conscience are intuitive. They are not judgments of reason. In the last 20 years or so, science is confirming my opinion.

So, when you say that the Church wants me to be guided by conscience. They have a different idea of what that means.

My conscience doesn't bother me in allowing abortions, for example. But the Church is leading its laity in a different direction based on the reasoning of its hierarchy.

I don't think I have anything to learn from them about morality.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm surprised too. With all your argument-by-labeling -- Utopian! Marxist! -- I expected more of a challenge.

You have not exactly demolished my arguments by any stretch of the imagination.

I was thinking a few minutes ago that if you were a lifelong Socialist I can see how your OP would seem to be a logical extension of that thinking.

I don't think I have anything to learn from them about morality.

One would hope that by the tender age of 82 very few could teach you much more about morality.

As an aside: When I first read the beginning of the OP I was immediately reminded of what is known as the "Sovereign citizen". I was happy to read that that was NOT the case. If you are not familiar with the term just click the link below and fasten your seatbelt. Be aware that these "contests" can get quite heated and are liberally sprinkled with very strong language. If you are good with that, bon apatite.

Sovereign citizen epic fails - YouTube

If you could convince any of these folks of your thinking, I'll sign on, no further questions asked, this very afternoon.

 

[joe1776]

You have not exactly demolished my arguments by any stretch of the imagination.

I was thinking a few minutes ago that if you were a lifelong Socialist I can see how your OP would seem to be a logical extension of that thinking.


One would hope that by the tender age of 82 very few could teach you much more about morality.

I'm not a lifelong Socialist. However, very early in life, I realized that cooperation was something the world needed more of and competition was something we could live without.

In business, I cooperated with my employees to give customers the best bargain in the service we provided. In the 1970s, Japanese manufacturers did the same thing and captured a huge share of the American market in electronics and automobiles.

American manufacturers became vulnerable by treating their employees like the competition and their customers like suckers.

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe you can expand on your objection. I don't see how treating everyone as an equal, or putting the interest of the global community first, threatens diversity.

My apologies... I was writing a more substantive response but it was not coming out in a way that was savory. Let me see if I can distill my thoughts this time.

I think the first thing to consider is the human organism, and in particular, its capacity for awareness. Like other mammals, humans have a limited frame of awareness. We only perceive with our senses what is in our immediate area - this is a very localized focus. Research has also demonstrated that humans are terrible at multitasking, or splitting their awareness in many directions. This isn't a bad thing, really. Our attention and focus is telescopic, which was (and is) important for survival and day-to-day tasks.

What happens when a human with limited sensory capabilities attempts to process something bigger than itself? Ultimately, it can't; it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Humans can't grasp what "global community" really is. Alas, humans are hubristic animals and will tell themselves they can grasp things beyond their station. They'll then make statements about this thing they can't really comprehend using their own local awareness as the inevitable reference point. The result is an ethnocentric construct that, at best, underwrites cultural diversity.

What happens when you start prioritizing an ethnocentric construct like "global community?" We get someone handing out a bunch of square pegs when some folks have round holes. Or we get someone passing out the dairy products when some folks have lactose intolerance. In some cases we might even get a book printed in Braille that only a fraction of the population can interpret. In any case, some folks will get a bit upset and want to be left alone to their own personal and cultural needs. That's the crux of the problem with attempting to universalize, I think - attempting to one-size-fits-all. Putting some abstract (and ethnocentric) idea of "global community" first inevitably means failing to accommodate diversity in favor of more totalitarian policies. If you do it right, anyway.

This is probably a terrible post. I got interrupted mid-stream for a couple hours, lost my train of thought, and may have not found it again. But at least it's not an irate rant like my first one was... haha!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It reflects Catholic teaching on Social Justice. Globalization must include a global 'ethic' and is that not anything more than the thorough working-out of the Golden Rule in every area of life, economic, political, social and cultural?

Being based on the Golden Rule doesn't make it Catholic.

 

[Enoch07]

A pointless pipedream that can never be realiatically achieved. There will always be someone out there who will reject the idea. Because they will try to take advantage of it for their own gain, or they value personal freedom more. So long as anyone rejects the idea, it can never be attainable.

 

[YmirGF]

My apologies... I was writing a more substantive response but it was not coming out in a way that was savory. Let me see if I can distill my thoughts this time.

I think the first thing to consider is the human organism, and in particular, its capacity for awareness. Like other mammals, humans have a limited frame of awareness. We only perceive with our senses what is in our immediate area - this is a very localized focus. Research has also demonstrated that humans are terrible at multitasking, or splitting their awareness in many directions. This isn't a bad thing, really. Our attention and focus is telescopic, which was (and is) important for survival and day-to-day tasks.

What happens when a human with limited sensory capabilities attempts to process something bigger than itself? Ultimately, it can't; it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Humans can't grasp what "global community" really is. Alas, humans are hubristic animals and will tell themselves they can grasp things beyond their station. They'll then make statements about this thing they can't really comprehend using their own local awareness as the inevitable reference point. The result is an ethnocentric construct that, at best, underwrites cultural diversity.

What happens when you start prioritizing an ethnocentric construct like "global community?" We get someone handing out a bunch of square pegs when some folks have round holes. Or we get someone passing out the dairy products when some folks have lactose intolerance. In some cases we might even get a book printed in Braille that only a fraction of the population can interpret. In any case, some folks will get a bit upset and want to be left alone to their own personal and cultural needs. That's the crux of the problem with attempting to universalize, I think - attempting to one-size-fits-all. Putting some abstract (and ethnocentric) idea of "global community" first inevitably means failing to accommodate diversity in favor of more totalitarian policies. If you do it right, anyway.

This is probably a terrible post. I got interrupted mid-stream for a couple hours, lost my train of thought, and may have not found it again. But at least it's not an irate rant like my first one was... haha!

Kudos on a great post. It was worth waiting for.

A pointless pipedream that can never be realiatically achieved. There will always be someone out there who will reject the idea. Because they will try to take advantage of it for their own gain, or they value personal freedom more. So long as anyone rejects the idea, it can never be attainable.

And due to the vast divergence in intelligence and education levels you could never get everyone onside with such ideals. @joe1776 ideas are laudable, just not very practical.

 

[metis]

It's been years since I gave this much thought. However, I recall that the Catechism explained that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason. I think Aquinas is responsible for that opinion.

Yes, Aquinas was to a certain extent using Aristotle's approach.

I figured out years ago that the the judgments of conscience are intuitive. They are not judgments of reason. In the last 20 years or so, science is confirming my opinion.

Here I can't agree with you personally because intuition alone could be blatantly immoral at times because it's not source specific. So, to me, it's not an either/or dichotomy, so I believe one needs to double-check the other. IOW, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I feel a more balanced approach is usually better.

BTW, what do you mean when you wrote "science is confirming [your] opinion"?

So, when you say that the Church wants me to be guided by conscience. They have a different idea of what that means.

Not really. Ultimately, you are responsible to you, and the church recognizes that. IOW, the churches position is as long as you're in their "boat", you're safe if you follow the basic teachings, but if you leave the boat, you're on your own.