Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[Augustus]

Only stupid people would have to be forced to shift to a better system of government.

"My ideology is superior, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because they are mentally defective."

This is a strangely common attitude among liberal humanist sorts and is a product of a lack of intellectual humility based on a flawed understanding of their own (ir)rationality. It's also pretty easy to see how it can turn into an oppressive ideological standpoint (French Revolution, marxism, etc.).

 

[joe1776]

Pope Pius XII on conscience;
Conscience is the innermost secret nucleus in man. It is there that he takes refuge with his spiritual faculties in absolute solitude alone with himself and his God. Conscience is a sanctuary on the threshold of which all must halt, even in the case of a child, his father and mother.
It is correctly argued, that the true meaning of adult independence is not to be led like a little Child.

At issue is whether the judgments of conscience are the judgments of reason or of intuition. The Catechism has this to say on the topic:

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed....

This issue is important because, it determines whether or not the Church can "inform" one's conscience by its teachings as claimed. If they are judgments of reason, the Church is on firm ground. If not, if the judgments of conscience are intuitive, then the moral teachings of the Church are useless and might even conflict with conscience.

I figured out many years ago, and science is now confirming, that the judgments of conscience are intuitive. Therefore, the Church's moral instructions, on such things as abortion, for example, are possible biases capable of misleading one's conscience.

 

[joe1776]

And you wonder why people would resist the idea. This is why people reject intellectuals ideas of Utopia.

You took my quote out of context to twist its meaning.

 

[joe1776]

"My ideology is superior, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because they are mentally defective."

Shame on you. You took my quote out of context to twist my meaning.

The context:
Forcing the public to be on board is the insurmountable problem. Without full 100% acceptance of the population, the system breaks down. Basically all it takes is a single person to start a chain of events that will bring the system it's knees.

So, I was responding to the claim of less than 100% acceptance after most people accept the new government as an upgrade.

 

[Augustus]

Shame on you. You took my quote out of context to twist my meaning.

The context:
Forcing the public to be on board is the insurmountable problem. Without full 100% acceptance of the population, the system breaks down. Basically all it takes is a single person to start a chain of events that will bring the system it's knees.

So, I was responding to the claim of less than 100% acceptance after most people accept the new government as an upgrade.

I don't see how that changes the context at all.

You assume that anyone who doesn't view it as an upgrade (i.e. agree with your ideology) must be stupid and in need of compulsion.

If I'm misinterpreting this, what have I got wrong about your view?

 

[Derek500]

Actually, I think that global citizenship is a great idea. My SA Passport allws me do work in the SADEC countries, while my Aussie Passport allows me entry into the EU. Great idea. Better than: talking about S*** countries. Try to do something about it in those countries...

 

[joe1776]

I don't see how that changes the context at all.

You assume that anyone who doesn't view it as an upgrade (i.e. agree with your ideology) must be stupid and in need of compulsion.

If I'm misinterpreting this, what have I got wrong about your view?

When told you misinterpreted a meaning, it means you got the interpretation wrong.

 

[joe1776]

Actually, I think that global citizenship is a great idea. My SA Passport allws me do work in the SADEC countries, while my Aussie Passport allows me entry into the EU. Great idea. Better than: talking about S*** countries. Try to do something about it in those countries...

It strikes a more harmonious chord than Donald Trump's "America First!" message, doesn't it?

 

[metis]

The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

Thanks for that as I didn't know there was such an organized group. I've read some of their works, especially Harris and Dawkins.

Yes, I understand that. But, their boat (conscience) is built on reason not intuition. It leaks.

But how could you possibly know that? I'm not saying one way or the other since I'm not a mind-reader.

 

[metis]

I like the idea of a borderless world, but I don't think it will ever be feasible.

Especially since the human species is very territorial.

 

[metis]

I figured out many years ago, and science is now confirming, that the judgments of conscience are intuitive.

Here I have to disagree because it's too simplistic as one's conscience can have different sources. For example, how we are brought up in terms of right and wrong can very much affect our conscience. Why is it that the Aztecs could perform human sacrifices and have that fit into their conscience and yet most of us would be repulsed by even the thought of that?

 

[Thief]

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.

communism....on a massive scale

 

[Augustus]

When told you misinterpreted a meaning, it means you got the interpretation wrong.

So, in your correct view, what qualifies someone for being stupid and in need of coercion?

 

[metis]

@joe1776, you might be interested in a book by Thomas More entitled "Utopia", which seems quite compatible with where you're coming from. I just received it last week, haven't read it yet, but I do know in general what it's about.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think the concept of a global community is a difficult one to grasp but, since this is a subjective opinion, I'll acknowledge that you disagree.

There's probably some sort of miscommunication here, because I'm not talking about the "concept" of global community, I'm talking about humans actually comprehending something on a global scale - which is objectively impossible.

When we get to the implementation phase, with a new form of government in place that would have to meet the approval of a public majority, there would be trust, the way citizens trusted the new government in the USA of 1778, I can't imagine fears of totalitarian policies of hostility toward cultural diversity being a significant problem if there was public trust.

What about those who don't approve?

I showed that group pride is disguised arrogance.

You alleged that, yes. I think that's an unnecessary judgement that speaks to your own personal or cultural values more than anything else. As mentioned, those are values not everyone shares and it's mighty presumptuous to presume everyone is willing to abandon their sense of self for your "global community" idea. It's also, as mentioned, inherently hostile to honoring diversity in human cultures.

That problem has been losing ground for decades. Christians don't burn heretics at the stake anymore. Nor do they attack other religions as they did during the Crusades. Christian and Protestant aren't killing each other as they once did.

I don't see things that way. I see no indications of conflicts being eliminated from society and every indication that the natures of conflicts shifts and changes. Perhaps before the current "president" was elected I could have been more naively optimistic about this. But now? Not a chance, unfortunately.

 

[joe1776]

Especially since the human species is very territorial.

The "is" in your sentence implies that you think that this is a characteristic of human nature that won't change. I think it has been changing and will continue to do so.

 

[joe1776]

@joe1776, you might be interested in a book by Thomas More entitled "Utopia", which seems quite compatible with where you're coming from. I just received it last week, haven't read it yet, but I do know in general what it's about.

Thanks. I'll do a search as soon as I log out here.

 

[joe1776]

There's probably some sort of miscommunication here, because I'm not talking about the "concept" of global community, I'm talking about humans actually comprehending something on a global scale - which is objectively impossible.

I'm drawing a blank. Why would humans have to comprehend anything more than what I've offered in the OP?

What about those who don't approve?

They get the freedom to object just as they do in any "government for the people."

You alleged that, yes. I think that's an unnecessary judgement that speaks to your own personal or cultural values more than anything else. As mentioned, those are values not everyone shares and it's mighty presumptuous to presume everyone is willing to abandon their sense of self for your "global community" idea. It's also, as mentioned, inherently hostile to honoring diversity in human cultures.

I said that "we intuitively know that a man extremely 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." Are you saying that you don't believe that? If you do agree, the rest of my argument is based on logical deduction. If you find fault with that, where?

I don't see things that way. I see no indications of conflicts being eliminated from society and every indication that the natures of conflicts shifts and changes. Perhaps before the current "president" was elected I could have been more naively optimistic about this. But now? Not a chance, unfortunately.

I don't have the time to cover all the facets of society. I gave you the most obvious: religions are getting along much better than they did in say, the days of the Crusades. If you're unwilling to concede that, I'll agree to disagree.

 

[joe1776]

@joe1776, you might be interested in a book by Thomas More entitled "Utopia", which seems quite compatible with where you're coming from. I just received it last week, haven't read it yet, but I do know in general what it's about.

I was able to find a summary of More's Utopia. There are some similarities to what I've proposed in the OP but in some important conflicts More has:

-- government by elected delegates
-- slavery is OK
-- morals formed by reason not intuition
-- uses laws to punish people for victimless crimes

 

[Quintessence]

I'm drawing a blank. Why would humans have to comprehend anything more than what I've offered in the OP?

Sorry, I took the thought train a few stations down. When I think about the concept of "global community" and implementing it in a meaningful way, that requires understanding what the global community actually is. How do we study what the global community is? It's monstrously complicated, even using a sound methodological tool like the sciences. It's even more monstrously complicated than climate science... and that's saying something. I think about that, and I see a big obstacle for implementing any concept of a global community in a way that isn't inevitably ethnocentric and biased towards some cultural group.

They get the freedom to object just as they do in any "government for the people."

Hmm. Freedom to protest doesn't sound like much recompense to me. It reminds me of the recent intersects between Native American cultures and big oil. It's paltry compensation to say to these people "yeah, you've got the right to protest, but we're going to spoil your sacred lands and run a pipeline through them anyway."

I said that "we intuitively know that a man extremely 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." Are you saying that you don't believe that? If you do agree, the rest of my argument is based on logical deduction. If you find fault with that, where?

I don't think you have to take this idea and then pass judgement on people who take pride in who they are. It's the negative judgements I find problematic. Our roots shape who we are, even if it is, as you call it, a "twist of fate." It's an important aspect of knowing ourselves and of knowing other peoples, human or otherwise. Recognizing its importance prompts study and appreciation of other cultures. It doesn't have to manifest as pride or arrogance.

I don't have the time to cover all the facets of society. I gave you the most obvious: religions are getting along much better than they did in say, the days of the Crusades. If you're unwilling to concede that, I'll agree to disagree.

I don't think an observation like "conflicts between religious groups are less physically violent" is the same thing as "religions are getting along much better." I'm not one to make physical violence my sole (or even primary) factor for consideration. Each to their own, I suppose.