Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[Enoch07]

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

No, you were completely in context.

Words matter even if you didn't mean "stupid" in the classical sense in that particular quote. The first adjective that comes to mind for people that disagree with you is "stupid" says a great deal.

 

[joe1776]

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.

I'll grant the possibility that you might be more perceptive than I am; but I don't see anything complicated about it. Once you have a new government decision-making model successfully tested in an advisory capacity, with no actual power, you try it in one nation. If it works well, any of the other nations can adopt it, making minor tweaks as needed. It's no different than the way democracy spread after it was introduced to the world as a new idea.

Hmm. Freedom to protest doesn't sound like much recompense to me. I

t 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."

What would you suggest as recompense? A government has to make decisions that will benefit its people. Some aren't going to like the decisions no matter how wisely they're made.

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.

If the excessive pride actually isn't in the group but in the person who holds it, that's arrogance, IMO. And , while you can spin the problem into a positive as an important aspect of knowing ourselves and others, that isn't the way it commonly manifests. Group pride and group prejudice meld into "Our group is superior to yours!" -- and the cause of most wars.

 

[metis]

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.

Correct, as I don't think it can be 100% changed, but I do believe we can work in that direction, and I believe we should.

 

[pearl]

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.

The goal is to achieve the greater moral good regardless of the dictates of reason alone.
Take for instance the presidential election of 2004? as it pertained to Catholic voters and voting ones conscience. Each Catholic is called to consider these issues from a faith perspective and to weigh the candidates' positions very carefully before voting. A Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who approves of abortion without diminishing the moral teaching of the Church. Its where Christian life and conscience come into contact with the real world.
"Nothing is so sacred as the human conscience. No authority, not even the authority of the church, can take from me this burden, this duty before God or can excuse me from this personal free decision of my own conscience."

 

[YmirGF]

I'm also unsure how one would bring the Muslim world into this "global" vision? They are quite fond of their religion, to put it mildly, with it's inherent sense of "us vs. them", highly authoritarian, mentality.

 

[Quintessence]

What would you suggest as recompense? A government has to make decisions that will benefit its people. Some aren't going to like the decisions no matter how wisely they're made.

I don't have the answers. I simply know I am not a fan of attempts to create some global set of rules all human cultures on the planet are expected to follow (or else). Pluralism is one of my central values, so I can't feel comfortable with attempts to transform human culture into a monolithic entity.

If the excessive pride actually isn't in the group but in the person who holds it, that's arrogance, IMO. And , while you can spin the problem into a positive as an important aspect of knowing ourselves and others, that isn't the way it commonly manifests.

Really? You must have grown up in a very different culture. Where I grew up - and where I live now - the common manifestation is appreciation of diversity.

Group pride and group prejudice meld into "Our group is superior to yours!" -- and the cause of most wars.

If this is amended to "ideologies of cultural supremacy (not the same thing as group pride) coupled with active oppression of other cultural groups has been a factor in some wars" I might agree. I'm no avid student of history, but I'm aware that wars are multi-causal. Come to think of it, everything in this universe is multi-causal.

 

[joe1776]

"Nothing is so sacred as the human conscience. No authority, not even the authority of the church, can take from me this burden, this duty before God or can excuse me from this personal free decision of my own conscience."

I don't find this quote in the Catechism. At issue is how is the conscience formed, --by reason or by intuition? If the Church claims the authority to inform the conscience, then how does a Catholic follow his conscience when opposed to the authority of the Church?

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

 

[metis]

I would suggest that the church is an authority, not the only authority when it comes to conscience formation. Matter of fact, it can be conscience that may encourage some to seek out the church to begin with.

 

[joe1776]

I don't have the answers. I simply know I am not a fan of attempts to create some global set of rules all human cultures on the planet are expected to follow (or else). Pluralism is one of my central values, so I can't feel comfortable with attempts to transform human culture into a monolithic entity.

So, you challenge my answer on recompense but have none of your own?

It looks like you're creating a strawman you can beat up. Quote me, please. Where did I create a global set of rules to be followed or else?


Really? You must have grown up in a very different culture. Where I grew up - and where I live now - the common manifestation is appreciation of diversity. ...If this is amended to "ideologies of cultural supremacy (not the same thing as group pride) coupled with active oppression of other cultural groups has been a factor in some wars" I might agree. I'm no avid student of history, but I'm aware that wars are multi-causal. Come to think of it, everything in this universe is multi-causal. [/QUOTE]

Religious intolerance (Our religion is superior to their religion!)
Racial supremacy (Our race is superior to their race!)
Nationalism (Our nation is superior to their nation!)
From the Crusades to WW II these attitudes triggered aggression.
Adolf Hitler used all three to incite his Nazi followers.
Labeling these motives "cultural supremacy" masks the problem of arrogant group pride.

 

[joe1776]

I would suggest that the church is an authority, not the only authority when it comes to conscience formation. Matter of fact, it can be conscience that may encourage some to seek out the church to begin with.

Morally, we can't serve two masters. Let's assume a Catholic's conscience is in conflict with the teachings of his church. If he resolves the conflict in favor of conscience, then conscience is his moral authority. If he resolves it in favor of the Church, then the Church is his moral authority.

And , if I'm right that the judgments of conscience are intuitive. Then his church can't possibly inform conscience. It's something we're born with.

 

[Quintessence]

So, you challenge my answer on recompense but have none of your own?

Of course not. How could I? All possible resolutions have trade-offs. Like I said, I simply know I'm not a fan of this "global community first" idea for the reasons I've already outlined in previous posts. Maybe you are okay voting in favor of the oil company screwing over indigenous tribes for the "global community" but I am not.

It looks like you're creating a strawman you can beat up. Quote me, please. Where did I create a global set of rules to be followed or else?

How else are you supposed to create and cultivate this idea of a global community? If you want people to abide this "think of yourself as a global citizen first," other aspects of their ways of life have to take a back seat. That's proposing a rule for people to follow (presumably, one with consequences if we refuse). What if we don't want to board your train? What if we don't want to abandon our cultural ways of life to put this abstract global community first? Especially when "global community" is really someone's ethnocentric idea of what all human society should look like?

Labeling these motives "cultural supremacy" masks the problem of arrogant group pride.

If you say so; you may be missing my point by focusing on the labels. The point was taking pride in aspects of one's identity, such as local/cultural groups, does not equate to arrogance... and it certainly isn't "the" cause of wars.

 

[joe1776]

Of course not. How could I?

Since you said I was wrong, I leaped to the conclusion that you thought you knew what was right.

Maybe you are okay voting in favor of the oil company screwing over indigenous tribes for the "global community" but I am not.

Another strawman. Quote me, please. What did I write that caused you to think I'd be in favor of the big oil company screwing over indigenous tribes?

How else are you supposed to create and cultivate this idea of a global community? If you want people to abide this "think of yourself as a global citizen first," other aspects of their ways of life have to take a back seat. That's proposing a rule for people to follow (presumably, one with consequences if we refuse). What if we don't want to board your train? What if we don't want to abandon our cultural ways of life to put this abstract global community first? Especially when "global community" is really someone's ethnocentric idea of what all human society should look like?

You need to read more carefully and stop making up strawman arguments. I explained all you need to know to be a global citizen in paragraph one of the OP.

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.

 

[Quintessence]

Another strawman. Quote me, please. What did I write that caused you to think I'd be in favor of the big oil company screwing over indigenous tribes?

This here, which was in response to a paragraph I wrote that used a case example involving indigenous tribes conflicting with oil interests:

A government has to make decisions that will benefit its people. Some aren't going to like the decisions no matter how wisely they're made.

The specific example really doesn't matter, though. I'm just going to C&P:

How else are you supposed to create and cultivate this idea of a global community? If you want people to abide this "think of yourself as a global citizen first," other aspects of their ways of life have to take a back seat. That's proposing a rule for people to follow (presumably, one with consequences if we refuse). What if we don't want to board your train? What if we don't want to abandon our cultural ways of life to put this abstract global community first? Especially when "global community" is really someone's ethnocentric idea of what all human society should look like?

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.

See above. Who decides what "welfare of the global community" looks like? Some group comes up with some standard grounded in their own culture's ethics and norms. Why should other cultures give up their ways of life to put some ethnocentric vision of "global" welfare first? Again, the idea inevitably represents some particular group's interests or values and demands sacrificing other ways of life.

 

[joe1776]

This here, which was in response to a paragraph I wrote that used a case example involving indigenous tribes conflicting with oil interests:

I said this: "A government has to make decisions that will benefit its people. Some aren't going to like the decisions no matter how wisely they're made." So, you made the logical deduction that I'd be in favor of the big oil company screwing over indigenous tribes? Wow.

I wrote this: 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.

And you asked:

Who decides what "welfare of the global community" looks like?

Anybody with the ability to reason can decide. For example, Donald Trump wants to build a wall between the USA and Mexico, our neighbors to the south. If all countries built walls between them and their neighbors, would that serve the welfare of the global community? The obvious answer is "no," so a Global Citizen living in America would not support his president on that issue.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

Can I buy some of that *hit.?

 

[joe1776]

Can I buy some of that *hit.?

There are two qualifications: An IQ above35 and a history of sanity. Can you make the grade?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There are two qualifications: An IQ above35 and a history of sanity. Can you make the grade?

I went clean through the sixth grade. How long do I have to be insane?

 

[arthra]

For Baha'is "global civilization" is part of our faith:

"Laying the groundwork for global civilization calls for the creation of laws and institutions that are universal in both character and authority. The effort can begin only when the concept of the oneness of humanity has been wholeheartedly embraced by those in whose hands the responsibility for decision making rests, and when the related principles are propagated through both educational systems and the media of mass communication. Once this threshold is crossed, a process will have been set in motion through which the peoples of the world can be drawn into the task of formulating common goals and committing themselves to their attainment. Only so fundamental a reorientation can protect them, too, from the age-old demons of ethnic and religious strife. Only through the dawning consciousness that they constitute a single people will the inhabitants of the planet be enabled to turn away from the patterns of conflict that have dominated social organization in the past and begin to learn the ways of collaboration and conciliation. “The well-being of mankind,” Bahá’u’lláh writes, “its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Prosperity of Humankind, Pages 3-4

 

[joe1776]

..."Laying the groundwork for global civilization calls for the creation of laws and institutions that are universal in both character and authority...

I think you have it backwards. I think people first have to change their minds, one at a time, the way they changed their minds on the morality of slavery; and the way they're changing their minds on equality for women and homosexuals. We have to become better human beings first. In doing that, we come closer to global harmony.

The idea that religion can lead the way to moral progress has been tried. It failed. Its legacy has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. Religion is an obstacle to be overcome in our drive toward global harmony.

 

[pearl]

At issue is how is the conscience formed, --by reason or by intuition?

I do not believe it is an either or as both are operative.
The Church is an indispensable help in conscience formation. But, "always let the Church be your guide" misses the fundamentally persoal character of conscience. Forming conscience rightly does not mean blind obedience to the moral teaching of any community, including the Church, for blind obedience does not include a personal appropriation of moral conviction in freedom and with understanding. Blind obedience cheats conscience of its dignity.

Conscience refers to a moral law outside of us that we must obey, also it refers to the voice of God in the deepest part of ourselves. One , the work of conscience is obedient submission to moral laws that are objective and binding, the other, conscience is the activity of discerning God's particular will for me.