• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Citizenship = Moral Progress

joe1776

Well-Known Member
“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." -- Socrates

We can each make a serious leap forward morally by adopting an attitude of global citizenship. IMO, the unconscious need to feel superior to other people drives most, if not all, human failings. It results in arrogant behavior and causes wars. The most harm is done by the arrogance we call group pride, which we mistakenly think of as a virtue. It isn't a virtue because the ever-present flip-side of the coin is group prejudice, the cause of the most serious instances of human conflict.

Our tribe is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is super to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!


When we reject all group attachments, and become, first and foremost, a Global Citizen, we can leave behind a huge chunk of immoral baggage.

If you do a search for global citizenship, you'll find that the concept is now happening as a movement.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." -- Socrates

We can each make a serious leap forward morally by adopting an attitude of global citizenship. IMO, the unconscious need to feel superior to other people drives most, if not all, human failings. It results in arrogant behavior and causes wars. The most harm is done by the arrogance we call group pride, which we mistakenly think of as a virtue. It isn't a virtue because the ever-present flip-side of the coin is group prejudice, the cause of the most serious instances of human conflict.

Our tribe is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is super to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!


When we reject all group attachments, and become, first and foremost, a Global Citizen, we can leave behind a huge chunk of immoral baggage.

If you do a search for global citizenship, you'll find that the concept is now happening as a movement.
In my passport it say Nationality Norwegian, but honestly i see my self more as a global citizen then just Norwegian
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It sounds like a Progressivist wet dream.

The thing about wet dreams is that someone always needs to clean up after them.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." -- Socrates

We can each make a serious leap forward morally by adopting an attitude of global citizenship. IMO, the unconscious need to feel superior to other people drives most, if not all, human failings. It results in arrogant behavior and causes wars. The most harm is done by the arrogance we call group pride, which we mistakenly think of as a virtue. It isn't a virtue because the ever-present flip-side of the coin is group prejudice, the cause of the most serious instances of human conflict.

Our tribe is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is super to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!


When we reject all group attachments, and become, first and foremost, a Global Citizen, we can leave behind a huge chunk of immoral baggage.

If you do a search for global citizenship, you'll find that the concept is now happening as a movement.
Nobel but will never happen.
 
Diogenes said something similar and he was also right.

Interestingly, Diogenes meant it in the sense that "As I am a citizen of the world, I have no obligations to my community". It wasn't the positive claim you think it was.

What 'global citizenship' overlooks is that attachment to a particular place and its people also drives altruistic behaviour and community spirit.

That is why localism is a far more conducive to "moral progress" than 'global citizenship' which is an abstract nonsense that is more likely to be utilised to absolve oneself of duties to and solidarity with a community as it is to drive people towards high-minded good.

A better world is the aggregate of better communities, not some top-down fantasy that ignores the psychological underpinnings of human cultures and societies.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why would a large tribe be less conducive to morality than a small one? Isn't the very idea of tribes divisive?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Our glorious ex-Prime Minister Theresa May infamously declared that if you say you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere.
If only she'd lived in a jar.
I have to say i agree with her. Citizenship is only to tell, You are different than i am we must not see ourself as same. that to me is to strange
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It sounds like a Progressivist wet dream.

The thing about wet dreams is that someone always needs to clean up after them.
I don't really see it as such. We are more connected as a globe than ever before, more aware of what else is going on out in it, and also moving about in like never before.
We also see repeatedly throughout history various methods and attempts at enlarging a governing state to encompass a much larger area than previously has done (Such as Roman conquest or the EU).
One way or another it's probably going to eventually happen.
 
Why would a large tribe be less conducive to morality than a small one? Isn't the very idea of tribes divisive?

Human society is intrinsically divisive.

A 7 billion person tribe with divergent cultures and competing interests have nothing tangible to bind them together.

If you live in the same community you have personal relationships and things that create clear mutual self-interest regarding things in your everyday environment. Decision makers are also part of the community which creates greater obligation, accountability and skin in the game.

Giant, abstract communities run by distant leaders are not stable and will inevitably fracture into smaller tribes.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Interestingly, Diogenes meant it in the sense that "As I am a citizen of the world, I have no obligations to my community". It wasn't the positive claim you think it was.
That doesn't make sense. If Diogenes felt no obligation to his community, and for some baffling reason, wanted to proclaim it, all he had to do is say so. The additional proclamation of world citizenship wasn't necessary unless that was the point of his comment.

What 'global citizenship' overlooks is that attachment to a particular place and its people also drives altruistic behaviour and community spirit. That is why localism is a far more conducive to "moral progress" than 'global citizenship' which is an abstract nonsense that is more likely to be utilised to absolve oneself of duties to and solidarity with a community as it is to drive people towards high-minded good. A better world is the aggregate of better communities, not some top-down fantasy that ignores the psychological underpinnings of human cultures and societies.
In order to make that claim, you must cherry-pick the historical evidence. What you're overlooking is the always-present other side of the group pride coin, group prejudice. That's the side which allows one group to attack another to prove their superiority. Group prejudice explains why tribes, nations, religions and races have attacked, enslaved and oppressed their neighbors
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...A 7 billion person tribe with divergent cultures and competing interests have nothing tangible to bind them together...
Nothing except the desire to leave the world a better place for their children than the one they were born into.
 
That doesn't make sense. If Diogenes felt no obligation to his community, and for some baffling reason, wanted to proclaim it, all he had to do is say so. The additional proclamation of world citizenship wasn't necessary unless that was the point of his comment.

You are *actually* arguing that it makes no sense that the chap who lived in a jar, shat in the theater, pissed on people who annoyed him and wanked himself off in public didn't think exactly like a modern progressive? :D

You understand that ancient Greece was a very different place where someone who lived as an individual was literally an "idiot"?

In order to make that claim, you must cherry-pick the historical evidence. What you're overlooking is the always-present other side of the group pride coin, group prejudice. That's the side which allows one group to attack another to prove their superiority. Group prejudice explains why tribes, nations, religions and races have attacked, enslaved and oppressed their neighbors

And you cherry pick the evidence that shows your goal to be a pipe dream that will end up fracturing into competing tribes.

"tribes" will always exist, so it is best to keep then relatively small and formed around a positive identity linked to a tangible local community.

One size fits all approaches will have the opposite effect as some groups will always feel they are getting cheated out of their fair share.
 
Last edited:
Top