Great Challenges for World Peace book 5

GREAT CHALLENGES FOR WORLD PEACE
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES TO BUILD
A CULTURE OF PEACE
VOLUME V
Copyright © Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
First English Edition: 2018
ISBN: 978-1984255044
Edited by the author: Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
email: famcano2004@gmail.com
Cover Design: Sunil Cano

Great Challenges for World Peace
Chapter 1 Individualism versus Communitarianism
Chapter 2 The Problem of Economic Inequalities
Chapter 3 The Problem of the Deterioration of the
Democratic Societies
Chapter 4 The Problem of Moral Degradation of
Public and Private Life
Chapter 5 Clash of Civilizations or World Peace?

Everyone agrees that we live in a time of crisis. It is a
generalized crisis of values. In science and philosophy the
search for truth, certitude or rationality is in a dead end. In the
sphere of ethics, there is a total confusion about what is right
or wrong.
Society is plagued by problems, ranging from the increase in
youth violence, including child abuse, to problems such as
abusive use of alcohol and drugs, sexual offenses, abuse and
violence within the family, until the corruption of political and
financial elites.
Moreover, at the global level, we are immersed in a series of
regional wars and exposed to the growing danger of conflicts
or clashes between different nations, cultures and civilizations,
in addition to the serious threat of international terrorism.
INTRODUCTION

«Man, having been transformed into a thing, is anxious,
without faith, without conviction, with little capacity for
love. He escapes into empty busy-ness, alcoholism, extreme
sexual promiscuity, and psychosomatic symptoms of all
kinds, which can best be explained by the theory of stress.
Paradoxically, the wealthiest societies turn out to be the
sickest, and the progress of medicine in them is matched by
a great increase of all forms of psychic and psychosomatic
illness.»
Erich Fromm, On Being Human, Continuum, New York, 1994, pp.
36-37.
As Erich Fromm rightly points out in the following quote, it is
paradoxical that opulent societies are the ones who are plagued with most
psychological problems caused by conflicting human relationships that
lead many people to loneliness, depression and even suicide.

The root of current problems lies in the moral
emptiness created by the crisis of values.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to research
for core values and universal ethical principles
that can be shared and accepted by all nations,
cultures and religions.
These universally shared values should serve as
a basis for a peace education that fosters
peaceful coexistence among individuals, families,
races, nations and civilizations, in order to
achieve a stable and lasting world peace.

In this volume, entitled Great
Challenges for World Peace, we
analyze the three great challenges
that humanity would have to
overcome if we are to achieve a
stable and lasting peace for the
new millennium.
Today, global solutions are
needed for all problems, be they at
the individual and family level as
well as at the national or global
scale, since they all affect the
majority of nations equally.
A first big problem is to end hunger and
poverty in the world and achieve a global
equalization of wealth.
The second big challenge of our day is to try
to solve the problem of moral degradation or
the widespread of corruption at all levels of
society.
A third major challenge is to control and
prevent the wars and conflicts between
nations, ethnic groups or cultures that caused
such disastrous humanitarian consequences in
the twentieth century, as well as to solve the
serious problem of international terrorism.

The source of inspiration and motivation
for this research has been the philosophical,
ethical and religious thinking of Sun Myung
Moon, an extraordinary man who dedicated
his whole life to world peace.
He founded the Unification Movement and
numerous organizations and institutions in
all fields of culture. He brought together
scientists, teachers, communicators,
educators, religious leaders, and political
leaders to participate in numerous
international conferences in order to work
for world peace, transcending national,
cultural, racial and religious barriers.
Like other great visionaries as
Jesus, Buddha or Socrates, he has
never written anything, but
throughout his life he has given a
vivid education through lectures,
sermons and public conferences.
For this reason, Dr. Sung Hun Lee,
a Korean scholar, put in order and
systematize the philosophical
thinking of Sun Myung Moon, which
is called “Unification Thought”,
because its claim is to harmonize all
contradictory schools and currents of
human thought throughout history.

«Humankind’s destiny is to bring together all the
points of view that are now divided against each
other. The philosophy that will lead humanity in the
future must be able to bring together all religions
and philosophies.(…)
If we continue the era of people congregating
together only by religion or race, then humanity
cannot avoid a repetition of war. The age of peace
absolutely cannot come unless we transcend
cultural customs and traditions.»
Sun Myung Moon, As a Peace-loving Global Citizen,TheWashingtonTimes
Foundation, USA, 2009, p. 291.

1. Historical roots of the
modern individualist vision
2. Exacerbation of modern
individualism encouraged by
metaphysical, economic,
moral, and naturalist
theories
3. Criticism to individualism
4. Individualism from the point
of view of individual purpose
and purpose for the whole
CHAPTER 1 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM
5. The communitarianism of Amitai
Etzioni: A social order based on the
voluntary acceptance of a shared core
values
6. Harmony and complementarity between
individualist and communitarian visions
7. The Three Great Challenges Facing
Humanity
8. An ideal world based on the principles of
interdependence, mutual prosperity and
universally shared values

The controversy between individualists and
communitarians is a debate whose roots go back to
Democritus and Aristotle, emphasizing one that things
must be explained by reducing them to its simplest parts,
while the other indicates that the whole or organisms
have their own laws and purposes that cannot be
explained from the parts.
In moral and political philosophy, the controversy
between individualists and communitarians —that is,
between those who emphasize the supremacy of
individual autonomy and rights and who instead highlight
the duties towards community and common way of life—
is one of the debates, as Cortina points out, «which have
resulted in a higher number of publications, congresses
and meetings.»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios,Taurus, Madrid, 1998, p. 89.
In this chapter we are going to try if it is
possible to harmonize these two visions,
which apparently seem opposite and
contradictory.
We will begin by referring to the liberal
roots of individualism and its evolution,
then moving on to the reasons that have
led many moral and political philosophers
over the past few decades to openly
question the individualist view that
prevails inWestern democracies.
And we will end up referring to the
communitarian paradigm and to the
possibility of harmonizing both visions.
INTRODUCTION

As is well known, modern individualism has its
roots in the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth
century and the liberal theorists who promoted and
justified them. His revolutionary proclamations were
a plea for the natural rights of individuals to life,
liberty, and property.They demanded that all human
beings be treated with equal dignity and rights,
against the abuses of power, tyranny and corruption
of the monarchs and the aristocratic class.
They fought against a hierarchical and classist
social system that legitimized through bloodline and
family inheritance the royal authority and the abusive
privileges of the nobility. Privileges such as the
monopoly of wealth and land ownership, the
hoarding of all public offices, and judicial
prerogatives, which left the common people and the
emerging bourgeois class in a clear helplessness.
They advocated freedom of religious and
political beliefs, as well as freedom of
expression and association.All this in order to
avoid imprisoning or condemning people to
death for having different beliefs, and
preventing the official or majority religion to
persecute minority religions, along with the
usual practice of kings and rulers to eliminate
their opponents or political rivals.
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MODERN INDIVIDUALIST VISION

Perhaps the greatest achievement of modern
democracies has been the consolidation in a large
part of the present world of the right to freedom
of religious and political beliefs. In other words,
tolerance and respect for the plurality of beliefs
and ways of life;The right not to be judged or
condemned for having different ideas from those
of the rulers, as well as freedom of expression
and association, freedom of movement and free
initiative.
However, the ideal of all men being equal and
living fraternally as brothers and sisters,
unfortunately, has not been realized. In the
capitalist democratic nations, equality of
opportunity is more nominal than real.This is
because they failed to achieve economic equality.
This is a goal that should also have been
pursued, since the original ideal of democracy
was precisely to create a society in which all
human beings were like the brothers and sisters
of a large family, in which there were no class
distinctions or economic status.
Achievements and failures of modern liberal democracies

In fact, the bourgeois revolutionaries
soon became a new capitalist
"aristocracy," seizing privileges, wealth,
and power.
They behaved in a similar way to the
old aristocracy they criticized, with the
only difference now that the social status
or value of people is measured by the
number of digits in their bank account
rather than the high birth or lineage.
One of the main reasons for this failure
is the progressive emergence of a selfish
individualism that has always infested
capitalist democratic societies from the
beginning to the present day.
Achievements and failures of modern liberal democracies

 Modern Atomism
 Adam Smith’s EconomicTheory
 The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham
 Malthus’ Naturalism and Spencer’s Social
Darwinism
 The egoistic and hedonistic lifestyle
prevailing in modern democracies
EXACERBATION OF MODERN INDIVIDUALISM ENCOURAGED BY
METAPHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, MORAL, AND NATURALIST THEORIES

EXACERBATION OF MODERN INDIVIDUALISM ENCOURAGED BY
METAPHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, MORAL, AND NATURALIST THEORIES
Let us now see how
individualism —starting from an
initial just defense of human
dignity and the natural rights of
individuals against the oppression
and tyranny of the old regime—
was exacerbated with the rational
support of certain metaphysical,
moral, economic and naturalistic
theories.

In the first place, the early liberal theorists
used atomism —which at the time was very
popular among scientists— in order to rebut
the arguments of the conservatives who
justified the hierarchical structure of the
monarchical system, arguing that it was the
most appropriate and natural because it
resembled the hierarchical whole of the
cosmos and living organisms.
This atomist vision led them to highlight in
an exaggerated and exclusive way the
individual rights of the people, ignoring the
duties that each individual has toward others.
This view encouraged individuals to seek only
their personal or family happiness by forgetting
to contribute to the well-being of their
communities, nations or world, as Goodwin
explains:
Thus, they rejected any philosophical, political or
religious view that spoke of a cohesive and harmonious
social whole, and that encouraged people to live for their
communities and nations, since this would be to fall back
into tyranny, abuse of power and violation of individual
rights.
Modern Atomism
«The conception of the individual’s duty to society is
strictly limited and the idea of a “common good” is
almost unanimously discarded. (...) Liberals who defend
an atomist conception of society argue that the concept
of the common good is itself a philosophical fallacy.The
substance and joy of life are to be found in the private
sphere and not in the public sphere.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones
Península, Barcelona, 1988, p. 60

A second view that contributed to the exacerbation of individualism
was the classical economic theory. According to Goodwin:
That is to say, the famous maxim, “private
vices, public benefits,” which unfortunately
today seems to be more effective than ever, if
we take into account the enormous benefits
generated by the industries of tobacco, alcohol,
gambling, drugs, pornography, prostitution and
sex tourism.
As Goodwin says, «Liberal thinkers achieved
something that seemed impossible in the
Christian Middle Ages: they made selfishness a
virtue» (Ibid., p. 48).
Adam Smith’s Economic Theory
«The liberal model of society, as already mentioned,
presents analogies with the system of free enterprise
idealized by the early economists.The free market was
represented as a collection of independent individuals
who produced, bought and sold goods in order to
obtain the maximum profit, without the interference of
the government.
Adam Smith introduced the notion of the Invisible
Hand, which guaranteed that this multiplicity of
transactions dictated by self-interest would lead to
greater national prosperity, spontaneously, without
being proposed by individuals.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones Península,
Barcelona, 1988, p. 63

The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham was the third of
the theories that joined the previous ones in the exaltation
of the egoistic individualism, elevating it to the status of
moral sanctity, as our author continues commenting:
The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham
«As a moral system based on a calculation of pain and
pleasure, it morally justifies the selfish activities of the
individual who first appeared in Hobbes's state of nature
(…)
In the political man of the liberal who knows his own
interests and is driven by them, there is only a utilitarian
moralist who calculates the utility of his actions; his alter
ego is the economic man, who maximizes his profits and,
miraculously, benefits society as a whole.»

There was a fourth vision, the
naturalist, which exaggerated even
more the individualism of some
orthodox liberals like Malthus —famous
for inspiring Darwin's theory of natural
selection— and Spencer, the father of
social Darwinists.According to Malthus,
in society, as in nature, there is a
ruthless struggle for survival in which
there is no place for those who cannot
obtain means for their subsistence.
Malthus’ Naturalism and Spencer’s Social Darwinism
«[Spencer] in his book The ManVersus the State makes
the apology of laissez faire, the liberalism of “survival of the
best” against liberal reformers.
Like Malthus, Spencer thought that the “pitiable poor,”
whom so manyVictorian philanthropists were so
preoccupied with, were poor because they deserved it and
should not receive help from the government.»
And Spencer developed a theory of
social evolution in which there is a war
of all against all in which the fittest
survived. According to Goodwin:

In sum, the original individualism
of the early liberals —understood as
the righteous defense of the natural
rights of individuals against
tyranny— was distorted and
exacerbated, with the help of
atomism, hedonistic utilitarianism,
classical economic theory and
naturalism, to the point of becoming
an exorbitant selfish, hedonistic and
rapacious individualism.
Its harmful practical consequences
are well ostensible in the present
Western democracies, in which a
degrading selfish, hedonistic and
materialistic lifestyle prevails, as
Lipovetsky rightly describes it in the
quote below:
«By permanently stimulating the values of individual well-
being, the era of consumerism has massively disqualified the
rigorous and disciplinary forms of moral obligation, the liturgy of
duty has become inadequate for a materialist and hedonistic
culture based on the exaltation of self and the excitement of
voluptuousness-to-the-instant. (...)
In our societies, objects and marks are exhibited more than
moral exhortations, material requirements prevail over
humanitarian obligation, needs over virtue, well-being over
Goodness.
The moralist era had as its ambition the discipline of desire, we
exacerbate it; it exhorted the duties to oneself and to others, we
invite to the comfort.The obligation has been replaced by
seduction, well-being has become God and the publicity his
prophet.»
Gilles Lipovetsky, El crepúsculo del deber, Anagrama, Barcelona, 1994, pp. 51, 53.
The egoistic and hedonistic lifestyle prevailing in modern democracies

 Erich Fromm and Daniel
Bell
 Alasdair MacIntyre
 CharlesTaylor
 The new communitarian
paradigm
CRITICISM TO INDIVIDUALISM

CRITICISM TO INDIVIDUALISM
In the latter decades of the last
century, within Western democratic
societies voices began to raise that
questioned the dominant
individualistic liberal tradition,
accusing one of its offshoots,
hedonistic individualism, of
undermining social ties and causing
anomie, continuous conflicts of
partisan interests and moral crisis in
the system.

Fromm, in his famous book The
fear of freedom, has already
announced the dangers of
individualism by pointing out that his
intention was «to show that the
structure of modern society affects
man in two ways simultaneously: he
becomes more independent, self-
reliant, and critical, and he becomes
more isolated, alone, and afraid.»
Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom,
Routledge, London, 2001, p. 90.
Erich Fromm and Daniel Bell
One of the first authors to show the contradictions between
the original ideals of liberalism and the selfish individualism
infesting democratic societies was Daniel Bell, who in his
influential book, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, wrote:
«The major consequence of this crisis… is the loss of civitas,
that spontaneous willingness to obey the law, to respect the
rights of others, to forgo the temptations of private
enrichment at the expense of the public weal —in short, to
honor the “city” of which one is a member. Instead, each man
goes his own way, pursuing his private vices, which can be
indulged only at the expense of public benefits.»
Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic Books, NewYork,
1978, p. 244-245.

Another book that has marked an era is
AfterVirtue of Alasdair MacIntyre.The
author accused the Kantian Enlightened
moral project of being responsible for
modern democratic societies falling into
the hands of hedonistic utilitarianism for
having been unable to morally guide
modern man by encouraging him to perfect
his character, to practice moral and civic
virtues, to reinforce his family and
community ties and identity.
For this reason, MacIntyre proposed to
return to the communitarian ways of life, in
the style of the ancientGreek polis, in order
to recover the lost identity and meaning of
life.
MacIntyre's neo-Aristotelism was soon joined by the
neo-Hegelianism of some German philosophers.
According to Cortina:
Alasdair MacIntyre
«Following the publication of AfterVirtue, authors
such as Michael Sandel, CharlesTaylor, or Michael
Walzer joined in criticizing the liberalism of the sole
rights, albeit with nuances, and suggested a certain
return to the community.
Those Greek and medieval communities, in which the
interests of the person and the social whole coincided,
produce a certain feeling of nostalgia in some hearts. In
them each individual knew what virtues he had to
cultivate to help the whole, and there were deep bonds
between them.»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios, Taurus, Madrid, 1998,
p. 87.

The most representative of
these authors,CharlesTaylor, in
his book The Ethics of
Authenticity, expresses his
concern for the ambivalence of
individualism.
He recognizes the historical
achievements of individualism
against the old social and moral
order imposed on force, but at the
same time shows its darker side,
which our author explains as
follows:
«The dark side of individualism is a centering on the self,
which both flattens and narrows our lives, makes them poorer in
meaning, and less concerned with others or society.
This worry has recently surfaced again in concern at the fruits
of a “permissive society,” the doings of the “me generation,” or
the prevalence of “narcissism” (…)
The danger is not actual despotic control but fragmentation
—that is, a people increasingly less capable of forming a
common purpose and carrying it out. Fragmentation arises
when people come to see themselves more and more
atomistically, otherwise put, as less and less bound to their
fellow citizens in common projects and allegiances.»
Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard University Press,1991, pp. 4,
112-113.
CharlesTaylor

Following the trail of the authors we have
just mentioned, especially in the last decade
of the last century, the new communitarian
paradigm began to emerge.
Apart from pointing out the nefarious
practical consequences that occur in modern
democratic societies infested by a selfish
individualism —something in which any
sensible thinker would agree—
communitarians question the atomist vision
about human nature and society that the
current liberal still defend, as Cortina explains
very well:
«The liberals in this have practiced a strange
“atomism,” they have considered the people like atoms,
endowed with natural rights, that decide to pact their
entry in society to defend those rights.
But this atomistic view of society is radically wrong,
because the entry into society, even in the political
community, is not the fruit of a pact, but each person is
born already in communities, which function as Russian
matrioscas, the smaller ones (family, neighborhood) are
inserted in the larger ones (political community,
transnational communities).»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios,Taurus, Madrid, 1998, p.
98-89.
The new communitarian paradigm

 The principle of dual purposes
 Human beings are not like
isolated and independent atoms
whose only purpose in life is to
preserve their existence
 The metaphor of the organism
or system to describe society
 The historical misuse of
organicist and mechanistic
metaphors
 The atomistic metaphor fosters
selfish individualism
INDIVIDUALISM FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE AND
PURPOSE FOR THE WHOLE
 The hierarchical structure of the cosmos and
human society
 The old anti-authoritarian Enlightened
prejudice and the fear of liberals to
totalitarian conspiracies
 In a hierarchical social structure in which the
responsible persons fulfill their function well
the individual rights will be better
safeguarded
 Harmony or balance between individual
purpose and the purpose of serving the social
whole

Let us now analyze individualism in the
light of the principle of dual purposes,
which is one of the universal principles of
nature advocated by UnificationThought,
and which we have been using as
premise throughout all this research
work.
Men and women are part of a nature in
which it is obvious that none of the
individuals that compose it exists in an
isolated or completely independent way.
On the contrary, all the parts or entities
of the universe are interdependent and
are closely interrelated and
interconnected.
It is easy to see how in the universe the smallest
individual entities unite and form larger units or groups of
individuals.The particles join and form atoms;The atoms
rejoin forming increasingly complex molecular structures,
which are the basis of the multiple types of inorganic and
organic matter.
All living organisms are composed of cells that, at the
same time as having a life of their own, perform functions
that maintain the life of the whole organism.The earth
resembles a great living organism in which all its
components —minerals, gases, vegetables, animals and
humans— depend on one another, are interrelated and
fulfill a specific function to make it a stable and habitable
place.
The principle of dual purposes

As Sun Myung Moon explains
with the example of the human eye
in the quote below, it is evident that
all these individual entities have
two purposes; one is the purpose of
maintaining one's individual
existence and another is the
purpose of forming larger units and
contributing to the existence,
cohesion or stability of the whole.
«Let us look at the example of our eyes.The eye
has the purpose of self-existence, but also of
serving the whole body.The ear has to operate
automatically, but it also helps the whole. (…)
How could the universe be interrelated? It is
because all individuals have dual objectives: one is
to protect the self and the other to make sure the
self combines with another self to make a bigger
self.»
Sun Myung Moon, Myself, January 13, 1980.
The principle of dual purposes

Speaking metaphorically, one
could say that the smaller entities
are driven by the impulse to form
part of a larger group because they
intuit that in this way their
individual existence will be better
protected or their value will rise
considerably.
For example, a humble screw,
whose value alone or in isolation is
insignificant, could become very
valuable or even crucial if it were
part of a sophisticated spacecraft
holding one of its vital parts.
«There cannot be any individual purpose which
does not support the whole purpose, nor can there
be any whole purpose that does not guarantee the
interests of the individual.
The infinite variety of beings in the universe form
one vast organic body interwoven by these dual
purposes.»
Divine Principle, Part I, Chap. I, Sec. III, 1.
Thus, the further aim of preserving individual
existence is to contribute better to the stability and
cohesion of the whole.And the ultimate goal of serving
or strengthening the whole is to protect and enhance
the value of individuals.That is, both purposes are
complementary and mutually reinforcing, as is well
expressed in this quote from the Divine Principle:
The individual purpose and the purpose for the whole are complementary

Humans, like other entities in the
universe, possess a strong innate or
natural impulse to form ever larger groups
of individuals, that is, families, tribes,
clans, associations, parties, unions, social
groups, state institutions and international
organizations.
The basic motive that drives human
beings to associate and form these ever
larger assemblies of individuals is because
they sense that their individual existences
will be better preserved; or their value as
individuals will be enhanced; or they will
gain in common happiness.
The strong innate impulse to associate with his fellow men
Aristotle and the Stoics were not the only ones who
held that there is a natural impulse in man to associate
with his fellow men and to pursue a common welfare. It
is a belief shared by most religions and by many
philosophers, including Locke and Mill, the two most
important classical liberal theorists.

That is, man is made to serve and make woman
happy, and vice versa. By joining, both gain in value,
well-being and happiness.The same can be said of
parents and children, friends and neighbors, families
and communities.
Human beings are not like isolated and independent atoms whose
only purpose in life is to preserve their existence
It does not make sense to say that human
beings are like isolated and independent
atoms whose only purpose in life is to
preserve their existence or to seek their own
profit.
As the Stoics said, we are made for each
other, to collaborate and help each other, as
one hand serves the other or as both feet
coordinate when walking.
When you observe man and woman,
whether in their biological or psychological
aspects, it is obvious that they are made for
each other, they are like two pieces that fit
one into the other and that alone are
incomplete.

Societies and nations composed
of families resemble an organism
composed of cells, which, while
preserving their individual
existence, collaborate together in
order to maintain the life of the
organism as a whole.
They likewise resemble the
planetary system, in which planets,
while rotating on their axes to
maintain their own stability,
revolve around the sun in order to
preserve the stability and cohesion
of the whole.
The metaphor of the organism or system to describe society
The difference between an organism, the planetary
system, and human society is that in the first two the
positions and functions of the individual parts or
entities are fixed, and their interrelationships are
governed automatically or instinctively by mechanical
or biological laws.
Whereas in human societies —because human
beings possess a unique individuality and the highest
degree of autonomy and creativity— social positions
and functions are interchangeable and flexible, and
the interrelationships between individuals and
families are reciprocal exchanges of love, knowledge,
goods and services that are performed in a free,
responsible and creative way.

However, the metaphor should not be
applied literally but only in an analogical
way, since humans are not machine parts,
cells or ants that have fixed positions or
functions within a machine, organism or
colony.
The metaphor simply illustrates the
fact that human individuals are made to
fulfill, at the same time and
harmoniously, the purpose of preserving
their own individual existence and the
purpose of serving the whole.
But the way human beings have to
fulfill these two purposes is radically
different from the rest of creatures and
things.
That is, the human individual is made to help others
or serve his family, community, nation or world on his
own initiative, and in a free and responsible manner.
Here lies the moral value and the human superiority
over the rest of the creatures and things, because
would have any moral value someone who sacrificed
himself for the common good compelled by force?
We are not machine parts nor ants of a colony

Unfortunately, if you study history, the
individual purpose and purpose for the
whole has not always been harmonized.
Many ancient societies, literally resembling
human society to an organism, justified
social inequality or segregation in fixed and
hereditary classes, tyranny, exploitation of
the people, abuses of power, and
deprivation of individuals of their freedom.
More recent totalitarianisms, using the
metaphors of social machinery governed by
inexorable iron laws that completely
condition individuals, not only limited
individual freedoms but massacred millions
of people for the sake of a supposed
common good.
The historical misuse of organicist and mechanistic metaphors
These serious social evils occur when the rulers —that
is, the representatives of the whole— motivated by
ambitions of power or personal greatness, fail miserably
in their mission to protect and enhance the value of
individuals, causing damage not only to them but also,
in the long run, the destruction of the unjust social
system or political regime established by them.

In contrast, the opposite problem that
occurs in modern democracies is that,
using the atomistic metaphor, selfish
individualism and a concept of permissive
liberty are promoted, with no moral limit,
which not only damages family
relationships and social ties but also
eventually ends up destroying the very
individuals who become corrupted by
falling into criminal and compulsive
behavior, making them slaves of their own
selfish desires.
The atomistic metaphor fosters selfish individualism

Although no one today wants to use the
words order and hierarchy for their
conservative or medieval connotations, in
today's democracies, society is, in fact,
organized in an orderly and hierarchical way in
the likeness of the natural order observable in
organisms and in the planetary system.
The order begins with the families, in which
the parents are the center or representatives of
the family group; continues with the governing
bodies of the educational institutions; the
managers of the companies, the municipal,
autonomous or regional authorities; and
culminates with the highest representatives of
the State, where the different chains of
command of all the institutions or agencies of
the State come together.
The hierarchical structure of the cosmos and human society
Organism
Systems
Organs
Cells
Individuals
World
Nations
Communities
Families
Galaxies
Stars
Planets
Satellite
s

The reason why this orderly and
hierarchical structure exists is that without
a differentiation of positions or functions,
and without a succession of centers, society
could not function.
Obviously, in the hierarchical democratic
structures, unlike the old hierarchical
societies, although the position or position
in itself is relatively fixed, they do vary,
however, the people that occupy it, that
usually qualify for the position by popular
vote, designation of a higher authority,
oppositions or contracts, among other
methods, and who generally hold office
only for a limited time.
As you can see, an orderly and hierarchical
structure does not have to be class-based or
offensive against human dignity or equality. For
example, that children should respect parents and
grandparents does not mean that the latter are
superior beings, but because they represent the
whole family and are supposed to care and sacrifice
for the welfare and happiness of all members of the
family.
Similarly, respecting and following the
instructions of teachers at school or bosses at work,
as well as supporting social and political leaders,
does not mean that they are superior beings but
simply that they perform a public function or
represent a collective of individuals and are
supposed to work for the common good of all.
Without an orderly structure or succession of centers no society could function

Today's individualistic liberals are
dragging along the old, anti-
authoritarian, Enlightened bias,
constantly fed by a fear —quite
irrational, indeed— to a return to the
past, the resurrection of ghostly
Inquisitions, or the danger of totalitarian
conspiracies.
They think that, because all people are
corrupted by power, no authority should
prevail over individuals. It is something
like if some siblings decided to go
without their parents for fear that
someday they may become their
abusers.
Bad parents can do a lot of harm to their children, but
parents are usually the ones who care most for the
welfare of all siblings, protecting and helping especially
the weak or disadvantaged children. Instead, if parents
are absent, siblings usually tend to compete and fight
each other with more concern for their own interests
than the common ones.
The old anti-authoritarian Enlightened prejudice and the fear of liberals to
totalitarian conspiracies

Contrary to what is commonly thought, in a
hierarchical social structure in which responsible
persons fulfill well their function of caring for the
welfare and happiness of all, individual rights will be
better safeguarded than in a supposedly freer and
egalitarian social situation without responsible
authorities, in which the “equals” usually compete
ferociously with each other as if they were in the
jungle.
Just remember how the farmers supposedly
liberated from the oppression of the nobles and
monarchs by the bourgeois revolutionaries, who raised
the democratic ideals of liberty, equality and
fraternity, soon afterwards were exploited ruthlessly
by their bourgeois “democratic brothers” at the time
of English Industrial Revolution.
It has to be acknowledged that things
have improved a lot since then, but even so,
today's democratic societies are still marked
by a struggle of selfish interests between
individuals and groups, in which the law of
the strongest reigns, while the weakest or
vulnerable are the most disadvantaged.
In a hierarchical social structure in which the responsible persons fulfill their function
well the individual rights will be better safeguarded

In short, the best thing both for the individual and for
society as a whole would be to achieve a harmony or
balance between the individual purpose and the purpose
of serving the whole, in the likeness of the natural order
observed in living organisms and planetary system, but
with the difference that it must be a moral order based
on the free, responsible and creative cooperation of
individuals.
That individuals claim to be the center of the universe
or the supreme source of authority, refusing to respect,
obey or serve anyone, and pursue only their own
individual satisfaction or benefit, is as absurd as if the
planets and satellites intended to become the center of
the galaxy and demand that all other stars and planets
revolve around them.
Harmony or balance between individual purpose and the purpose of serving
the social whole

 A good society based on a New Golden Rule
 The police, judicial and penitentiary
measures, although necessary, are not
enough to restore social order
 A social order based on normative means and
the voluntary acceptance of a core of
common and shared values
 Government based on the virtuous examples
of Confucius
 Moral education, virtuous examples, and
moral voice are the most effective means of
establishing a social order
 No all immoral behaviors can
be prohibited by law
 A multicultural mosaic, a
community of communities
 A community of nations in
which diverse cultures learn
from one another
 A core of shared values
defended from both secular
and religious premises that
regenerates the moral order
of society
THE COMMUNITARIANISM OF AMITAI ETZIONI: A SOCIAL ORDER BASED ON THE
VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE OF A SHARED CORE VALUES

Amitai Etzioni proposes a
communitarianism of an intercultural
and interreligious character, that does
not pretend to suppress the autonomy or
responsibility of the individuals, but
rather defends that a balance must be
reach between the social order and the
autonomy of the individuals.
Etzioni argues that the central axis on
which the controversy revolves between
individualist ideologists who emphasize
freedom and those who, on the contrary,
highlight the good of communities or the
social order, «is the relationship between
the individual and the community, and
between freedom and order.»
To achieve what Etzioni calls a good society, he
proposes a prescription: the application to society
of a New Golden Rule which, like the classic one,
says, «Respect and uphold society's moral order as
you would have society respect and uphold your
autonomy.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Book, NewYork, 1996, p.
7, p. xviii.
A good society based on a New Golden Rule

Amitai Etzioni,
concerned about the
selfish individualism that
has infested current
democratic societies and
all its aftermath, points
out that police, judicial or
penitentiary measures,
although necessary, are
not enough to solve social
problems and restore
social order.
«Indeed, in allWestern societies, one can readily observe that,
as social order has deteriorated over the last generation, there
has been a constant drumbeat for more and harsher
punishments, more police, and more powers for the various
public authorities.
Although it is difficult to measure the ratio, it seems that
many of the recent efforts to strengthen social order in theWest
have relied much more on the law and much less on reasserting
the moral voice.
In contrast, I introduce the principles that for a society to be
communitarian, much of the social conduct must be “regulated”
by reliance on the moral voice rather than on the law.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, NewYork, 1996, pp. 138-139.
The police, judicial and penitentiary measures, although necessary, are not enough
to restore social order

For this reason, Etzioni proposes the establishment of a moral order based on normative
means (education, exemplary leadership) and the voluntary acceptance by all members of
society of a common and shared core values.
A social order based on normative means and the voluntary acceptance of a
core of common and shared values
«The order of good
communitarian societies relies
heavily on normative means
(education, leadership, consensus,
peer pressure, pointing out role
models, exhortation, and, above all,
the moral voices of communities). In
this sense, the social order of good
societies is a moral order.
For a social order to be able to rely heavily on
normative means requires that most members of
the society, most of the time, share a commitment
to a set of core values, and that most members,
most of the time, will abide by the behavioral
implications of these values because they believe in
them, rather than being forced to comply with
them.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, New York, 1996,
p. 13.

This position of Etzioni is somewhat atypical in modern Western culture
so marked by the liberal democratic tradition, which emphasizes the Rule
of Law as the only method that can generate social order, while relegating
the moral aspect to the private sphere.
However, millennia ago Confucius defended a view similar to that of
Etzioni, asserting that good governance is not one that is based on the
imposition of the law, but in moral education and virtuous examples.
Confucius thought that the nation was like a large family, which should be held together
not by force or fear of punishment but by the same voluntary bonds of love, benevolence,
fidelity and mutual trust that unite the family members.
«If in order to guide people —Confucius said— rules are used,
and to maintain order, punishments are applied, people will lack
of conscience trying to flee from them. If virtue… is used to guide
the subjects, they will have conscience and reform themselves.»
Confucio, Analetas, 2. III.
Government based on the virtuous examples of Confucius

Moral education, virtuous examples, and moral voice are the most effective means
of establishing a social order
In a very similar way, Etzioni uses practically the same
arguments to demonstrate the inefficacy of the only solution
thatWestern societies always apply to try to restore the
social order lost by an increase in antisocial and criminal
behavior, that is, the judicial and criminal proceedings.
Etzioni affirms that the solution to this social disorder,
which is basically a process of moral decadence, consists in
reinforcing the moral infrastructure of society through
education, leadership, persuasion, consensus, moral
dialogues, an exhibition of virtuous models, and what Etzioni
calls the “moral voice,” which is an outward voice from the
community that encourages its members to be guided by
shared values and censure them when they do not, and which
also serves the function of reinforcing the inner moral voice
or conscience of the people.

Etzioni also points out that the solution to the
moral crisis of our democratic societies proposed by
the conservatives, which consists mainly in restoring
social order by legally prohibiting all conduct
considered immoral, is not only ineffective but also
counterproductive, because tends to encourage
clandestine transgressive behavior or moral hypocrisy.
This is so because the human being is not made to
be forced by prohibitions to behave well, but rather
that, in a voluntary way and guided by the dictates of
his own conscience, use his talents and qualities for
the benefit of others.Apart from that it is impossible
to change or control from outside by prohibitions the
egocentric attitudes and motivations that deviate
people's desires towards a selfish aim.
Moral prohibitions using punishments,
whether parental or legal, are appropriate as a
temporary measure of protection for children or
adolescents, but what young and adults most
need is a moral education that makes them
reason and helps them to reach a sufficient moral
maturity and self-control to be able to act well
guided by their own conscience.
No all immoral behaviors can be prohibited by law

The communitarian movement,
represented by Etzioni, does not
defend particularistic
communitarianism which advocates a
return to social cohesion centered on
particular religious traditions that in
the past were dominant in every
nation.
Faced with the obvious fact that
modern democratic nations are
increasingly becoming a multicolored
mosaic of different ethnicities, races,
cultures and religions, Etzioni defends
an intercultural communitarianism,
which he designates as a community of
communities.
A multicultural mosaic, a community of communities

In contrast to the abstract
universalism of individualistic liberals
—which makes everyone a member
of a universal state with the same
basic rights and duties, but ignoring
and disregarding their traditional
beliefs and values— Etzioni
proposes, instead, to develop
through intercultural dialogue a
common framework of moral values
shared by all communities,
respecting at the same time the
particularities of each. Etzioni writes
the following about it:
«As I see it, the image of a mosaic, 15 if properly
understood, best serves the search for an intercommunity
construction of bounded autonomy suitable to a
communitarian society.The mosaic is enriched by a variety of
elements of different shapes and colors, but it is held
together by a frame and glue.
The mosaic symbolizes a society in which various
communities maintain their cultural particulars (ranging from
religious commitments and language to cuisine and dance),
proud and knowledgeable about their specific traditions.
At the same time, these distinct communities recognize
that they are integral parts of a more encompassing whole.
Moreover, they have a firm commitment to the shared
framework.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, NewYork, 1996, pp. 192-
193.
A multicultural mosaic, a community of communities

Etzioni goes beyond this
intercultural communitarianism within
a nation, or community of communities,
and suggests the possibility that in the
future we may reach a global
communitarianism, a kind of world
community of nations.
For that purpose it would be
necessary to establish international
and intercultural moral dialogues, in
which different cultures could question
each other, and not pretend, as the
liberals do, to unilaterally impose their
values on the rest of the world.
A community of nations in which diverse cultures learn from one another

Etzioni points out, for
example, that many Asian
intellectuals opposeWestern
notions of human rights because
they are based on an overly
individualistic view of society
that is foreign toAsian culture.
A community of nations in which diverse cultures learn from one another
«Rather than muting the cross-cultural moral
voice, as the cultural relativists do, all societies
should respect the right of others to lay moral claims
on them just as they are entitled to lay claims on
other societies.
Thus, the West should realize that it is well within
its legitimate, world. community-building role when
it criticizes China for its violation of human rights.
And China should be viewed as equally legitimate
when it criticizes American society for its neglect of
filial duties.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, NewYork,
1996, pp. 239-240.

Etzioni’s personal opinion is that more progress
must still be made in developing a much more vigorous
global core of shared values, through intercultural
moral dialogues, so that they can serve as a common
framework for a hypothetical world community of
nations.
And finally, Etzioni rightly comments that those who
share the idea that having a core of common values
that regenerates the moral order of society should not
quarrel with each other because some defend these
values from religious premises while others defend
them from secular premises, since the dividing line
between secular and religious arguments is becoming
more and more narrow.
A core of shared values defended from both secular and religious premises that
regenerates the moral order of society

For example, ecologists, when talking about our responsibility
to the planet, often turns to mythological or religious concepts to
support their arguments. Advocates of civic values have always
used concepts such as human dignity, solidarity, and
reconciliation that are transcripts of previous religious concepts.
On the other hand, religious leaders often use scientific,
psychological and sociological concepts to reinforce their
arguments.
So, in reality, they defend the same values, but starting from
different suppositions, or they speak of the same things using
different words or terms. As Etzioni advises, rather than
disagreeing with each other, they should unite their forces for the
purpose of the moral regeneration of society, and in any case
argue against those who «deny the very existence of virtues, or
worship self-interest, cynicism, or postmodern or old-fashioned
nihilism.»
Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books, NewYork, 1996, p. 255.
.
A core of shared values defended from both secular and religious premises that
regenerates the moral order of society

 The fundamental problem is the conflict
between self-interest and the aspiration
to contribute to the common welfare
 The problem is not individualism in itself
but a distorted individualism, selfish,
rapacious and lacking of solidarity
 Without freedom the value of the
human being would not surpass that of
a machine
 The solution is not to suppress freedom
 The solution is also not the complete
permissiveness
HARMONY AND COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN INDIVIDUALIST
AND COMMUNITARIAN VISIONS
 A moderate communitarianism that does not
limit freedoms is perfectly compatible with
an altruistic and responsible individualism
 The moral voice and the promotion of a
responsible and perfectionist individualism
 A good education and a moral example in the
family, school and society that fosters the
moral maturity of individuals
 The feeling of loss of identity in individualistic
societies
 Reinforce the identity of individuals by
strengthening family relationships

More than the tension between individual
freedom and social order, as Etzioni says, the
fundamental problem lies in the conflict or
tension between self-interest —that is,
individual purpose— and the desire to
contribute to the well-being and happiness of
the social whole —that is, the purpose of the
whole.
The balance between the two purposes is
achieved when individuals are mature enough
to subordinate their material desires and
individual interests to the dictates of their
conscience or the desire to love, help, serve and
make others happy.
In this way, individuals, while fulfilling
their personal desires, live for the well-being
and happiness of their families; families,
while fulfilling their needs and seeking their
happiness, help or serve their community;
communities, associations, parties or social
groups, while defending their group
interests, work for the common good of the
nation; and nations, while pursuing their
national interests, collaborate with other
nations to ensure world peace and the
general welfare of mankind.
The fundamental problem is the conflict between self-interest and the aspiration to
contribute to the common welfare

The imbalance or conflict between the two
purposes occurs when, due to an immature and
egocentric attitude, individuals, families,
communities and nations place their particular
interests as the sole or main goal of their
existences above the common interest.
And in this way an egocentrism is generalized
that makes individuals think that their families
exist to serve them, that families are
unconcerned about their neighbors and
communities, that social groups fight exclusively
for their partisan interests, and that nations only
deal with their own enrichment, ignoring the
other less favored nations.
Egocentrism is the cause of the imbalance between both purposes

Therefore, the problem is not
individualism itself, or its claim of individual
freedom, or its defense of the individual
rights of people, all things laudable and just.
Individualism is itself a good thing.
The problem is that the original altruistic
and legitimate individualism of the early
liberals, who defended the dignity and the
rights of the people in the face of an unjust
tyranny, has been exacerbated and
distorted into a selfish and rapacious
individualism.
The problem is not individualism in itself but a distorted individualism, selfish,
rapacious and lacking of solidarity

Sun Myung Moon, shares
this same view, claiming that
selfish individualism destroys
family and social ties, and
ultimately deteriorates the
individuals themselves. He
proposes instead to foster a
sacrificial individualism.
«There must be balance. If too much stress is placed on
individualism, then collective virtues are lost: love of the
nation, brotherhood of the people, family integrity,
relationships between parents and children and finally even
the value of individuals themselves. (…)
Western culture is characterized by individualism.
However, selfish individualism is doomed and sacrificial
individualism will blossom.
Individuality in itself is good. God gave each one of us a
unique way to serve. But individualism without God can only
build castles on the sands of decay.»
Sun Myung Moon, A Prophet SpeaksToday, HSA‐UWC
Publications, NewYork, 1975, p. 25, p. 30.
“Selfish individualism is doomed and sacrificial individualism will blossom”

Without freedom or autonomy the
value of the human being would not
surpass that of a machine or an animal. It
is not freedom that clashes with the social
order, because freedom is simply an
instrumental value that can be used in
opposite ways.
In a society in which most of the people
were mature enough to put above their
own satisfaction the desire of their
consciences to make others happy,
individuals, by their own initiative, would
do good things for their families,
communities, nations and the world. In
this case, social order would be more than
assured.
In this hypothetical case, although individuals enjoy
the widest possible freedom and autonomy, this
would be no obstacle to the common good and social
order, but rather the opposite.
However, in the opposite case that most people
were selfish —which, unfortunately, is the most real—
a large margin of freedom or permissiveness would
lead to social chaos.
But the problem is not freedom but the ignorance, a
self-centered immature attitude and the selfish
desires of individuals.
Freedom can be used both, to give one's own life to
save another person, or to take the life of someone for
gaining a profit.
Without freedom the value of the human being would not surpass that of a machine

Many thinkers, ideologues, and politicians who
were concerned with social order and common
good —whether conservatives, traditionalists,
Hobbesian, legalists, authoritarians or
communists— thought that the only way to secure
social order was to limit or repress the freedom of
individuals, whether by force or by legal
punishment.
However, when human beings are deprived of
their freedom they also lose their dignity and
value, since they cannot be responsible for
themselves or for others. It is, in the best of cases,
as if they were considered as eternal infants, and,
in the worst case, as if they were treated like
animals.
Depriving his freedom man can be
prevented, to some extent, from harming
others, but he is also prevented from loving,
helping and benefiting others on his own
initiative, which is what gives value to people.
What value does one have when serving
others being coerced or forced to do it?
Freedom is fundamental for individuals to
perfect themselves and to develop freely and
creatively their unique character and talents,
and then to put them at the service of others
in a voluntary, responsible and creative way.
The solution is not to suppress freedom

The first liberals rightly thought
that social ills occasioned by
tyranny and the abuses of power
of the rulers were much greater
than those that could be caused by
the criminal or disorderly conduct
of individuals.
Therefore, it was better to limit
the authority of the rulers and to
leave more room for freedom and
individual initiative, even though
this would carry the danger that
some individuals would misuse
that freedom.
The solution is also not the complete permissiveness
However, today the radical individualists and libertarians
demand an almost unrestricted individual freedom, with the
minimum legal restrictions and without any moral limit, that is,
the complete moral permissiveness.An irresponsible and
suicidal freedom that destroys family and social ties, and the
individuals themselves.This type of freedom was described by
Locke himself, father of the liberals, as a license or debauchery.

An intercultural and global
communitarianism —as advocated by Etzioni—
that proposes to establish a good society
based on a moral order created by the
voluntary acceptance of a common framework
or shared core values, respecting both
individual freedom and the unique
characteristics of each culture, race or religion,
is perfectly compatible with the original
individualistic vision of the first liberals who
defended the value and dignity of each person
and their individual rights, declaring that all
human beings are free and equal, as brothers
and sisters of the great human family.
A moderate communitarianism that does not limit freedoms is perfectly compatible
with an altruistic and responsible individualism

In a society where a strong, solidary, responsible
and perfectionistic individualism prevail, in which
both the enrichment oneself and the cultivation of
own talents were considered by individuals as
means to benefit their families and communities —
so instead of fighting with each other for greater
personal gain, they would compete for better
serving the whole— family and community ties
would be extraordinarily strong and social order
would be fully guaranteed, even without the need
for legal coercion or a moral voice, since
individuals by their own free initiative would work
for the common good.
A society in which an altruistic individualism prevails will foster family and
community ties

On the other hand, in a society where family
and community ties are strong, stable and
harmonious, in which all people are committed
to a shared core values —and in which their
representatives, whether parents, teachers or
social and political leaders, show a good
example of sacrifice, dedication and service for
their children, students, employees or fellow
citizens— surely individuals would feel happier,
protected and valued, since they would enjoy a
better emotional and material environment to
meet their individual needs as well as a better
education, that would enable them to develop
their own unique personality and cultivate their
unique talents and innate qualities.
A society in which family and community ties are strong will better help the
individuals to cultivate their innate talents and qualities

Etzioni can be objected that —as a
good sociologist— he places too
much emphasis on the role of the
moral voice of society in the
realization of a moral order.
The moral voice, understood as the
moral applause or reprobation of
individuals by society, is a milder
form of moral pressure than the legal
coercion imposed by punishments,
but it usually has a greater
heteronomous influence on the
behavior, habits or customs of
individuals.
However, this time giving the reason to the
individualists, we must understand that human
beings are not made to be subjected to an
external moral heteronomous pressure, but to
act autonomously by understanding for their own
reason, heart and conscience what is right and
wrong.
So rather than emphasizing the moral voice, it
would be more appropriate to promote a
responsible and perfectionistic individualism that
encourages people to achieve moral maturity and
personal self-control, and also to discover their
unique and creative way of serving others.
The moral voice and the promotion of a responsible and perfectionist individualism

Parental love and education, family
harmony and moral integrity of parents,
good relationship and cooperation
between siblings, as well as a good
environment of harmony, cooperation and
fellowship in school, workplace and
society, are factors that will have a very
positive influence on the moral
development of individuals and the
improvement of society, as Sun Myung
Moon rightly explains:
«Good citizenship does not appear
automatically, but arises out of a person’s
character and family. It flows from character,
heart and education through family life.
These are the bases for noble deeds by which
people can advance to positions of responsibility
and enhance their country’s prestige.
Build these foundations and become someone
your country needs. If you do not build them,
you may end up becoming a corrupt official.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-
UWC, 34:19, (August 29, 1970).
A good education and a moral example in the family, school and society that fosters
the moral maturity of individuals

Instead, in an environment of violence, ill-treatment
or family breakdown; or in an authoritarian and
oppressive social situation; or in a freer but more
conflictive environment in which each pursues his own
selfish interests, it is evident that not only moral
development but the psychological growth of people
can suffer serious damage, and social bonds will
deteriorate more and more.
Thus, not only for society to function well and for
individual rights and freedoms to be protected, but for
individuals to receive a good education that will help
them mature morally, it is essential to reinforce the
moral qualities of political, social, educational and
family leadership.
Strengthen the moral qualities of political, social, business, educational and family
leadership

One of the problems of individualistic societies is the feeling of
loss of identity that people have.An identity that in traditional
societies was determined by the function, position or social role, or
by the sense of belonging to an ethnic group or religious community.
The search for identity or sense of belonging is connected with the
basic ambition of all human beings to acquire an ever greater value,
to be important, to be loved and appreciated by others.
For example, orphaned or abandoned children suffer a serious
crisis of identity and value because they feel that they do not belong
to anyone, that they are not loved or appreciated by anyone.
For this reason, an exaggerated individualism that atomizes
individuals and makes them weaken their family or group ties,
although at first it seems that strengthens individuals, in the end
causes them a strong loss of identity and self-esteem.
The feeling of loss of identity in individualistic societies

The sense of belonging and identity produced by
family relationships are those that most affect the self-
esteem and happiness of individuals, because they are
based on natural and eternal positions and functions.
What good is it for a person to become a millionaire
or president of a nation, or for an actress to become
famous and admired for her beauty, if they do not have
a husband or wife, or children who love them deeply?
As it is popularly said, if a husband deeply loves his
wife and treats her like a queen, and the wife treats her
husband as if he were her king, and both take care of
their children as if they were princes or princesses, and
all family respect grandparents and take care of them,
such a family would have nothing to envy to the
royalty.
Thus, rather than returning to identities
based on social functions, or belonging to
ethnic or religious groups, it would be better
to reinforce individuals’ identity by
strengthening family relationships.
Reinforce the identity of individuals by strengthening family relationships

THE THREE GREAT CHALLENGES FACING HUMANITY
 The Problem of Economic
Inequalities
 The Problem of Moral
Degradation of Public and
Private Life
 The Problem of the Danger of
Confrontations between
Nations and Civilizations

Now that we are in the first decades
of the 21st century, rather than
formulating projects of a just society
that are only valid for a local cultural
and geographical environment, we
should be concerned with trying to
draw up the project of how a just and
peaceful world should be organized
for the new millennium.
Global solutions are now required
for the most important problems
affecting most nations or
disadvantaged groups of nations.
«The challenges of the new millennium are not
problems belonging to a social group or an
individual, but to different societies and even the
whole of humanity, because these are demands of
justice that affect all human beings.»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios, Taurus, Madrid,
1998, p. 109.
THE THREE GREAT CHALLENGES FACING HUMANITY
They are problems that no particular nation can
eradicate in an isolated way, but it requires the
cooperation of all to solve them. Cortina rightly
writes:

The first great challenge of this new century is to solve the
problem of economic inequalities, that is, to end hunger and
poverty in the world, and to enable all countries to enjoy the
same conditions of life or material well-being.
To achieve this it would be necessary that globalization of
the economy will lead to the economic development of all
regions of the world.
This challenge also includes finding new resources or
sources of energy and food that can guarantee the future
survival of a growing world population.
In addition, this economic development must be
respectful of the environment and nature, thus ensuring the
survival of the planet along with its ecosystems and species,
which in the long run is what ensures our own survival and
the future of our descendants.
The Problem of Economic Inequalities

The second great challenge of our day is to try to
solve the problem of moral degradation and
widespread corruption at all levels of society.
This moral decay is due in part to the progressive
degradation of the democratic system that now tends
to become a scenario of continuous struggles between
different groups or elites who seek to seize power.
On the other hand, this moral degradation is also
generated by the progressive deterioration of family
units and the confusion of values produced by the
hegemony of an extremely individualistic, hedonistic
and selfish culture that promotes the cult of money,
power, image and sex as the maximum social values to
pursue.
The Problem of Moral Degradation of Public and Private Life

The third great challenge of the new millennium is to try to
control the danger of wars between nations that had such
disastrous humanitarian consequences especially in the
twentieth century. And, in particular, to try to solve the problem
of international terrorism, which since the unfortunate suicide
bombing of theTwinTowers in NewYork is considered as one of
the greatest threats to world peace in the twenty-first century.
A definitive solution to the problem of international terrorism
as well as the new types of regional conflicts that have emerged
since the end of the cold war mainly motivated by nationalist,
ethnic, racial and religious hatred or rivalries —which is an aspect
of the phenomenon labeled by Huntington as a clash of
civilizations— is to achieve greater rapprochement, integration
and mutual understanding —not just tolerance and peaceful
coexistence— between different peoples, races and cultures, as
well as between different religious beliefs.
The problem of the danger of confrontations between nations and civilizations

In the next few chapters we
will discuss these big challenges
facing humanity —hunger and
poverty, the moral degradation
of public and private life, and
the danger of war— and the
possible solutions.
As Sun Myung Moon says, we
cannot remain passive and
indifferent to this situation of
hunger and poverty in the
world.
«[During all my life] I am working
toward the realization of a world with no
starvation.
In these days of scientific
advancement, we cannot just be
observers or remain indifferent when we
see something so terrible as millions of
people falling victim to famine.»
Sun Myung Moon, True Knowledge, True Family and
World Peace, Seoul, Korea, August 22, 1995.
AN IDEAL WORLD BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERDEPENDENCE, MUTUAL PROSPERITY
AND UNIVERSALLY SHARED VALUES

«An ideal world means being
interdependent economically,
prospering together politically
and creating an ethical society
of goodness.»
Sun Myung Moon, True Knowledge, True
Family and World Peace, Seoul, Korea,
August 22, 1995.
AN IDEAL WORLD BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERDEPENDENCE, MUTUAL PROSPERITY
AND UNIVERSALLY SHARED VALUES
In particular, we will present the
solutions offered by Unification
Thought to solve these problems,
which are based on three
principles: interdependence,
mutual prosperity and universally
shared values.
These three principles refer to
aspects of economics, politics and
ethics respectively, as Sun Myung
Moon himself points out:

Sung Hun Lee offers a more detailed explanation of these three
principles in the UnificationThought, which in a summary form would
be:
1)The principle of interdependence refers to establishing an ideal
economic system that will end poverty and hunger in the world and
guarantee the same level or quality of life for all humanity, as brothers
and sisters of a single global family.
2)The principle of mutual prosperity deals with the need of a
reform of democracy in order to constitute an ideal political system
based on the model of the family, in which the original democratic
ideals of freedom, equality, and human fraternity are truly realized.
3)The principle of universally shared values proposes a society and
an ideal world in which people share and respect universal ethical
principles that guarantee peace and harmony between religions and
cultures.
Sung Hun Lee, New Essentials of UnificationThought, UTI, Korea, 2006, p. 507.
Interdependence, mutual prosperity and universally shared values

Sun Myung Moon
repeatedly speaks of a future
ideal society as the world of a
new culture of the heart
based on the three principles
of interdependence, mutual
prosperity and universally
shared values, as can be seen
in the following quotation:
«The future world will be the world of a new
culture of heart that brings harmony between
God, humanity and creation, and a culture of
love based on true families.
It will be a world of true love where everyone
lives for the sake of others and all people live
together in harmony and cooperation.
It will be a world of interdependence, mutual
prosperity and universal values.
In the future, we have to live the dream of one
global family in which we are all brothers and
sisters.»
UWC, 288:174; (November 27, 1997).
The world of a new culture of heart

CHAPTER 2 THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES
1. Measures needed to resolve the problem of economic
inequalities
2. The individual purpose of making profits and the
purpose for the whole to contribute to a common
welfare
3. Positive and negative aspects of the capitalist economy
4. The principle of interdependence and the new concept
of shared ownership

The first of the great challenges facing humanity that
we should overcome if we want to build a just and
peaceful world is the problem of hunger and misery in
the world.
When we consider humanity as a large family, it is
outrageous and repulsive to human conscience to see
that, while in rich or developed nations individuals and
families swim in material abundance and have
problems of being overweight, in underdeveloped
nations, on the contrary, individuals and families suffer
poverty, disease and hunger, to the point of having
nothing to feed their children who die of malnutrition.
THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES

More developed countries, such as the United States, have the greatest responsibility to solve the
problem of hunger and poverty in the world, as Sun Myung Moon explains:
«When a famine occurs in one part of the world,
then the parts of the world where food is abundant
should rush more food into the hungry areas. We
have to build this kind of world. Presently, 20
million people are dying of starvation every year,
while America is wasting too much food. This is a
violation of the universal law.»
«Advanced countries have lots of money. But
whose is it? It is God’s. Whose is the power? It is
God’s. Whose knowledge is it? It is God’s as well.
God is the Parent of humankind. Therefore,
everything that belongs to God—material, power,
knowledge and such—belongs to humankind. For
this purpose democracy appeared in modern days.
In democracy, sovereignty belongs to the
people—to all humankind. That is why it is
believed that sovereignty should be under
control of the people. Yet, in reality, it is in the
hands of conglomerates.
At the present time, America is wealthy, but
she alone should not be wealthy. She should
distribute her wealth among other nations;
that is the heavenly way. America must aid
other nations financially, otherwise she
cannot continue being wealthy. What belongs
to America does not belong to America alone,
but belongs to the world.»
UWC, 247:94, (April 25, 1993). 13:26, (October 16, 1963).

 The industrialized North must mobilize to
liberate the South from poverty
 Immediate Relief and Global Equalization of
Material Well-Being
 Promoting international voluntary work among
young people
 A globalization aimed at enhancing the
economic development of all the depressed
regions of the world until the global equalization
of wealth
 Need for advanced countries to freely transfer
their technology to end hunger and build a
world of peace
MEASURES NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC
INEQUALITIES

«Today, the industrialized North must reach out to help
liberate the South from pervasive impoverishment.The
developed nations must lend a helping hand to the support the
development of the developing countries and the new
democracies. Each nation’s attitude must be changed from a
selfish one to an unselfish one.
That in itself will be a revolution. Nations can do this when
their leaders think of themselves in the role of parents. From
that perspective, nations will regard each other as brother and
sister nations.Then a fresh new vision will emerge and new
opportunities will open up before of us.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, 219:120, (August 28,
1991).
That is why it would be necessary for the more developed
countries to have an authentic revolution or change of attitude,
from selfishness to altruism, as explained by Sun Myung Moon:
The industrialized North must mobilize to liberate the South from poverty

This problem has two aspects.The first is the need
to provide immediate relief to situations of
helplessness, hunger, poverty, disease or
humanitarian tragedy caused by natural disasters,
epidemics, accidents or wars.
The second aspect is the need to enhance the
economic development of all the depressed regions
of the world until the goal of the global equalization
of material well-being is achieved through the free
transfer of technology.
Immediate Relief and Global Equalization of Material Well-Being

In this regard, it would be highly desirable and beneficial to
promote, through intercultural education, especially among
young people, voluntary work or selfless service of assistance
to other peoples in situations of poverty that is carried out
through NGOs or other aid organizations.
This voluntary work is also very valuable and important
because of the great educational and moral value it has for
young people.
Through voluntary service to other peoples —if it is done
with pure and unselfish motivation— the ability to love people
from other nations or cultures can be developed, thus
overcoming national, ethnic or racial barriers.
What is the same, love the whole human race, and thus
mature morally to broaden the heart, understanding and
conscience to a cosmopolitan or universal level.
Promoting international voluntary work among young people

Through a voluntary and altruistic service, on the part of
the young people of the rich nations, for the benefit of the
people in need of the underdeveloped nations could be
dissolved, through unconditional love, forgiveness and
mutual reconciliation, the deep-rooted historical hatreds and
resentments produced by imperialism, colonialism, racism
and slavery.
In a sense, young people from rich or developed countries
who were to serve poorer peoples would be paying the debts
their ancestors incurred in conquering, colonizing, or
enslaving the ancestors of these peoples.
Overcoming, through reconciliation, forgiveness and mutual service, old racial,
ethnic and religious resentments and hatreds

Thus young volunteers, risking their lives to serve, help and
love those who see them as their enemies, could not only
alleviate the physical hardships of these peoples but also
help to dissolve the historical resentments between rich and
poor countries.
In addition, voluntary work can also contribute decisively
to world peace through fostering mutual forgiveness and
reconciliation between peoples, races or cultures that for
various historical reasons harbor mutual ancestral
resentments.
Overcoming, through reconciliation, forgiveness and mutual service, old racial,
ethnic and religious resentments and hatreds

As Sun Myung Moon says:
«When young people inspired by
God’s true love dedicate themselves
to sacrifice and service, they can
begin to solve poverty and hunger
throughout the world.
They can begin to heal the wounds
caused by differences between rich
and poor.They can help people
overcome the animosities and
hatreds arising from different
historical experiences.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul,
HSA-UWC, 288:201, (November 28, 1997).

However, in order to definitively
solve the problem of hunger and
poverty and to eliminate the economic
differences produced by the unequal
distribution of wealth, it would be
required that the current process of
economic globalization would had as
its main objective the economic
development of all depressed regions
until the goal of the global equalization
of material well-being is achieved.
That is, that all peoples and cultures
can enjoy the same level or quality of
life as the rest of their sister nations.
A globalization aimed at enhancing the economic development of all the
depressed regions of the world until the global equalization of wealth
In fact, economic and technological means
are now available to make this objective feasible
in a short time, although it is also true that
would be needed to solve other factors that
hamper the economic development of many
nations and cause poverty, such as tribal, ethnic
or nationalist wars, corrupt and dictatorial
governments, lack of basic education and the
existence of old privileges of class or gender.

In order to achieve this goal of global
equalization of material welfare, it is
absolutely necessary that advanced
countries be willing to transfer their
technology to less developed countries to
make them economically independent.
As the famous Chinese proverb says:
«Give a man a fish and you feed him for a
day; teach a man to fish and you feed him
for a lifetime.»
Need for advanced countries to freely transfer their technology to end
hunger and build a world of peace

Sun Myung Moon tells us about the importance and need for the more
developed countries to freely transfer their technology to underdeveloped
countries in order to achieve world peace and remove the barrier of
economic differences between nations.
«When advanced nations supply the less advanced nations with
technology in the spirit of helping them become economically independent,
instead of exploiting them and their resources, then humankind will
eliminate war and starvation. (…)
We can never have world peace until those nations which have been
blessed with material and technological advantages willingly share them
with the other nations of the world.The blessings of science and technology
are meant for all humankind, and they should be shared. Every nation should
have an equal chance to utilize technology for the people’s well-being, (…)
Otherwise, the advanced nations will be resented and hated by those who
are deprived.»
Sun Myung Moon, Speech Collection Books, Seoul, HSA-UWC, (November 25, 1988).

 The desire for profit and the desire to contribute to the
common good
 The main problem of the capitalist economic system is
not the system itself as Marx believed but selfish
individualism
 The reason for the failure of the planned economy was
the attempt to turn human beings into pieces of a social
machinery suppressing their free initiative and
creativity
 The reason for the success of the capitalist system
 The problem of capitalism is the tendency to
emphasize individual benefit at the expense of ignoring
the purpose of contributing to the general welfare
THE INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE OF MAKING PROFITS AND THE PURPOSE FOR THE
WHOLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO A COMMON WELFARE

As we have repeatedly pointed out
throughout this research work, humans
possess two types of basic desires
corresponding to two purposes for which
they are made.
On the one hand, there are the desires to
preserve, improve and enrich one's
individual life, which impel us to fulfill the
individual purpose.And, on the other hand,
there are the desires to form ever larger
units of individuals, through establishing
relationships of reciprocal exchanges of
affections, goods and services, and
contributing to the common good.
These two types of desires and ends are not
contradictory but complementary.The more
individuals improve and enrich themselves, the
better they can contribute to the whole, and the
more individuals contribute to the common good,
the better the whole can protect and benefit the
individuals themselves.
This is a universal principle in nature that
regulates interactions at all levels of beings and
things in the universe. From particles to galaxies,
all individual entities have these two aims, that of
preserving and improving their individual existence
and that of forming and maintaining the existence
of ever larger groups of entities.
The desire for profit and the desire to contribute to the common good

People want to associate with others because they
sense that something is going to be gained. For
example, no one would form a family if he or she did not
believe that they would be happier than being single; or
no one would start a business, or trade, if the person
knew that he would not gain anything from it. In fact,
the first stimulus that drives humans to establish
relationships of exchanges is the prospect of gaining
something, increasing one's value, or being happier.
The initial impulse that pushes human beings to establish relationships of
exchange is the prospect of gaining something
It is important to note that human beings —unlike the
sun and the planets constituting the planetary system—
do not fulfill these two aims, the individual and the
whole, in an automatic way and controlled by an iron law,
as if they were pieces of a machine, but in a voluntary
and responsible way, driven only by their conscience and
desires.

Therefore, in order to establish
relations of reciprocal exchanges,
there must be a common purpose
that benefits both parties.
As Sun Myung Moon maintains,
this is an invariable law that makes
interactions and the very existence of
the universe possible.
«For an action to be structured there
must be a subject-object relationship.
For the action to continue, the subject
and object partners must share a
common purpose that is beneficial to
both. Under conditions that are less than
this, the action will not happen.
This is an ironclad rule and a law of the
universe’s existence.»
UWC, 56:134-35, (May 14, 1972).
The need for a common purpose that benefits both parties

The main problem of the capitalist economic system is not the system
itself as Marx believed but selfish individualism
It could be said that the persistence of hunger and
poverty in part of the world is a consequence of the
moral failure of capitalism in the most developed
democratic countries.
The problem is not —as Marx believed— the very
system of free competition, free trade, free
entrepreneurship, free hiring staff and workers, free
capital investment in the stock market, and free
market.
The main reason for this failure is because the fair
and legitimate individualism of the first liberals
became deformed into a selfish individualism whose
main purpose is to maximize own benefits, above the
goal of seeking a common welfare.

Marx, in elaborating his economic theory,
especially his theory of value-labor equivalence,
attempted to demonstrate at all costs that the final
value of the goods manufactured by a company
derives exclusively from the labor of the workers,
denying against all evidence that capital, machinery
and business management contribute to increase this
value.
According to Marx, therefore, any extra profit or
surplus value that the entrepreneurs obtain is a
robbery, because according to him all the profits of
the companies belong entirely to the workers. So to
avoid this theft or exploitation it is necessary to
suppress private enterprise, that is, private ownership
of the means of production.
Today it is commonly accepted that
both capital, business management,
technology and labor contribute to the
final value of the products.The problem
of capitalism, then, is not that business
profit is the booty of a robbery and that
therefore the system itself is inherently
unjust or corrupt.
The problem lies rather in an unfair
distribution and misuse of corporate
profits caused by that selfish
individualism that infests capitalism.
Marxist economic theory as justification for suppressing free enterprise

Marx not only believed that the system of free
enterprise is intrinsically unjust, by allowing the
theft or exploitation of workers, but also thought
that the consciences of human beings are a mere
product of the social system in which they were
embedded.
He thought that men are simply pieces of a
social gear that totally conditions them. For this
reason, he maintained that it was utopian to
expect that the capitalist system could change
through moral reform and become more just.
The capitalists, according to Marx, could not
stop wanting to continue exploiting the workers
because their consciences are completely
conditioned by the system.
So the only solution that Marx proposed
was to destroy the capitalist economic
system through a violent revolution and
the establishment of the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
Then, private ownership of the means of
production would be suppressed, that is,
private enterprise and the free market
would be prohibited.
In this way, passing all the companies
and the land to be state ownership would
eliminate the exploitation and would
realize a fair world in which there would be
economic equality.
The human conscience completely conditioned by the economic system

The mistake was to try to force them to fulfill a
particular function, or use them as animals that can be
sacrificed by force for the common good, repressing their
freedom, free initiative and creativity as well as the
possibility of realizing their individual desires to improve
and enrich themselves personally.
The reason for the failure of the planned economy was the attempt to turn human
beings into pieces of a social machinery suppressing their free initiative and creativity
Communism attempted to put into
practice these ideas of Marx through
the implementation of the so-called
planned economy, which ended in
complete failure without being able to
solve the problem of economic
inequalities.
One of the main reasons for this
failure was their absurd view of human
nature, namely, that men are like pieces
of a social machine that can be
modeled and conditioned completely
to automatically serve the ends of
machinery.

They thought that the only way to
realize the common good was to
suppress private property and try to
eliminate the desire to become rich.
When, in fact, this desire to gain
something is the stimulus to initiate
and maintain relationships of
exchanges centered on a common
purpose, which are the ones that unite
people and ultimately motivate them
to work voluntarily for a common
good, because they understand that it
is the best way to guarantee the good
of individuals.
If the desire to get richer is repressed, the motivation to collaborate and work
together for a common good is also eliminated.
By suppressing the stimulus of personal
enrichment, the only thing that the Communists
achieved was the opposite effect to the expected,
that is, that nobody had the slightest desire to
work for the common good.
In short, the Marxist economic system, while
pursuing the right purpose of realizing a just world
in which everyone enjoyed the same material
welfare, being based on false suppositions
contrary to human nature and the general
principles that regulate the universe, ended up
collapsing without being able to fulfill its goal, just
as a building ends up collapsing when it is built
without taking into account the law of gravity.

The reason for the success of the capitalist
system lies precisely in the fact that free
enterprise and the free market is something
that is more in line with the general principle
of nature that all beings and things are made
to establish relationships of exchanges
centered on a common purpose that benefits
both parties.
Moreover, it is more in conformity with
human nature, which is configured to initiate
and maintain these reciprocal relations of
exchange by free and creative initiative,
guided by the conscience and motivated by
desires, both those seeking individual
satisfaction and those who aspire to
contribute to a common welfare.
For example, when Chinese Communist leaders
said that it was no longer a sin to get rich and
allowed free enterprise and private property, it was
then that the economy began to take off.
The reason for the success of the capitalist system

However, the problem of capitalism —the reverse
of communism— is that it has always tended to
emphasize individual benefit at the expense of
ignoring the purpose of the whole, letting the famous
“invisible hand” be the one to take care of the
common good. Hence arises the also famous vision of
the human nature of economists, the homo
æconomicus, who is a selfish calculator who always
tries to maximize his individual profit.
This desire to make a profit is the basic stimulus to
initiate relationships of exchange and, therefore, the
engine of the economy, but if it is put as the main goal
—ignoring the general welfare— it is when
exploitation and injustices are brought about, of
which, unfortunately, the history of modern
capitalism is filled with.
The problem of capitalism is the tendency to emphasize individual benefit at the
expense of ignoring the purpose of contributing to the general welfare

A company, like any other entity or organism
of the universe, should have two purposes;The
aim of its own survival and expansion as an
individual entity, and the aim of contributing to
the economic development and general welfare
of the social whole.
This purpose of serving the whole should be
the priority. In general, the main purpose of
companies or multinationals should be to
promote global economic development, not only
of the nation itself but of all the nations of the
world, also thinking of guaranteeing the
necessary resources to feed the future world
population.
The main purpose of enterprises and multinationals should be to promote
global economic development

However, it is clear that any company has to be
profitable and competitive, that is, it must obtain
benefits, because if it can not even maintain itself,
how will it contribute to the general welfare? It is
like a sick organism that becomes a burden to the
whole.
The problem is rather how these benefits are
used.That is to say, the question is whether they are
used to amass huge fortunes and satisfy all kinds of
luxuries and eccentricities of a few millionaires —
while in other countries many people go hungry—
or, instead, are invested to finance or create new
companies that work and contribute to raising the
standard of living of all countries.
Companies and multinationals should invest their profits in creating new companies
that give work and contribute to raising the standard of living of all countries

 Capitalism has led to strong
economic development
 Capitalism has contributed
decisively to avoiding wars through
international trade relationships
 Economic globalization has
facilitated peaceful integration and
cooperation among nations
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
 The relocation of
enterprises and
immigration favors the
economic advance of the
undeveloped countries
 Negative effects of the
capitalist system and
economic globalization

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
In this sense, it must be
recognized that the capitalist
system, on the one hand, has been
reforming itself and making very
positive and constructive but still
insufficient achievements.
And, on the other hand, it has
always tended towards a selfish
individualism that puts above all the
obtaining of own benefits, which
has provoked destructive effects.

Among the positive aspects it is noteworthy that it
has led to a strong economic development on a world
scale, with the consequent creation of wealth and work,
which has contributed to raising the standard and living
conditions of many people, creating a majority middle
class —at least in the developed countries— in such a
way that the old conflict between employers and
workers has practically been solved.
Now both sides realize that they need each other,
since the workers realize that if they demand excessive
wages they jeopardize the profitability and
competitiveness of companies and, in the long run,
their jobs will be in danger. And companies are
interested in people having money to consume more,
since consumption is the engine of economic
development.
Capitalism has led to strong economic development

The establishment of stable trade
relations between nations and the
creation of single markets are factors that
have undoubtedly contributed to avoid
wars between nations for ideological
reasons that so much misery and
destruction caused in the last century.
This is so because for world trade the
wars are no longer interesting or
profitable. Kant predicted this scenario
long time ago saying:
Capitalism has contributed decisively to avoiding wars through international trade
relationships
«The commercial spirit, incompatible with
war, sooner or later takes over the nations.
Of all the powers subordinated to the
State, it is the power of money that inspires
more confidence, and for this reason States
are obliged —not for moral reasons— to
foster peace, and when imminent war
threatens the world, they try to avoid it with
arrangements and compromises, as if they
were in constant alliance for that peaceful
goal.»
Kant, Lo bello y la sublime, La paz perpetua, Espasa-
Calpe, Madrid, 1982, pp. 128-129.

The capitalist economy has decisively
aided world peace through establishing
trade and business ties between
formerly enemy countries that were
living isolated from each other because
of different ideologies or beliefs.
These trade relations have also
facilitated cultural and human
exchanges of ideas, information and
knowledge that has contributed to a
greater mutual understanding between
different peoples and cultures.
Through trade relations a cultural and human exchange has been facilitated which
has contributed to the mutual understanding between nations and cultures
Proof of all this is the fact that the
recent confrontation between democratic
and communist nations has been virtually
solved for economic reasons.
One can observe the paradox that
countries that are still communist have
adopted the capitalist free market
economy and are eager to establish trade
relationships and receive capital
investments and technology from their
former enemies.

The current process of globalization of the economy
also has its positive aspects.The dismantling of
protectionism and state monopolies, the free
movement of capital, the mobility of industry,
multinationals mergers and the free exchange of
information and technology, make the economy break
national barriers and stop being at the mercy of the
leaders political or reasons of the State.
This weakening of the power of national states
facilitates the peaceful integration or cooperation
between nations and reduces the chances that, for
State reasons or national interest, rulers will commit
outrages and barbarities against their own people or
against other nations, such as has been happening
throughout history.
Economic globalization has facilitated peaceful integration and cooperation
among nations

Great Challenges for World Peace book 5

Great Challenges for World Peace book 5

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Great Challenges for World Peace book 5

Ähnlich wie Great Challenges for World Peace book 5 (19)

Mehr von Miguel Cano

Mehr von Miguel Cano (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Great Challenges for World Peace book 5