Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[MikeNovack]

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

But be fair, IC, you don't know if he does both. You and I probably know three kinds of people.Type one is just all up in arms about things distant and far away. Somehow they feel better about ranting, think it accomplishes anything.Type two might seem unaware of world events, But they are out there acting locally to make things better. But there ARE also type three people. Yes they are ranting about injustices far away from them. But they are also taking their turn dishing out food at the soup kitchen.

[Immanuel Can]

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

But be fair, IC, you don't know if he does both.

I'm prepared to be convinced he's a world leader, if you think he is. But he's not offered me evidence of that, nor even claimed it, so far as I know.

Yes they are ranting about injustices far away from them. But they are also taking their turn dishing out food at the soup kitchen.

And which of those two activities is actually a moral achievement, and which is nothing but an empty, symbolic gesture?

[popeye1945]

There is no objective world for a subjective consciousness; apparent reality is just that, subjective experience. Morality is a subjective creation, a biological extension, an expression of the nature of humanity created in one's subjective world. One does not experience reality; one experiences how reality alters/changes the body, giving the subject experience, and that which is experienced is of the body. Morality is projected meanings into an already subjective world. One cannot escape one's subjectiveness.

[popeye1945]

You're not getting it. I'm not American. How hard is that to understand? You're talking to the wrong person. I've got no pony in that race.
But you need a trip to your therapist, just to get that bile out of your system. It's rotting your brain, apparently.

I understand you're not American, neither am I, but it is what is happening in the world right now, and even if you consider yourself a world citizen, it should be of significant interest.

I'm not a "world citizen." "Citizen" means "dweller of a city," not "dweller of a planet, so the term is actually absurd. People are always local: that's the function of being in a body -- one cannot be in many places at once, only one. So human beings are inevitably local, and their involvement in the larger world can only radiate diminishingly from a local hub.

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

WORLD CITIZEN


**A world citizen is someone who identifies as part of a global human community, recognizing shared rights, responsibilities, and interconnectedness beyond national borders.**

Here’s a deeper look at what that means:

### Core Principles of World Citizenship
- **Global Identity**: A world citizen sees themselves as belonging to humanity as a whole, not just to a single nation, ethnicity, or culture. This identity transcends geography and political boundaries.
- **Shared Responsibility**: They acknowledge that their actions—social, environmental, economic—can impact people across the globe. This includes advocating for human rights, sustainability, and equitable resource use.
- **Interconnectedness**: World citizens understand that global challenges like climate change, poverty, and conflict require collective solutions. They embrace cooperation across cultures and nations.
- **Cultural Openness**: They engage respectfully with diverse cultures, challenge stereotypes, and promote mutual understanding.
- **Active Engagement**: Being a world citizen isn’t just a mindset—it’s about taking action to shape global values and practices, whether through education, activism, or everyday choices.

### Legal and Philosophical Dimensions
- **Legal View**: Some organizations, like the World Service Authority, advocate for legal recognition of world citizenship, suggesting that all humans are born with rights that transcend national law.
- **Philosophical View**: The concept draws from cosmopolitanism, which holds that all humans belong to a single moral community. It’s a response to globalization, emphasizing unity over division.

### 🛠 Practical Implications
- Supporting fair trade and ethical consumption
- Participating in global movements (e.g., climate action, human rights)
- Educating oneself and others about global issues
- Voting or advocating for policies that consider global impact

In essence, world citizenship is a call to expand our sense of belonging and responsibility—from local to planetary. It’s not about abandoning national identity, but about *extending allegiance to humanity and the Earth*.

[accelafine]

I understand you're not American, neither am I, but it is what is happening in the world right now, and even if you consider yourself a world citizen, it should be of significant interest.

I'm not a "world citizen." "Citizen" means "dweller of a city," not "dweller of a planet, so the term is actually absurd. People are always local: that's the function of being in a body -- one cannot be in many places at once, only one. So human beings are inevitably local, and their involvement in the larger world can only radiate diminishingly from a local hub.

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

WORLD CITIZEN


**A world citizen is someone who identifies as part of a global human community, recognizing shared rights, responsibilities, and interconnectedness beyond national borders.**

Here’s a deeper look at what that means:

### Core Principles of World Citizenship
- **Global Identity**: A world citizen sees themselves as belonging to humanity as a whole, not just to a single nation, ethnicity, or culture. This identity transcends geography and political boundaries.
- **Shared Responsibility**: They acknowledge that their actions—social, environmental, economic—can impact people across the globe. This includes advocating for human rights, sustainability, and equitable resource use.
- **Interconnectedness**: World citizens understand that global challenges like climate change, poverty, and conflict require collective solutions. They embrace cooperation across cultures and nations.
- **Cultural Openness**: They engage respectfully with diverse cultures, challenge stereotypes, and promote mutual understanding.
- **Active Engagement**: Being a world citizen isn’t just a mindset—it’s about taking action to shape global values and practices, whether through education, activism, or everyday choices.

### Legal and Philosophical Dimensions
- **Legal View**: Some organizations, like the World Service Authority, advocate for legal recognition of world citizenship, suggesting that all humans are born with rights that transcend national law.
- **Philosophical View**: The concept draws from cosmopolitanism, which holds that all humans belong to a single moral community. It’s a response to globalization, emphasizing unity over division.

### 🛠 Practical Implications
- Supporting fair trade and ethical consumption
- Participating in global movements (e.g., climate action, human rights)
- Educating oneself and others about global issues
- Voting or advocating for policies that consider global impact

In essence, world citizenship is a call to expand our sense of belonging and responsibility—from local to planetary. It’s not about abandoning national identity, but about *extending allegiance to humanity and the Earth*.

'AI used by moronic human' alert.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand you're not American, neither am I, but it is what is happening in the world right now, and even if you consider yourself a world citizen, it should be of significant interest.

I'm not a "world citizen." "Citizen" means "dweller of a city," not "dweller of a planet, so the term is actually absurd. People are always local: that's the function of being in a body -- one cannot be in many places at once, only one. So human beings are inevitably local, and their involvement in the larger world can only radiate diminishingly from a local hub.

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

A world citizen is someone who identifies as part of a global human community, recognizing shared rights, responsibilities, and interconnectedness beyond national borders.

In other words, a fantasist who imagines that his personal moral responsibility can be sublimated into virtue signalling about matters over which he actually has no control, and about scopes and dimensions in which he has no influence. A brat with a high moral self-image.

We have no end of them today. They claim to be passionate about the great "out there" -- the climate, international relations, global peace -- so they don't have to be moral about their own actions or pay attention to their own moral responsibilities. They have blue hair and nose rings, or run about in black suits, throwing bricks through shopkeepers windows and burning car dealerships, and are totally mindless with regard to how they're behaving to the people who are right in front of them. And this carelessness, this amorality, they think, makes them even more moral and righteous than those who do not occupy themselves with things they cannot influence, merely because their fantasies are larger.

Our world has enough Greta Thunbergs. One was one too many, actually.

[accelafine]

Our world has enough Greta Thunbergs. One was one too many, actually.

Is she dead? Oh no. How awful

[MikeNovack]

We have no end of them today. They claim to be passionate about the great "out there" -- the climate, international relations, global peace -- so they don't have to be moral about their own actions or pay attention to their own moral responsibilities. They have blue hair and nose rings, or run about in black suits, throwing bricks through shopkeepers windows and burning car dealerships, and are totally mindless with regard to how they're behaving to the people who are right in front of them. And this carelessness, this amorality, they think, makes them even more moral and righteous than those who do not occupy themselves with things they cannot influence, merely because their fantasies are larger.

But WHY (based on what) are you assuming that many who are activists on these large issues are not ALSO active on the home front issues.

Take that big "No Kings" rally the other weekend. You don't look favorably on the folks doing that. But now think of all the folks in our communities manning the soup kitchens, helping families after a house fire, etc. Do you think those folks were not ALSO at the "No Kings" thing?

[Immanuel Can]

We have no end of them today. They claim to be passionate about the great "out there" -- the climate, international relations, global peace -- so they don't have to be moral about their own actions or pay attention to their own moral responsibilities. They have blue hair and nose rings, or run about in black suits, throwing bricks through shopkeepers windows and burning car dealerships, and are totally mindless with regard to how they're behaving to the people who are right in front of them. And this carelessness, this amorality, they think, makes them even more moral and righteous than those who do not occupy themselves with things they cannot influence, merely because their fantasies are larger.

But WHY (based on what) are you assuming that many who are activists on these large issues are not ALSO active on the home front issues.

Tell me about what they have achieved, for all their "activism." We have the least "active" and least useful "activists" in world history. What we have instead is a bunch of preening, self-loving posers, who never actually get anything done. They're good at throwing rocks and burning things, but useless for, say, making a degraded neighbourhood cleaner and safer. They throw garbage...they don't pick it up.

Why don't they just stay home and "clean their own rooms"? Because they're not even capable of that. They can't sort out their own moral relations with the people right in front of them. And yet, they think they're competent to have a say about much, much larger matters, like civics, national policy and global direction?

Take that big "No Kings" rally the other weekend.

Good example. From outside the country, it's really funny. They're claiming somebody's become a "king." And not just one: it's plural. They're alleging that the danger to us is a whole bunch of people who've been coronated. We're suddenly back in medieval England or 18th Century France, they think.

Just think about how stupid that allegation is. No wonder those bimbos show up in dragon suits or clown face. It's all about attracting attention to themselves, and not about doing anything useful at all. Kings? Where? And what have they achieved by all their posing and preening? Not one darn thing...except to convince themselves they're virtuous for doing nothing.

But slow down for a minute. Look at them not as a mob, but as one individual picked out of the herd. What is that one individual doing at that moment? What emotions are rushing through him/her? Why is he/she convinced he's righteous to charge at the police, or to throw a rock at somebody, or even to beat up a shopkeeper and steal her goods? What is the moral status of that individual, who is just one of many individuals in that mob? Is he/she a virtuous warrior, or just a spoiled child who is not even aware of what he/she is doing in regard to moral action?

[MikeNovack]

But slow down for a minute. Look at them not as a mob, but as one individual picked out of the herd. What is that one individual doing at that moment? What emotions are rushing through him/her? Why is he/she convinced he's righteous to charge at the police, or to throw a rock at somebody, or even to beat up a shopkeeper and steal her goods? What is the moral status of that individual, who is just one of many individuals in that mob? Is he/she a virtuous warrior, or just a spoiled child who is not even aware of what he/she is doing in regard to moral action?

And THIS is the sort of behaviors you were observing at the "No Kings" event you observed?

Who do you think came to these events? The next town (township) up the hill from me, Ashfield MA has a population under 2000. There were about 300 of them on the town common. The entire population of Franklin Co MA is about 70,000. Well about 3000 of them were at the parade in Greenfield (small city. largest in county). This information not from news sources but my own eyes.

[Immanuel Can]

But slow down for a minute. Look at them not as a mob, but as one individual picked out of the herd. What is that one individual doing at that moment? What emotions are rushing through him/her? Why is he/she convinced he's righteous to charge at the police, or to throw a rock at somebody, or even to beat up a shopkeeper and steal her goods? What is the moral status of that individual, who is just one of many individuals in that mob? Is he/she a virtuous warrior, or just a spoiled child who is not even aware of what he/she is doing in regard to moral action?

And THIS is the sort of behaviors you were observing at the "No Kings" event you observed?

What I saw online...there were no such demonstrations in my country, of course.

Who do you think came to these events?

Fools.

[MikeNovack]

And THIS is the sort of behaviors you were observing at the "No Kings" event you observed?

What I saw online...there were no such demonstrations in my country, of course.

Who do you think came to these events?

Fools.

Interesting. You had on-line sources showing these events as riots rather than "we are all united in opposition" celebrations (THAT was the mood where was).

ALL the news sites, etc. you had available to you showed riots? As an eyewitness on the ground, I am calling into question your sources.

[Immanuel Can]

And THIS is the sort of behaviors you were observing at the "No Kings" event you observed?

What I saw online...there were no such demonstrations in my country, of course.

Who do you think came to these events?

Fools.

Interesting. You had on-line sources showing these events as riots rather than "we are all united in opposition" celebrations (THAT was the mood where was).

Even the concept was stupid. And that's obvious. They're claiming a democratically-elected government is full of "kings." This was as goofy as holding a "no unicorns" rally. I guess next week for them it will be the "raise Atlantis" campaign or the "Santa for governor" march.

A bunch of childish posers.

[popeye1945]

I'm not a "world citizen." "Citizen" means "dweller of a city," not "dweller of a planet, so the term is actually absurd. People are always local: that's the function of being in a body -- one cannot be in many places at once, only one. So human beings are inevitably local, and their involvement in the larger world can only radiate diminishingly from a local hub.

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.

A world citizen is someone who identifies as part of a global human community, recognizing shared rights, responsibilities, and interconnectedness beyond national borders.

In other words, a fantasist who imagines that his personal moral responsibility can be sublimated into virtue signalling about matters over which he actually has no control, and about scopes and dimensions in which he has no influence. A brat with a high moral self-image.

We have no end of them today. They claim to be passionate about the great "out there" -- the climate, international relations, global peace -- so they don't have to be moral about their own actions or pay attention to their own moral responsibilities. They have blue hair and nose rings, or run about in black suits, throwing bricks through shopkeepers windows and burning car dealerships, and are totally mindless with regard to how they're behaving to the people who are right in front of them. And this carelessness, this amorality, they think, makes them even more moral and righteous than those who do not occupy themselves with things they cannot influence, merely because their fantasies are larger.

Our world has enough Greta Thunbergs. One was one too many, actually.

You must be an American — lol!! If not, in fact, in mind-numbing patriotism. Back on topic: There is no such experience as objectivity to a subjective consciousness, period.

[Immanuel Can]

A world citizen is someone who identifies as part of a global human community, recognizing shared rights, responsibilities, and interconnectedness beyond national borders.

In other words, a fantasist who imagines that his personal moral responsibility can be sublimated into virtue signalling about matters over which he actually has no control, and about scopes and dimensions in which he has no influence. A brat with a high moral self-image.

We have no end of them today. They claim to be passionate about the great "out there" -- the climate, international relations, global peace -- so they don't have to be moral about their own actions or pay attention to their own moral responsibilities. They have blue hair and nose rings, or run about in black suits, throwing bricks through shopkeepers windows and burning car dealerships, and are totally mindless with regard to how they're behaving to the people who are right in front of them. And this carelessness, this amorality, they think, makes them even more moral and righteous than those who do not occupy themselves with things they cannot influence, merely because their fantasies are larger.

Our world has enough Greta Thunbergs. One was one too many, actually.

You must be an American — lol!!

Bad guess. I'm not.

Back on topic: There is no such experience as objectivity to a subjective consciousness, period.

You're mistaking epistemology for ontology. That is, what we know (epistemology) is not the same as what actually exists (ontology). The latter is what makes possible the former, and what delimits its particular shape and configuration -- at least in people with a healthy epistemology.

Or another way to say this is that objective reality sets the terms for our subjective impressions about it. Subjective impressions do not determine objective reality.

However, why that would be on topic here isn't clear to me. A "world citizen" is a subjective impression that fails to correspond to any objective truth. Nobody lives in the whole world entire; everybody lives in a particular locality, inside a particular body, located in a particular place and time. And that is why moral responsibility is nor our for the whole world, since we can do nothing about the whole world, but rather our primary contribution to whatever goods the world will get from us are entirely delimited by the scope of our ability to move and act within a particular locality.

This locality isn't even as big as a whole nation, let alone the whole world. It's very small. And failure to attend to our moral responsibility within the actual sphere of our ability to act and move simply guarantees that we will be a) incompetent morally where we live, b) oblivious to our own moral responsibilities and contribution, c) ineffective in contributing anything morally to the world, and d) possibly taken up as patsies in the larger plans of those with more power and scope than we have, for use in their plans, regardless of our own moral preferences.

So, as JP has said, "Clean your own room" is the best advice. Attend to who we are being in our own place and time, and there is just a chance that we will end up contributing to the sum of good in the world. Fail to attend to our own here-and-now, and we are almost certain to end up being immoral or amoral, and contributing nothing or evil to the world.