| CURRENT
ISSUE |
| |
| FEATURES |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ABOUT
US |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| SERVICES |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
A Nature More than Human
Mildred F. Reel
As citizens of the most powerful nation in the world our first responsibility
is to ensure the earth's survival. To this extent, giving power to America first,
right or wrong, can, as Martha Nussbaum says, prove to be morally and physically
dangerous. But I do not believe many of us are ready to serve her ideal of Cosmopolitanism
concerning other issues. To guarantee a world where all citizens have the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would call for an enormous leap
in consciousness. A nature more than human. Perhaps we will eventually evolve
to this, but for the present surviving together is about all we have the capacity
to do.
Before we can transcend to world citizenship considerable education is needed.
Whether this education should include the histories, problems, and comparative
successes of other nations is debatable. We do need to reflect on our acts that
enrich us, but rob another. We cannot isolate ourselves and survive, yet isn't
there a balance in between? A place where we can cooperate as world citizens where
survival is threatened, yet keep much of our individualism, allowing ourselves
to care more for our family, and our nation; to feel our national pride, to support
the Cowboys, or whatever team causes us to feel a part of our group. When groups
become too large, we begin to coerce others to our beliefs and values. We feel
more comfortable and more powerful in smaller groupings. We cannot, as Martha
Nussbaum seems to think, deal with human nature by making UN resolutions. Collectively,
with Cosmopolitanism, perhaps we can find ways to protect our water, air and food
supply, and control population. We can, as democracies, share responsibility to
see that violence is not tolerated as a way to achieve political control. But
Cosmopolitanism is not, in my opinion, the way most of us want to go. At least
not yet.
|
