Comments on: Humanity > the State http://politicalcartel.org/2008/10/28/humanity-the-state/ An International Online Editorial Magazine ■ Pittsburgh, PA, USA ■ Seoul, ROK Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:19:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: S.C. Denney http://politicalcartel.org/2008/10/28/humanity-the-state/#comment-6239 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:06:38 +0000 http://politicalcartel.wordpress.com/?p=1223#comment-6239 It doesn’t look like anything on the nation-state level. It’s improbable that any nation-state would look to other nations before itself. The only way to follow this type of paradigm from a state perspective would be if there was only one state–a world federation. Without such a system, a state will continue to look after itself and its national security/military interests (as you point out).

This is where Kant got his ideas about the categorical imperative and the global federation. He realized that Rousseau’s dream was not entirely possible with the existence of nation-states.

So, in the end, this is really more of a personal perspective. I think Rousseau knew this. He never talked about a unified world; but he did talk about how to be happy as a person.

But hey, it is solid justification for giving the U.N. more power and legitimacy.

]]> By: Karie http://politicalcartel.org/2008/10/28/humanity-the-state/#comment-6237 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:13:01 +0000 http://politicalcartel.wordpress.com/?p=1223#comment-6237 I can see why it makes sense to try to live this out on a personal level. Indeed, service to others over self-interests is one of the main points of Christianity, as you said.

However, what does this look like on the nation-state level? Is humanitarian aid the equivalent of considering other nations better than your own? If so, then why is much of foreign aid determined by geographic and national security/military interests?

]]>