2007-01-02 10:39:27 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
" The well-being of mankind, its peace and SECURITY, are unattainable unless and until its UNITY is firmly established. "
Humanity has evolved through various stages of ever greater social groupings: tribal societies, various feudal systems and city-states. Each stage of this evolution has, as it has developed, thrown up problems that have only been resolved when humanity has moved on to the next stage of its evolution. Our present world situation has resulted from the emergence of the modern nation state. This stage of human evolution has now developed political, economic, ecological, a sense of INSECURITY and other pressing problems that are in urgent need of solutions.
Humanity must now evolve beyond this stage to that of GLOBAL UNITY.
The application of this principle of unity would see far-reaching changes in many aspects of community life. Adversarial principles govern many of our social institutions: politics, the courts, business, and even many professional and social activities. To an even greater extent do adversarial principles govern the running of international affairs. When statesmen come together in international bodies such as the United Nations, it is almost axiomatic that their only concern will be what is best for their own country regardless of what effect this may have on the rest of the world. This combative approach is undesirable. Society should be regarded as an organism, such as the human body. The organs of the body are different from each other, and yet, for the body to function effectively, the various parts need to work in unity and harmony.
Most of the problems that the world faces (including environmental pollution, desertification, global warming, the gap between the rich and poor nations, and INSECURITY) are only soluble if they are dealt with at a global level. These problems will therefore continue to get worse until the world wakes up to this fact.
2007-01-03 16:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by apicole 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
freedom because without freedom of choice you have no free will and without free will you stop being a seperate being thus no longer existing with an idea of self. Without this idea of self you basicaly become a slave and if you ask a slave if they would rather have freedom over security I think youll get this answer 99% of the time imo. The problem is how do you know your free or not and when do you say enoth freedom is enoth and that you now want security? Errr anyhow If I had to choice as a slave to the system of the choice for a chance to get out of the system with the risk of losing my security I would almost surely choice to take the freedom accept when it comes at the cost of others freedoms. I think thats the main problem freedom always costs something and often that costs is at the expense of others. So I guess you at some point have to choice to take others freedoms away inorder to keep yours :(
2007-01-02 11:49:52 · answer #2 · answered by magpiesmn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In all things, it is a very relative question. What is more important to me is not what would be more important to you. It is also a question of dynamics. If your feeling of security is dirived from your freedom, then freedom is more important. If you dirive freedom from a feeling of security, then security is more important. Since both are illusional it is a moot point. The best of security does not make one safe. Freedom is an illusion of choice. Everyone has freedom of action. It is accepting the concequences of your actions which limit your personal freedoms.
2007-01-02 10:49:21 · answer #3 · answered by lustatfirstbite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom.
2007-01-02 10:47:00 · answer #4 · answered by ROBERT L O 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me the most important thing is security. I love my freedom but when you're secure you find inner peace which creates freedom in so many different areas in life.
2007-01-02 10:44:20 · answer #5 · answered by TONYA P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The freedom to be secure.
or one could say you need to be secure to be free. Which could also be correct, but wouldn't one need the freedom to be secure? If you get what I'm saying.
I'm not that big of a help, am I?
2007-01-02 10:46:37 · answer #6 · answered by Gabrielle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True security is demonstrated by freedom,hence the greater the demand is for security the less freedom you will be allowed!
2007-01-02 11:08:11 · answer #7 · answered by namazanyc 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good evening. Your question is very similar to the question posed by "the Great American Think-Off" in 2006; which was: Which is more valuable to society: safety or freedom?
The winning essayist wrote that Freedom is more valuable. The final four essays (including the winner) on the topic can be found at the link below.
2007-01-02 11:49:57 · answer #8 · answered by wholenote4 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What good is life if you are not free? A controlled secure life is a life not worth living... I would risk pain and suffering to live free. There's no point to life if safety is the number one concern. Living securly will just be getting by day to day.
A little bit of both in equal amounts would be best... But to answer your question and choose between one or the other, I choose freedom.
2007-01-02 11:24:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is an interesting question. I think it depends wholly upon your position in life. For example if you asked a prisoner in prison he would surly say freedom because he certainly is secure.
But if you are to ask a person caught up in the rat race trying to make a living and raise a family without having enough money to do it comfortably then he would surly say security .
2007-01-02 10:47:55 · answer #10 · answered by ec1177 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋