RE: I'm Charlie Cavell and I don't know why we accept things the way they are
Well, I had very different definitions of those. I see what you mean by them, though. The universal virtues are all there in your descriptions, often referred to by other names as well. And you also make a concession that you can't get all the people be like that.
In my opinion, if 5 billion people are happy with this new system, while 2 billions are not, what is the difference? There are still unhappy people! I really doubt it is really possible to make a happy world - somebody will be oppressed or punished, and that's exactly what we already have - oppression and punishment for going against it. The question is just who is oppressed and who is punished, and that's what changes bring - a change in who is the oppressor and who is being oppressed. A century later you will have new categories of unhappy people calling for integrity and equality.
Frankly, I feel like we can only more or less talk about our personal happiness as it is situated in the present - with all the limitations and unfairness of the world. I agree that happiness is in our own hands. And since you can't fix the world, making that happiness and protecting it are the very meaning in life to me.
How to make yourself happy without hurting other people, which would arguably be a wonderful world to live in, is a whole different topic, though. And I think psychology has an answer.
Yes...upon reflection I would have to agree that the model in which I am trying to describe still oppresses some, and therefore won't achieve its over all purpose. I do, however believe that at some point in our evolution we will have an event that will more likely than not cause such great devastation that we will have no choice but to visit the aforementioned in order to survive as a species. But I must admit, the road is long and hard and there are a multitude of questions that would need to be answered. I think in the interim, we can start tackling these issues we face on a smaller scale; community based projects, working with legislators that do want to change things in a positive direction and taking personal initiatives ..
Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I read that article a few years ago about change that I can't remember the author of (I guess I could dig it up if you're curious), but among many smart things he said, there was one I particularly remember - if you want a change, start with yourself, take people on board, make it bigger later.
It makes perfect sense, too. And if you think about it, you don't need to scale it too much up. If your community is on board, why would you try harder to change the world? Your personal world is already better and more comfortable.
I know philanthropists wouldn't agree, but the world is so big that for one person changing a small community is already a heroic deed. And who knows, if it takes off, it might as well change the world. I guess I am getting carried away here)
No such thing as "getting carried away"... I feel it may be the only way to start the arduous task of change