[Radix] Fwd: climate and security redux

[George Kent]

Ben, I believe subsidiarity is generally viewed as a moral principle.

Your question about what is in it for the larger or stronger parties  
is a good one. I would say that it relies on the presumption that the  
larger party is concerned about collective well-being, and not only  
its own well-being.

This goes to the point I mentioned about the importance of community,  
where I define a community as a group of people with a particular high  
concern for one another's well-being. As I say at the conclusion of my  
paper on Designing a World Without Hunger, "Without a sense of  
community at the global level, without caring for one another's well  
being, global hunger will not be ended."

Aloha, George



On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:10 PM, bwisner at igc.org wrote:

> Well said, George!
>
> One question, though.  What's the basis of the the principle of  
> subsidiarity?  Is it an "ought", a moral principle of a Kantian  
> sort?  Or is there something in it for the larger and stronger  
> groups involved to assist the smaller and weaker to achieve their  
> aims?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ecie.org/pipermail/radix/attachments/20080726/5b1aaa06/attachment.htm