2. GREAT CHALLENGES FOR WORLD PEACE
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES TO BUILD
A CULTURE OF PEACE
VOLUME V
Copyright © Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
First English Edition: 2018
ISBN: 978-1984255044
Edited by the author: Miguel Angel Cano Jimenez
email: famcano2004@gmail.com
Cover Design: Sunil Cano

3. Great Challenges for World Peace
Chapter 1 Individualism versus Communitarianism
Chapter 2 The Problem of Economic Inequalities
Chapter 3 The Problem of the Deterioration of the
Democratic Societies
Chapter 4 The Problem of Moral Degradation of
Public and Private Life
Chapter 5 Clash of Civilizations or World Peace?

4. Everyone agrees that we live in a time of crisis. It is a
generalized crisis of values. In science and philosophy the
search for truth, certitude or rationality is in a dead end. In the
sphere of ethics, there is a total confusion about what is right
or wrong.
Society is plagued by problems, ranging from the increase in
youth violence, including child abuse, to problems such as
abusive use of alcohol and drugs, sexual offenses, abuse and
violence within the family, until the corruption of political and
financial elites.
Moreover, at the global level, we are immersed in a series of
regional wars and exposed to the growing danger of conflicts
or clashes between different nations, cultures and civilizations,
in addition to the serious threat of international terrorism.
INTRODUCTION

5. «Man, having been transformed into a thing, is anxious,
without faith, without conviction, with little capacity for
love. He escapes into empty busy-ness, alcoholism, extreme
sexual promiscuity, and psychosomatic symptoms of all
kinds, which can best be explained by the theory of stress.
Paradoxically, the wealthiest societies turn out to be the
sickest, and the progress of medicine in them is matched by
a great increase of all forms of psychic and psychosomatic
illness.»
Erich Fromm, On Being Human, Continuum, New York, 1994, pp.
36-37.
As Erich Fromm rightly points out in the following quote, it is
paradoxical that opulent societies are the ones who are plagued with most
psychological problems caused by conflicting human relationships that
lead many people to loneliness, depression and even suicide.

6. The root of current problems lies in the moral
emptiness created by the crisis of values.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to research
for core values and universal ethical principles
that can be shared and accepted by all nations,
cultures and religions.
These universally shared values should serve as
a basis for a peace education that fosters
peaceful coexistence among individuals, families,
races, nations and civilizations, in order to
achieve a stable and lasting world peace.

7. In this volume, entitled Great
Challenges for World Peace, we
analyze the three great challenges
that humanity would have to
overcome if we are to achieve a
stable and lasting peace for the
new millennium.
Today, global solutions are
needed for all problems, be they at
the individual and family level as
well as at the national or global
scale, since they all affect the
majority of nations equally.
A first big problem is to end hunger and
poverty in the world and achieve a global
equalization of wealth.
The second big challenge of our day is to try
to solve the problem of moral degradation or
the widespread of corruption at all levels of
society.
A third major challenge is to control and
prevent the wars and conflicts between
nations, ethnic groups or cultures that caused
such disastrous humanitarian consequences in
the twentieth century, as well as to solve the
serious problem of international terrorism.

8. The source of inspiration and motivation
for this research has been the philosophical,
ethical and religious thinking of Sun Myung
Moon, an extraordinary man who dedicated
his whole life to world peace.
He founded the Unification Movement and
numerous organizations and institutions in
all fields of culture. He brought together
scientists, teachers, communicators,
educators, religious leaders, and political
leaders to participate in numerous
international conferences in order to work
for world peace, transcending national,
cultural, racial and religious barriers.
Like other great visionaries as
Jesus, Buddha or Socrates, he has
never written anything, but
throughout his life he has given a
vivid education through lectures,
sermons and public conferences.
For this reason, Dr. Sung Hun Lee,
a Korean scholar, put in order and
systematize the philosophical
thinking of Sun Myung Moon, which
is called “Unification Thought”,
because its claim is to harmonize all
contradictory schools and currents of
human thought throughout history.

9. «Humankind’s destiny is to bring together all the
points of view that are now divided against each
other. The philosophy that will lead humanity in the
future must be able to bring together all religions
and philosophies.(…)
If we continue the era of people congregating
together only by religion or race, then humanity
cannot avoid a repetition of war. The age of peace
absolutely cannot come unless we transcend
cultural customs and traditions.»
Sun Myung Moon, As a Peace-loving Global Citizen,TheWashingtonTimes
Foundation, USA, 2009, p. 291.

11. 1. Historical roots of the
modern individualist vision
2. Exacerbation of modern
individualism encouraged by
metaphysical, economic,
moral, and naturalist
theories
3. Criticism to individualism
4. Individualism from the point
of view of individual purpose
and purpose for the whole
CHAPTER 1 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COMMUNITARIANISM
5. The communitarianism of Amitai
Etzioni: A social order based on the
voluntary acceptance of a shared core
values
6. Harmony and complementarity between
individualist and communitarian visions
7. The Three Great Challenges Facing
Humanity
8. An ideal world based on the principles of
interdependence, mutual prosperity and
universally shared values

12. The controversy between individualists and
communitarians is a debate whose roots go back to
Democritus and Aristotle, emphasizing one that things
must be explained by reducing them to its simplest parts,
while the other indicates that the whole or organisms
have their own laws and purposes that cannot be
explained from the parts.
In moral and political philosophy, the controversy
between individualists and communitarians —that is,
between those who emphasize the supremacy of
individual autonomy and rights and who instead highlight
the duties towards community and common way of life—
is one of the debates, as Cortina points out, «which have
resulted in a higher number of publications, congresses
and meetings.»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios,Taurus, Madrid, 1998, p. 89.
In this chapter we are going to try if it is
possible to harmonize these two visions,
which apparently seem opposite and
contradictory.
We will begin by referring to the liberal
roots of individualism and its evolution,
then moving on to the reasons that have
led many moral and political philosophers
over the past few decades to openly
question the individualist view that
prevails inWestern democracies.
And we will end up referring to the
communitarian paradigm and to the
possibility of harmonizing both visions.
INTRODUCTION

13. As is well known, modern individualism has its
roots in the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth
century and the liberal theorists who promoted and
justified them. His revolutionary proclamations were
a plea for the natural rights of individuals to life,
liberty, and property.They demanded that all human
beings be treated with equal dignity and rights,
against the abuses of power, tyranny and corruption
of the monarchs and the aristocratic class.
They fought against a hierarchical and classist
social system that legitimized through bloodline and
family inheritance the royal authority and the abusive
privileges of the nobility. Privileges such as the
monopoly of wealth and land ownership, the
hoarding of all public offices, and judicial
prerogatives, which left the common people and the
emerging bourgeois class in a clear helplessness.
They advocated freedom of religious and
political beliefs, as well as freedom of
expression and association.All this in order to
avoid imprisoning or condemning people to
death for having different beliefs, and
preventing the official or majority religion to
persecute minority religions, along with the
usual practice of kings and rulers to eliminate
their opponents or political rivals.
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MODERN INDIVIDUALIST VISION

14. Perhaps the greatest achievement of modern
democracies has been the consolidation in a large
part of the present world of the right to freedom
of religious and political beliefs. In other words,
tolerance and respect for the plurality of beliefs
and ways of life;The right not to be judged or
condemned for having different ideas from those
of the rulers, as well as freedom of expression
and association, freedom of movement and free
initiative.
However, the ideal of all men being equal and
living fraternally as brothers and sisters,
unfortunately, has not been realized. In the
capitalist democratic nations, equality of
opportunity is more nominal than real.This is
because they failed to achieve economic equality.
This is a goal that should also have been
pursued, since the original ideal of democracy
was precisely to create a society in which all
human beings were like the brothers and sisters
of a large family, in which there were no class
distinctions or economic status.
Achievements and failures of modern liberal democracies

15. In fact, the bourgeois revolutionaries
soon became a new capitalist
"aristocracy," seizing privileges, wealth,
and power.
They behaved in a similar way to the
old aristocracy they criticized, with the
only difference now that the social status
or value of people is measured by the
number of digits in their bank account
rather than the high birth or lineage.
One of the main reasons for this failure
is the progressive emergence of a selfish
individualism that has always infested
capitalist democratic societies from the
beginning to the present day.
Achievements and failures of modern liberal democracies

16.  Modern Atomism
 Adam Smith’s EconomicTheory
 The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham
 Malthus’ Naturalism and Spencer’s Social
Darwinism
 The egoistic and hedonistic lifestyle
prevailing in modern democracies
EXACERBATION OF MODERN INDIVIDUALISM ENCOURAGED BY
METAPHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, MORAL, AND NATURALIST THEORIES

17. EXACERBATION OF MODERN INDIVIDUALISM ENCOURAGED BY
METAPHYSICAL, ECONOMIC, MORAL, AND NATURALIST THEORIES
Let us now see how
individualism —starting from an
initial just defense of human
dignity and the natural rights of
individuals against the oppression
and tyranny of the old regime—
was exacerbated with the rational
support of certain metaphysical,
moral, economic and naturalistic
theories.

18. In the first place, the early liberal theorists
used atomism —which at the time was very
popular among scientists— in order to rebut
the arguments of the conservatives who
justified the hierarchical structure of the
monarchical system, arguing that it was the
most appropriate and natural because it
resembled the hierarchical whole of the
cosmos and living organisms.
This atomist vision led them to highlight in
an exaggerated and exclusive way the
individual rights of the people, ignoring the
duties that each individual has toward others.
This view encouraged individuals to seek only
their personal or family happiness by forgetting
to contribute to the well-being of their
communities, nations or world, as Goodwin
explains:
Thus, they rejected any philosophical, political or
religious view that spoke of a cohesive and harmonious
social whole, and that encouraged people to live for their
communities and nations, since this would be to fall back
into tyranny, abuse of power and violation of individual
rights.
Modern Atomism
«The conception of the individual’s duty to society is
strictly limited and the idea of a “common good” is
almost unanimously discarded. (...) Liberals who defend
an atomist conception of society argue that the concept
of the common good is itself a philosophical fallacy.The
substance and joy of life are to be found in the private
sphere and not in the public sphere.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones
Península, Barcelona, 1988, p. 60

19. A second view that contributed to the exacerbation of individualism
was the classical economic theory. According to Goodwin:
That is to say, the famous maxim, “private
vices, public benefits,” which unfortunately
today seems to be more effective than ever, if
we take into account the enormous benefits
generated by the industries of tobacco, alcohol,
gambling, drugs, pornography, prostitution and
sex tourism.
As Goodwin says, «Liberal thinkers achieved
something that seemed impossible in the
Christian Middle Ages: they made selfishness a
virtue» (Ibid., p. 48).
Adam Smith’s Economic Theory
«The liberal model of society, as already mentioned,
presents analogies with the system of free enterprise
idealized by the early economists.The free market was
represented as a collection of independent individuals
who produced, bought and sold goods in order to
obtain the maximum profit, without the interference of
the government.
Adam Smith introduced the notion of the Invisible
Hand, which guaranteed that this multiplicity of
transactions dictated by self-interest would lead to
greater national prosperity, spontaneously, without
being proposed by individuals.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones Península,
Barcelona, 1988, p. 63

20. The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham was the third of
the theories that joined the previous ones in the exaltation
of the egoistic individualism, elevating it to the status of
moral sanctity, as our author continues commenting:
The hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham
«As a moral system based on a calculation of pain and
pleasure, it morally justifies the selfish activities of the
individual who first appeared in Hobbes's state of nature
(…)
In the political man of the liberal who knows his own
interests and is driven by them, there is only a utilitarian
moralist who calculates the utility of his actions; his alter
ego is the economic man, who maximizes his profits and,
miraculously, benefits society as a whole.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones Península,
Barcelona, 1988, p. 64

21. There was a fourth vision, the
naturalist, which exaggerated even
more the individualism of some
orthodox liberals like Malthus —famous
for inspiring Darwin's theory of natural
selection— and Spencer, the father of
social Darwinists.According to Malthus,
in society, as in nature, there is a
ruthless struggle for survival in which
there is no place for those who cannot
obtain means for their subsistence.
Malthus’ Naturalism and Spencer’s Social Darwinism
«[Spencer] in his book The ManVersus the State makes
the apology of laissez faire, the liberalism of “survival of the
best” against liberal reformers.
Like Malthus, Spencer thought that the “pitiable poor,”
whom so manyVictorian philanthropists were so
preoccupied with, were poor because they deserved it and
should not receive help from the government.»
Barbara Goodwin, El uso de las ideas políticas, Ediciones Península,
Barcelona, 1988, p. 73
And Spencer developed a theory of
social evolution in which there is a war
of all against all in which the fittest
survived. According to Goodwin:

22. In sum, the original individualism
of the early liberals —understood as
the righteous defense of the natural
rights of individuals against
tyranny— was distorted and
exacerbated, with the help of
atomism, hedonistic utilitarianism,
classical economic theory and
naturalism, to the point of becoming
an exorbitant selfish, hedonistic and
rapacious individualism.
Its harmful practical consequences
are well ostensible in the present
Western democracies, in which a
degrading selfish, hedonistic and
materialistic lifestyle prevails, as
Lipovetsky rightly describes it in the
quote below:
«By permanently stimulating the values of individual well-
being, the era of consumerism has massively disqualified the
rigorous and disciplinary forms of moral obligation, the liturgy of
duty has become inadequate for a materialist and hedonistic
culture based on the exaltation of self and the excitement of
voluptuousness-to-the-instant. (...)
In our societies, objects and marks are exhibited more than
moral exhortations, material requirements prevail over
humanitarian obligation, needs over virtue, well-being over
Goodness.
The moralist era had as its ambition the discipline of desire, we
exacerbate it; it exhorted the duties to oneself and to others, we
invite to the comfort.The obligation has been replaced by
seduction, well-being has become God and the publicity his
prophet.»
Gilles Lipovetsky, El crepúsculo del deber, Anagrama, Barcelona, 1994, pp. 51, 53.
The egoistic and hedonistic lifestyle prevailing in modern democracies

23.  Erich Fromm and Daniel
Bell
 Alasdair MacIntyre
 CharlesTaylor
 The new communitarian
paradigm
CRITICISM TO INDIVIDUALISM

24. CRITICISM TO INDIVIDUALISM
In the latter decades of the last
century, within Western democratic
societies voices began to raise that
questioned the dominant
individualistic liberal tradition,
accusing one of its offshoots,
hedonistic individualism, of
undermining social ties and causing
anomie, continuous conflicts of
partisan interests and moral crisis in
the system.

25. Fromm, in his famous book The
fear of freedom, has already
announced the dangers of
individualism by pointing out that his
intention was «to show that the
structure of modern society affects
man in two ways simultaneously: he
becomes more independent, self-
reliant, and critical, and he becomes
more isolated, alone, and afraid.»
Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom,
Routledge, London, 2001, p. 90.
Erich Fromm and Daniel Bell
One of the first authors to show the contradictions between
the original ideals of liberalism and the selfish individualism
infesting democratic societies was Daniel Bell, who in his
influential book, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, wrote:
«The major consequence of this crisis… is the loss of civitas,
that spontaneous willingness to obey the law, to respect the
rights of others, to forgo the temptations of private
enrichment at the expense of the public weal —in short, to
honor the “city” of which one is a member. Instead, each man
goes his own way, pursuing his private vices, which can be
indulged only at the expense of public benefits.»
Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic Books, NewYork,
1978, p. 244-245.

26. Another book that has marked an era is
AfterVirtue of Alasdair MacIntyre.The
author accused the Kantian Enlightened
moral project of being responsible for
modern democratic societies falling into
the hands of hedonistic utilitarianism for
having been unable to morally guide
modern man by encouraging him to perfect
his character, to practice moral and civic
virtues, to reinforce his family and
community ties and identity.
For this reason, MacIntyre proposed to
return to the communitarian ways of life, in
the style of the ancientGreek polis, in order
to recover the lost identity and meaning of
life.
MacIntyre's neo-Aristotelism was soon joined by the
neo-Hegelianism of some German philosophers.
According to Cortina:
Alasdair MacIntyre
«Following the publication of AfterVirtue, authors
such as Michael Sandel, CharlesTaylor, or Michael
Walzer joined in criticizing the liberalism of the sole
rights, albeit with nuances, and suggested a certain
return to the community.
Those Greek and medieval communities, in which the
interests of the person and the social whole coincided,
produce a certain feeling of nostalgia in some hearts. In
them each individual knew what virtues he had to
cultivate to help the whole, and there were deep bonds
between them.»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios, Taurus, Madrid, 1998,
p. 87.

27. The most representative of
these authors,CharlesTaylor, in
his book The Ethics of
Authenticity, expresses his
concern for the ambivalence of
individualism.
He recognizes the historical
achievements of individualism
against the old social and moral
order imposed on force, but at the
same time shows its darker side,
which our author explains as
follows:
«The dark side of individualism is a centering on the self,
which both flattens and narrows our lives, makes them poorer in
meaning, and less concerned with others or society.
This worry has recently surfaced again in concern at the fruits
of a “permissive society,” the doings of the “me generation,” or
the prevalence of “narcissism” (…)
The danger is not actual despotic control but fragmentation
—that is, a people increasingly less capable of forming a
common purpose and carrying it out. Fragmentation arises
when people come to see themselves more and more
atomistically, otherwise put, as less and less bound to their
fellow citizens in common projects and allegiances.»
Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard University Press,1991, pp. 4,
112-113.
CharlesTaylor

28. Following the trail of the authors we have
just mentioned, especially in the last decade
of the last century, the new communitarian
paradigm began to emerge.
Apart from pointing out the nefarious
practical consequences that occur in modern
democratic societies infested by a selfish
individualism —something in which any
sensible thinker would agree—
communitarians question the atomist vision
about human nature and society that the
current liberal still defend, as Cortina explains
very well:
«The liberals in this have practiced a strange
“atomism,” they have considered the people like atoms,
endowed with natural rights, that decide to pact their
entry in society to defend those rights.
But this atomistic view of society is radically wrong,
because the entry into society, even in the political
community, is not the fruit of a pact, but each person is
born already in communities, which function as Russian
matrioscas, the smaller ones (family, neighborhood) are
inserted in the larger ones (political community,
transnational communities).»
Adela Cortina, Hasta un pueblo de demonios,Taurus, Madrid, 1998, p.
98-89.
The new communitarian paradigm

29.  The principle of dual purposes
 Human beings are not like
isolated and independent atoms
whose only purpose in life is to
preserve their existence
 The metaphor of the organism
or system to describe society
 The historical misuse of
organicist and mechanistic
metaphors
 The atomistic metaphor fosters
selfish individualism
INDIVIDUALISM FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE AND
PURPOSE FOR THE WHOLE
 The hierarchical structure of the cosmos and
human society
 The old anti-authoritarian Enlightened
prejudice and the fear of liberals to
totalitarian conspiracies
 In a hierarchical social structure in which the
responsible persons fulfill their function well
the individual rights will be better
safeguarded
 Harmony or balance between individual
purpose and the purpose of serving the social
whole

30. Let us now analyze individualism in the
light of the principle of dual purposes,
which is one of the universal principles of
nature advocated by UnificationThought,
and which we have been using as
premise throughout all this research
work.
Men and women are part of a nature in
which it is obvious that none of the
individuals that compose it exists in an
isolated or completely independent way.
On the contrary, all the parts or entities
of the universe are interdependent and
are closely interrelated and
interconnected.
It is easy to see how in the universe the smallest
individual entities unite and form larger units or groups of
individuals.The particles join and form atoms;The atoms
rejoin forming increasingly complex molecular structures,
which are the basis of the multiple types of inorganic and
organic matter.
All living organisms are composed of cells that, at the
same time as having a life of their own, perform functions
that maintain the life of the whole organism.The earth
resembles a great living organism in which all its
components —minerals, gases, vegetables, animals and
humans— depend on one another, are interrelated and
fulfill a specific function to make it a stable and habitable
place.
The principle of dual purposes

31. As Sun Myung Moon explains
with the example of the human eye
in the quote below, it is evident that
all these individual entities have
two purposes; one is the purpose of
maintaining one's individual
existence and another is the
purpose of forming larger units and
contributing to the existence,
cohesion or stability of the whole.
«Let us look at the example of our eyes.The eye
has the purpose of self-existence, but also of
serving the whole body.The ear has to operate
automatically, but it also helps the whole. (…)
How could the universe be interrelated? It is
because all individuals have dual objectives: one is
to protect the self and the other to make sure the
self combines with another self to make a bigger
self.»
Sun Myung Moon, Myself, January 13, 1980.
The principle of dual purposes

32. Speaking metaphorically, one
could say that the smaller entities
are driven by the impulse to form
part of a larger group because they
intuit that in this way their
individual existence will be better
protected or their value will rise
considerably.
For example, a humble screw,
whose value alone or in isolation is
insignificant, could become very
valuable or even crucial if it were
part of a sophisticated spacecraft
holding one of its vital parts.
«There cannot be any individual purpose which
does not support the whole purpose, nor can there
be any whole purpose that does not guarantee the
interests of the individual.
The infinite variety of beings in the universe form
one vast organic body interwoven by these dual
purposes.»
Divine Principle, Part I, Chap. I, Sec. III, 1.
Thus, the further aim of preserving individual
existence is to contribute better to the stability and
cohesion of the whole.And the ultimate goal of serving
or strengthening the whole is to protect and enhance
the value of individuals.That is, both purposes are
complementary and mutually reinforcing, as is well
expressed in this quote from the Divine Principle:
The individual purpose and the purpose for the whole are complementary

33. Humans, like other entities in the
universe, possess a strong innate or
natural impulse to form ever larger groups
of individuals, that is, families, tribes,
clans, associations, parties, unions, social
groups, state institutions and international
organizations.
The basic motive that drives human
beings to associate and form these ever
larger assemblies of individuals is because
they sense that their individual existences
will be better preserved; or their value as
individuals will be enhanced; or they will
gain in common happiness.
The strong innate impulse to associate with his fellow men
Aristotle and the Stoics were not the only ones who
held that there is a natural impulse in man to associate
with his fellow men and to pursue a common welfare. It
is a belief shared by most religions and by many
philosophers, including Locke and Mill, the two most
important classical liberal theorists.

34. That is, man is made to serve a