Link for where I got the ascii art.
Okay, okay, okay. Bad joke. But here's an interesting moral/ethical train of thought. How do we establish a global morality system? Like, I think most of us take for granted the fact that western countries have their own morality framework for everything. To most Western countries things like child marriage is seen as abhorent and things like alchol is legal. Now this is not a universally agreed upon concept.
So, here's the million dollar question. If we wanted a globally universal sociaty, how do we define morality?
So, I think we have two over arching ideals here. Which is either cultural systemic laws or legal universal laws. Now, there's advantages and disadvantages with both. And just as a quick note, I am not talking actual morality problems, as it would just turn into a full fledged debate of which culture or morality makes sense but I'm kinda just bitching on the systemic method of how it'd work.
K, note done. Now, let's check the first one. I personally thing the major problem of a cultural systemic law system is there is very few cultures that actually does work well together. Such as, people who are Hindu do not eat beef, people who are Jewish or Islamic don't mind eating beef but don't eat pork and so on. This would more or less just cause cultrual clashing and kinda force people to group up based on religious or cultural ideals. Which is kinda what's going in a much smaller scale at the moment.
The difference though, would be that it would kinda be the same as just having each culture exsist on their own. The only difference is the space each culture has access to would be keep slowly reducing until it will lead to direct conflict.
Further more it is likely that cultural problems would be present. I mean, look, let me be a dick, but how would these cultural problems be resolved. Look, if you know shit about the conflict between the Christians, Jewish and Islamic that has just been going on for as long as these religions have. Look, I mean even Chrisitan sects hate eachother. Just ask a Protestant what they think of Cathiolics or vice versa.
Lastly, what about the interesting problem around intercultural problems. Allow me to explain, imagine there is a cultural clash that leads to a problem, like a person of Hindu faith makes and offers ham to a person of Jewish faith and now there is a case of social and cultural clash. As one hand the Hindu person did nothing wrong according to his/her/their culture, but well, according to Jewish person, the action was insensitive and at the very least rude.
The other option is to have a universal legal system. The problem there is now that most legal systems are based on the concepts of the culture creating the legal system. In other words a Christian country asked to make a legal system would be based entirely on Christian morality and as a result favour Christian cultural norms. So, the only logical manner in order to create a universal legal system which is able to be a hundred percent universal is to focus on a Athistic or at the very least scientific legal system. The problem, however, is that some things we see as unethical are kinda... not unscientific?
Look, in all of my mild mid-night research, I could not find a scientific arguement on why canniblism, if done safely, would harm the consumer. Honestly, the major problem lands on eating brain matter, which is what causing the shivers, so technically according to this legal ideal is completely fine.
However, according to this legal system some other problems also come up. Such as legalish things we do now that aren't technically scientifically helpful. Like for example, weed. Weed is an interesting thing as it's technically fine to consume, but if the person smoking it is susceptible to the mental problems, like hallucnations or Schizophrenia, as weed can cause those latent concepts to become active. So, technically it does mean that stuff like weed might be illegal.
Now, I don't have an answer to which idea works best. Personally, I still stand by my ethic ideal of any harm cause to another human is morally unjust regardless of reason. And if you have no solution but to cause harm to another creature that it must be treated as an act od desperation and not morally upstanding concept. But that's just me, and thank fucking god that very few people actually think like me. I mean... I can think of a lot of shitty futures but if the world ended up thinking of the world through my point of view and well... Literally nothing would be done and we would just end up eatting nothing but shitty ramen. Not even good ramen.
Okay, that got a lotta of topic, but here's the point I was trying to end on. Which is, morality and globalism is an interesting concepts that we will more or less run into as a side effect of our ever connected world. And yes, I too wish we could just go back to living under a rock. Mostly because my rock is nice and cosy. It has cats! :3