In addition to having a system that no longer excludes people and forgets about them, the Pope also believes that the world should be tackling the environmental destruction of the planet, particularly climate change. Both the President and the Pope agree on this notion, but each brings with them a different perspective on the issue. The President focus is on curbing climate change in regards to collective security, which thus helps ensure that all the world inhabitants are healthy. Pope Francis would likely agree with the President. However, the Pope takes tackling the environment to one more step. The Pope believes that there is a right to the environment. In his speech to the United Nations, the pope provides two reasons as to why the environment
…show more content…
4). This rather bold statement relates to his viewpoint on animal cruelty. In his ideal world, not only would there no longer be a human “culture of waste”, but there would also not be an animal “culture of waste”. The Pope’s argument for this statement is the only part in his UN speech that his mention his Christian theology. The Pope says; “We Christians, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less destroy it (Pope Francis, UN pg. 4). In this statement, the Pope is making the claim that humans are not above the environment, which is a contested idea. These two issues of the “culture of waste” and the environment come together in the Pope’s most fundamental notion on how to create the ideal world, a notion that the President does not explicitly agree …show more content…
First, its gives the world a purpose for its actions. For example, when one country acts out of good will there is a backdrop as to why that countries actions were wrong. The reason why these norms need to be universal is because everyone in the international spectrum has to agree with them. If this is not the case, then the entire world cannot properly act against them which, as the President noted, will always exist (President Obama 2015, pg. 11). Second, the President reaffirms that all nations need to be involved in the international spectrum. One nation cannot be the world’s policeman (President Obama 2015, pg. 4). In the President UN speech, he brings these two statements together and relates them to Syria when he says “Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is respect for the universal values this institution (the UN) is supposed to defend” (President Obama 2015, pg.11). Although the overriding similarity between both leaders ideal’s worlds is that there is more cooperation within in, there are some smaller differences between each other’s ideal societies that should looked
4). This rather bold statement relates to his viewpoint on animal cruelty. In his ideal world, not only would there no longer be a human “culture of waste”, but there would also not be an animal “culture of waste”. The Pope’s argument for this statement is the only part in his UN speech that his mention his Christian theology. The Pope says; “We Christians, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less destroy it (Pope Francis, UN pg. 4). In this statement, the Pope is making the claim that humans are not above the environment, which is a contested idea. These two issues of the “culture of waste” and the environment come together in the Pope’s most fundamental notion on how to create the ideal world, a notion that the President does not explicitly agree …show more content…
First, its gives the world a purpose for its actions. For example, when one country acts out of good will there is a backdrop as to why that countries actions were wrong. The reason why these norms need to be universal is because everyone in the international spectrum has to agree with them. If this is not the case, then the entire world cannot properly act against them which, as the President noted, will always exist (President Obama 2015, pg. 11). Second, the President reaffirms that all nations need to be involved in the international spectrum. One nation cannot be the world’s policeman (President Obama 2015, pg. 4). In the President UN speech, he brings these two statements together and relates them to Syria when he says “Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is respect for the universal values this institution (the UN) is supposed to defend” (President Obama 2015, pg.11). Although the overriding similarity between both leaders ideal’s worlds is that there is more cooperation within in, there are some smaller differences between each other’s ideal societies that should looked