How we’ll make all world leaders work together to make the world better (Expert-approved idea)
I have an idea to help save the world. And I want your help.
All world leaders want to do good things. Their values is to do the most good. They just disagree on what the most good is!
All wars are because one side thinks X is good, another side thinks X is bad, and both sides are willing to fight for what they believe in to stop X or to keep X.
All cooperation is because two sides think X is good/moral, so they work together to get X!
Otherwise, one side wouldn’t want X, and they wouldn’t both work to get it.And all bad decisions are because someone’s goals/values led them to think “I should do this bad thing.”
So here’s my idea: What if we had an international summit to get world leaders to agree on values/morals?
Based on these fundamental laws of Geopolitics, the world would be better in some fundamental ways if we did this simple summit!
This would prevent wars, including potential war in Taiwan, the ongoing war that’s happening in Ukraine, and all future potential wars to come.
This would make All world leaders cooperate on everything to get moral things, because all world leaders will think the same things are good/moral, so they will all work together to get those things!
This would make all world leaders have thought-through moral values so world leaders will do a more moral job improving their home country.
It’s time to live in harmony as a shared humanity under a common goal to always do the moral, just thing is no longer a dream of the past. It is now our future, and this is a real thing that just needs an international summit.
All you need to do is make it happen!
(So that’s what I’m asking for! Can you help me save the world by helping me figure out how to make this happen? I tried a lot of stuff with the UN, but it’s just so unclear who to email there, and currently, Oct 2025, I’m sending this idea to the G20!)
The rest is just extra about why in the world this crazy idea would actually work,
I spoke to experts at the UN and they think it’s a good idea,
but only read it if you’re not convinced.
You already read the important part.
Now, what came to mind when I first thought of this was “Why would world leaders like Putin ever go to this kind of summit? Wouldn’t they just reject it?”, and I almost gave up on the idea,
but then I thought about it some more, and I realized there are several fundamental reasons that, no matter what, Any world leader would want to both
attend this summit, and
Genuinely be willing to change their values/goals, if they hear a goal they think is more moral.
Here’s the case I would make to Putin if he was wasn’t going to the summit:
“Putin, you have some great reasons for your values—that’s why you have those values. If you just shared those reasons with these other world leaders in Europe at the summit, then they’ll work with you to help with your goal!
And hey, if you hear a convincing case to change your values, that means you’ll get even better values! That’s a free improvement! So listen out for if anyone makes a good case that some other goal is more moral.”“There is no cost to improving your goals. And if you don’t hear a convincing case that some other goal is more moral, there’s no downside to that either. There’s just no possible downside to either scenario.”
“No-one wants to be known as the person who didn’t choose world peace, moral leaders, and global cooperation to solve all the world’s problems & where everyone flourishes.
Every other country that attended and advanced to more moral values will hate you,
your people will hate you, and you’ll hate yourself. Don’t be that person.”“Now’s your shot to be a hero for all of time and all of history and for everyone on earth!”
These points convinced me, so I figured I’d try bringing the idea to some actual experts.
And I did! Some at the UN, some international relations experts outside the UN, and they all said it’s a generally good idea!
Think on my idea a little while, and if you can’t think of any ways it could cause harm, go ahead & do it! I know I am!
To a moral humanity!
Yours truly,
Wes Reisen
Neither upvoted nor downvoted—I’m happy that you’re thinking about these topics, but I don’t think this goes deep enough to be useful. It tries to use word definitions incorrectly to prove things that aren’t true.
Nope. All humans (including leaders) want many conflicting things, which they then try to justify as “good”. The label “good” is following, not leading, their desires.
Perhaps, but see above. “good” is poorly-defined and “good for me and my people” is not even theoretically compatible among different entities.
Not at all. A LOT of cooperatoin and trade is because two sides think they’re better off, without any agreement that either result is “good”. Or maybe true, but only if you define “good” as “what each trader in an agreement wants”.
I can’t tell if you’re saying “all decisions are because someone’s goals/values led them to think “I should do this thing”, or if you’re saying decisions to pursue bad things (to some) are in this category. This is either incorrect or tautological.
Yeah, I agree with all of this,
by “good” i mean “good for a person’s morals/values/ideology/what-they-think-is-good/what-they-care-about”, there’s a lot of words for it,
so consider this my asterisk lol
but as long as it gets the idea across, that we have an international summit where world leaders would debate different morals/values/ideologies & come to a consensus, Making humanity a united force for good,
and as long as I say my how to help with that, (helping me get this to the right people, or getting this to the right people yourself)
that’s the important part!
That’s the part people could act on.
Unless I’m missing something they could act on, but I doubt it. Prove me wrong, I bet ya can’t!
Before you get too excited about the idea, let’s think for a minute. What would world leaders—notoriously a bunch of people prone to be ruthless, sociopathic, and morally unscrupulous, even if they’re ostensibly in charge of liberal democracies—be able to reach through their cultural boundaries and agree on?
Peace? No way. Everyone has too many problems like outstanding land disputes they want to reserve the option of using war to correct.
An end to poverty? For who? To any leader in the developed world, agreeing on human plenty and prosperity as supreme values that transcend national borders would involve giving up some of their resources to people in the third world who are clearly suffering more. Everyone’s resources are already stretched really thin with their existing projects as it is, so that’s a total non-starter.
Property rights? Maybe, as long as you didn’t get specific enough to make it mean anything. Any language that implied it was wrong for a government to take property from its citizens on any pretext it liked is certainly out.
Technological advancement for the betterment of humanity? Sure, but everyone’s doing that already. Even if all the world leaders got together and solemnly swore to focus their efforts on pushing the limits of science and disseminating their learning to the rest of the world, they would… keep doing exactly what they’re doing now, keeping secrets, only publishing what is convenient and making excuses about national security concerns every time they get called out about it.
So what could they agree on?
Law and order? Now we’re getting closer, but that is some problematic phrasing. What if this whole concept of “international law” gets applied to tell a world leader about how they can treat their own people? No one wants that. All our world leaders are quick to call each other out on their various human rights abuses, but we’ve all got skeletons (or repressed minority groups, as the case may be) in our own closet. So what’s the part of “law and order” that all world leaders could all agree on?
I honestly believe that if they had a summit like this, the outcome would be for all the leaders of the world to come together and formally agree that the supreme moral value of humanity is obedience and submission to the state. That’s the one thing that is in line with all of their desires, whether they want to admit it or not. The leaders of America and a few others with a freedom-loving image to keep up would have to make a show of complaint, but even they could rationalize it away.
That’s a good point, and it made me go ‘AAAAAHH!!’