Ah, fair enough! I guess we agree that ethics and solidarity are based on ability to sympathise with others' pain. But that all of the social ethics can not and should not be reduced to mere sympathy. To have a good foundation doesn't guarantee that there is also a good building standing on that foundation. So we need both the emotional basis and elaborate, strong social ethics?

The case might well be that I'm bit of misreading Rorty, just taking some of his general points and then interpreting them in favour of my own way of thinking. Sorry about that =)

My own hopes are that people all around the world would mostly be able to feel and see how we share one single globe and that there indeed is a single common project for the whole mankind, regardles of skin color, religion, nation or gender. So, I guess the question is that if there is a bunch of powerful people who disregard any common project and prefer just to aim for their private profit then what can we do about it? To force them to respect The Project of the Mankind? Or at least change our legislation so that it wouldn't be so easy for egoistic people to gain so much power?

(Yes, I do believe that there is a something like a big, common, "Project of The Mankind", which unites us in a single fellowship. It is just that I don't believe that this Project can be founded on something Absolute or Universal, like The Word of The God, or Innate Human Nature or Reason or anything like that. This doesn't bother me - bit like nobody knows what time actually is, but everybody can agree that we have clocks and we can have a universal, common system of measuring time. Time in itself remains bit obscure, but for daily practical life it is pretty much enough to have common practices based on an unsolved mystery which just happens to work...)