Do people have any moral imperative to help other people in the world escape poverty, and if so, to what extent?
Printable View
Do people have any moral imperative to help other people in the world escape poverty, and if so, to what extent?
Charity is good as long as it's voluntary.
Africa is far too charitable to Europe and the US. They only get back $1 in poorly targetted aid for every $10 they pay out to US and European multinationals.
I am aiding two families in Africa, adopted them, what is nothing to me is a lot there. Doesn't feel well.
What do you make them do for you Frag?! :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
;) Nice one. I need to sort out something like that.
Charity is nonsense.
Making poor people richer benefits everyone, however.
Charity is better than nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
An admirable goal, but extremely difficult to achieve on a global scale.Quote:
Making poor people richer benefits everyone, however.
The richer people tend to stress how difficult, nay impossible, this is. I don't think the view is shared by the poorer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
...collected through taxation and organized by the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
can we please stick to a moral point of view :D Does it matter if you help someone on the other side of the globe, or someone nearer. If we do have to help people overcome their poverty, does that count only for our neighbours/fellow citizens or people in the country, or on the globe?
What the best way to help is, is an interesting discussion but not one I want discuss here. Allthough like someone said before, you can argue that the scale is too big for individuals to make a difference and that it has to be organised on a bigger scale. Its something I believe as well.
Your question assumes that we should give something for people to overcome poverty, when what we really need to do is stop taking and making ourselves richer. Our wealth is the product of people's poverty.
Charity is fine, but it is unfortunate that the many charities are nothing more than a front to pay the upper staff over-the-top salaries.
Foreign aid is fine as long as it is administered properly, which in most cases it is not.
I provide financial support to the families of several prostitutes in a developing nation where I go to play Scrabble. I think this is very fine.
What is not fine, however, is this notion that people somehow have a right not to be poor, particularly when it comes from people who believe in evolution. I am not just talking about welfare within ones own country, I am talking about international welfare as well. The idea that people in Papa New Guniea innately DESERVE the same quality of life as people in Germany is flawed.
Not as flawed as the belief that they innately deserve to not have the same quality of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
based on what justification? you say it is flawed but not why. Also if they do not deserve the same quality of life why bother with charity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
No it doesnt, i'm not asking for solutions, just asking if we have an obligation. And if it is established that we do have that obligation then we can discuss how best to fullfill it. Whether that is by stop getting richer or making other people richer that is for then for that discussion. (although i do agree with you, we can only be as rich in the west because other people are as poor somewhere else)Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I'd go with no.
Enlightened self interest is the best place to start. Sure, it doesn't work in all cases, but it is a good place to start.
~:smoking:
With you so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
That's the inverse of the argument. I don't think anyone actually argues for that (well except a few Neo Nazi's perhaps): rather the point is the whole "innate" thing is a red herring. People do not have a right to be lucky, either. There is no such thing as innate wealth or poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
There is the (from the recipient's point of view) accidental good fortune of being born "into" wealth, perhaps. Which is neither here nor there, just fortunate for the recipient. If he squanders it he does not automatically have a right to have it back.
There is abuse in the market by which poor people/corporations/countries are effectively excluded from competition or forced to accept unethical conditions, which is another thing entirely. That is morally wrong, from the do unto another line of reasoning.
And as it is in our own self-interest to get people out of poverty, we should.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The richer they become, the richer we become.
As a Catholic, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help others in need. Scripture suggests this, and I view such good works as an expression of faith.
I personally prefer to focus most of my charitable efforts locally -- it is good for myself and my children to help out others in our own region (and the reminder that other's have it worse than I and that I should be thankful isn't a bad thing to remember either).
I disagree more or less completely with the means suggested explicitly above by Horetore and implicitly by Idaho.
There are approximately 114,500,000 households in the USA; with a total wealth of roughly $58 trillion. By household that would be a robust average of a little over $506k.
Per person, however, that's $186,500 or so. Such a per person nest egg would generate an annuitized income of 17,471.09 per person per annum from age 62 to 87 presuming an 8% return on the principal during the annuity payout. This is sufficient for one person to survive at about the 19th income percentile.
Full wealth distribution should allow everyone to subsist at a lifestyle equivalent to the highest rungs of the lower class/lowest rungs of the middle class by current definitions.
These numbers are, of course, for the relatively wealthy United States. Figures such as these would vary around the world, as would the poverty "line."
Thats not what I said at all and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I was talking about bringing poor people up to the same level as everyone else. Many factors go into a persons quality of life, some their fault and most not their fault.
Let me put it like this: a town needs ditch diggers and unskilled laborers. So does a country. So does a planet. The notion that every country and community on the planet be on equal prosperity footing is a farce. It completely ignores climate, geopolitical, religous, education level, culture, natural resources and a whole slew of other but-fors.
I do not want to see people suffer, nor do I want people to live in abject poverty.
What I am saying is that when approaching charitable giving, the idea that the people you are giving to DESERVE it is flawed.
Because if they deserve it, its not charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Poverty is a violation of human rights, and we've all agreed to follow those.
The human rights declaration specifies a certain level. That's a first goal, and that's the responsibility of the state, not the individual.
Once that's taken care of, we can discuss higher levels if we want.
So if you have a neighbor who won't get a job, keeps having children, has some bad habits and as a result of all of these lives in poverty, then you are violating his/her human rights when you don't bail them out? If you have a third world government that spends its countries wealth on palaces and golden filled chocolate bars, instead of taking care of its own people, their neighboring countries are violating human rights by not intervening? IS YOU GEORGE BUSH???Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Your statement also means that Amish Americans are violating their own human rights.
Based upon what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
~:smoking:
Ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Define: Poverty
Define: not-poverty
Define: middle class, rich and wealthy.
Then you can debate the morality once you are in agreement of the definitions.
For starters are we debating absolute or relative poverty. Is that inter or intra country relative poverty.
In short your question needs to decide is it an African or European Swallow.
There was me thinking our countries pissed all our money away bailing out banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I think some of you may be misunderstanding Horetore...
Human rights can only be violated by the State, not individual citizens. Human rights 101.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I know conservatives love to focus on the first half of the declaration and ignore the second half. Sorry guys, it doesn't work like that.
Things like education, healthcare and a roof over your head are part of the human rights. The states who cannot provide that for their citizens violate the human rights charter, just like the Chinese do.
Have a look at article 25. Poverty below that standard is a human rights abuse.
no, it can still be charity, they might deserve it/have a right to it, but you may not have the obligation to give it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
there is a difference between having a right to something and someone else having an obligation to give you what you have a right to. for example if you have a right to life, that does not mean that a doctor has to fly across the globe to save your life would it be in jeopardy. if that doctor did however, it would be charity from his side.
we may have to define poverty, but inter or intra country that is up for debate. but in general i mean all the poor even tho a poor person in europe may be a rich man somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
That's what the Klan said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Tell that to the Black folk of the Jim Crow era who wanted to vote.
Thankfully, most governments don't care what it says or proclaims.Quote:
Have a look at article 25. Poverty below that standard is a human rights abuse.
Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Voting and universal suffrage is article 21. If a state does not actively enable all citizens to vote, then they are violating human rights. How is that hard to understand?
Individuals, on the other hand, cannot break human rights, as the declaration does not apply to them(as opposed to the genocide conventionm for example, which individuals can break). In short, repeat after me:
Individuals have to follow the laws of the state. The states have to follow the human rights declaration.
Thankfully, that assessment is completely detached from actual reality.Quote:
Thankfully, most governments don't care what it says or proclaims.
Unsurprisingly, it comes from a conservative.
Well once people get to have a little disposable income and surplus time to kill all sorts of profitable avenues open up. You can't have much of an economy if nobody can afford to spend time to figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Not really, if for no other reason that poverty creates its own specific kind of problems which tend to come at a cost for a wider society. (I.e. the cost of extreme poverty in Africa is millions of immigrants for some regions and an active slave trade in the world...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I can expand on that. Our level of wealth is the sum of the total prduce of land and labour. A poor man is basically an inactive man. It's a wasted resource, just like letting a fertile field lie barren instead of being used to grow things useful to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
A barren field taken into use will not only increase the wealth of the owner, it will increase the wealth of all those who are part of the market the produce of the field enters. So it is with the idle worker: put to use, he will not only increase his own wealth, but also all the wealth of all those who are part of the market.
Thanks to globalization, the entire world is now essentially one big market. Thus, a barren field in Indonesia which is put into use will cause an inrease in wealth in the rest of the world. Ditto for the indonesian worker. The more produced by the field and the worker, the more our wealth increases.
The economy is not a zero-sum game.
And all that is before you factor in things like crime, of course.
but certain profits can only be made because some people are exploited and due to that exploitation kept in poverty. im not sure how much truth is in what idaho said, but it seems compelling that the west can only bith THIS rich because the rest of the world is THAT poor.
most poor people in the world also work their asses off, they are in no way unproductive. they are not at all inactive or a wasted rescource, in fact they are the most exploited recourse in many cases.
So would we, as a forum, approve of a world-wide tax on the non-povertics which would in turn fund the implementation of a food purchasing debit card and free UNPhones for the poor?
BUT HOW DO WE DRUGZ TEST THE WHOLE WORLD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That's not easy at all. The overwhelming majority of the countries that recieve massive international aid have very serious issues of corruption, graft and human rights abuses, none of which fit into your nice definition of interests that expolit, but all of which will make life more miserable for everyone (or they say) if the money stops, all of which carry and project some sort of political interest for them and us, and not to mention that the politicians sending the money (hello Senator) are just as bad as the people they are sending the money to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nopw if you are talking about personal boycotts, that is easy enough
You should, it's just 40 euro a family so it costs me 80 euro per month, world of difference to them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
i havent gotten a dime from you yet...=_=Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
First, we will need to define "poverty" first, as others have said. A starving somalian isn't making anyone any money, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
The second sentence is not something I agree with at all. Yes, we are making a profit by exploiting people. But that does not automatically mean that we are making maximum profit. Take slavery. It was profitable, but everyone and their mom agrees that free workers are more profitable than slaves.
Slavery is convenient and easy, however. The same goes for a poor world; it's convenient for us.
I think most people are on the wrong path here. Papewaio was the closest when he asked for some common meaning behind the language people are throwing out, but he asked for the wrong definitions.
First it is obvious we need to ask, "What is the purpose of charity?" This is the question that everyone here is arguing around in my opinion. There are those that claim that charity is to alleviate pain or suffering, other people like HoreTore are claiming that the purpose of charity is to uphold more or less our obligations to the larger community (the largest [Earth] it would seem) who are having their human rights violated by being in poverty (whether it is relative or absolute makes no difference to HoreTore's argument). A few people in here obviously think that the purpose of charity is to help those that have the intent but not the means to help themselves, to fill in the cracks of an imperfect meritocratic society. Maybe someone will come along and make the case that the purpose of charity is in following God's will.
Ya'll need to sort out what the purpose of charity is if you are going to get the heart of whether we have a moral obligation towards the impoverished groups that The Stranger asks about.
You've misread me, ACIN. I'm not arguing in favour of charity at all.
Workers rights have nothing to do with charity.
And what is specified by the HR is absolute, not relative, poverty.
The rich don't need the poor. This is happening all over the world, but it's particularly accute in the US.
There are a clique of multi-billionaires in the US who have no interest in helping anyone. They spend millions on political campaigning to reduce their own (already tiny) tax burden. They talk about America being crushed by a huge state apparatus, when what they mean is that government has the impertinence to try and limit their power. They talk about equality of opportunity, when they are attacking the provision of education that gives people a chance at employment.
The scale of the media campaign to divide and rule you in the US is staggering. This clique of billionaires has led most Americans to accept the idea that it's perfectly legitimate to let billionaires mould the country in their own image. That these people have your best interests at heart. That ordinary Americans working in the private sector should attack their fellow citizens working in the public sector. That the cause of all the countries problems aren't caused by the people who have been calling the shots for the last 30 years - but those evil people living on $3 a day of food stamps.
I'm partly horrified, and partly fascinated to see how far it will go. At some point the media campaign won't be enough to mask the reality. When more and more Americans are unemployed and begging for food. When the tax burden on the middle and poorest is taking the weight that the richest and the corporations have dodged. You are being sold some idea of the good old days of America - when men were men, and women were women - and everyone worked hard. Now there are all these people not working - how dare they! No mention that corporations are, to the core, obsessed with reducing headcount. Poor people aren't needed other than to be a surplus labour pool to keep the costs down. Corporations don't pay them wages, and they sure as hell don't want to pay out to keep them alive when they aren't working. Let's just tell everyone they are lazy.
I suppose this paradigm can probably go pretty far. But the further it goes, the sharper the snap when it breaks.
I feel no moral obligation as it's not my fault that they are poor, I wire directly so no NGO can pay their fat COE's, if the EU would stop dumping surpluss in Africa things would improve very fast, but France would never allow an end to EU-farming handouts because they are allready broke and can't do without it. Ending poverty, well read Dembiso Moyo's excellent 'Dead Aid'
Enacting government policy to provide services or wealth in some form to those less off is just organized, collectivized charity. There is no real difference in taking a dollar out of your pocket and giving it to a poor person and having that dollar go through the government as a middleman who organizes large amounts of dollars for a great impact per dollar on the same poor person.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Your second statement is but one view on the question I asked.
The Human Rights Declaration is written towards absolute poverty, but the logic it uses carries to relative poverty as well.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
We can look at those who have nothing right now and clearly say it is not adequate. But where does the cut off for adequate get drawn? Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need. Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?
Well, in the case of the USA when you say "first world" you have to qualify it a bit. There's a huge difference between first world countries when it comes to human rights and poverty in particular. Simply put, by North Western European standards the USA is 1st world in some aspects and very, very, muchQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
a developing country3rd world in others.
No the declaration doesn't stipulate how you implement the necessary provisions, just that you should do so. Americans would be in violation of human rights were they to categorically deny people access to health care based on some criterion (e.g. no insurance). As I understand it, fortunately for you things are not quite that bad yet in the USA.Quote:
Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?
As time progresses, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. 50 years ago, being rich meant earning 20 times the average wage. You had a few cars, big house, great holidays. Your kids went to an expensive school. You owned a yacht, etc. You had a bit more influence, but no great power over elected officials. On the flip side, most people had a job that paid ok, and they had some collective bargaining power in the workplace, they had healthcare, and their wages were increasing most years.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Now being rich is earning 300 times the average wage. You can do all of the above x 1,000. You pay less tax, you have channels into the centres of power. Large numbers of people don't have a job, most don't have healthcare, and those who are working have seen their living standards decline over 20 years.
Americans seem to act as if these facts are abstract and removed from the reality that people are now much lazier and just want free tvs.
One person donates 500 dollars to charity, of which a small amount provides a bunch of rice to hungry poor people in africa. They live instead of dying, and have more kids who are still hungry.
Another person is a douchebag early adopter of the cell phone, spends his 500 dollars on that the latest tech gadgets and shows off to people. Years later medical researchers develop a method involving a cell phone that can be used to cheaply diagnose diseases by people in africa with minimal training. The suffering of millions is alleviated.
whether or not we should help the poor is a different discussion than how we should help the poor... its really not that hard to make the distinction.
Yes, many people make that distinction, that's how they end up ignoring all questions of "how". But the "how" question is infinitely more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
When someone is sick the important question is not "should we help him?" but "how should we help him?" or "can we help him?" or "what would helping him involve?".
There's a saying: "where there's a will there's a way" but with poverty and diseases it's "where there's a way there's a will".
Philosophers focus on the "should we?" and "moral imperitive" blah bla out of vanity. As if they are more important than the people working on actual solutions.
If people weren't caring and compassionate by nature then philosophers would never have asked if there was a moral imperitive to help the poor, they would have asked "is it in our self interest to help the poor?".
Outside of criticizing bad philosophy there is nothing philosophical to discuss about this.
If you were actually canvassing for money, trying to get people to donate, you would simply tell them what is happening and tell them what their money would do.
that may be so, I also agree with you actually, but I started this discussion because I wanted to hear some arguments about if we should help people. It derailed very quick and the reason why I was interested to hear some arguments about this topic has already passed. I know you don't like philosophy but even if many people are caring and compassionate for their immediate surrounding, many do not feel called upon to help people on the other side of the globe, there is very much room for philosophical discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Ofcourse feel free to continue the debate about how we should help people.
Why bother with the other side when there's plenty to do on this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
hehe just realised u didnt ask that XD
I feel like going down this road of american healthcare will only distract from the original question: are we morally obligated to help the poor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
If you were to say such a thing in the 1940s and 1950s people would laugh at you. It seems history is more complicated than "elites get richer all the time".Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Nevertheless, if you are going to make the point that the rich are getting richer, is your underlying argument that charity is morally obligated because the wealth comes from the poor and middle class in the first place?
If people were caring and compassionate by nature than politicians would never have come up with the idea of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Do you see how ridiculous of a statement that is?
War is not a political invention.Quote:
If people were caring and compassionate by nature than politicians would never have come up with the idea of war.
Do you see how ridiculous of a statement that is?
Christian's, Jews and Muslim's have a moral imperative to help other people around the world escape poverty. Because the command to give alms and alleviate suffering of the less fortunate is a command for everyone from these religious perspectives, then yes, everyone irrespective of their belief has a moral imperative to do it.
From a secular perspective, it may make sense to give to the poor or it may not, depending on how you look at it. From that perspective I have no idea what is imperative or not. It is up to the individual and their background and subconscious social bias created by a combination of their upbringing and circumstance. You can look at is as a form of advanced egoism - long term - or as an outlet for people to spend money and make themselves feel better as is conveys reward when done publically because everyone likes getting free things, so if you are one of the suckers giving, others will most likely celebrate you for it.
Is it imbued in us? If you follow some Religious logic, yes. If not, then I've seen no such "imperative" as you are implying.
Poor word choice. Let me rephrase my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"If people were naturally caring and compassionate, there would be no violence between nations or individuals."
If you take this statement as true then:
Sasaki's point of humans being naturally caring and compassionate is wrong because there is war and violence between people.
If you take this statement as false then:
You can't make the opposite but similarly encompassing argument that if humans were not naturally compassionate, no one would ask the OP's question on morality.
Bit of a detour, but people should be learned how to grow bananas. Bananas are nutrition-bombs, have an insane output per tree, and need little care. Screw grain, grow bananas.
Just saved humanity.
Bananas need a lot of water though.
Dig it up, and for a change actually maintain the instalations. It's perfectly possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
You can't just grow plantain anywhere. If you could, it would have been happening long ago...
Avocados, for example, originate in the America's but they also grow well in southern Africa. Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes are also much more versatile - which is why they're also found everywhere (including North Africa). Plantain however is a tropical plant, it needs rich dark, fertile soil, plenty of water, a constant temperature and shelter (think "rainforest"). You cannot just irrigate a strip of desert and grow plantain. This is why plantains mostly grow in south eastern Asia, south and central America, and sub Saharan and central Africa...
Potatoes need a lot of space, and are very labour intensive. It's perfectly possible to grow banana's instead. Over here you can get 5 for a euro, that is not because of farming handouts but just because it's really easy. They got all the fibres and vitamines you could possibly want. Growing grains is a lot harder, you need to rotate land every year if you don't nurse the soil, banana trees will however always keep giving. Perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel
makes it worse then i suppose, if the people of caring and compassionate nature invented war and not these powerlusted politicians who ofcourse arent really people :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There are no moral imperatives to do anything, as morality itself is subjective and cannot be the basis of any universal rule. However, there is self-interest to help others escape poverty. Poverty is the leading cause of violence in the world, from crime to terrorism to war. Reducing poverty will make everyone safer, and thus it is in our collective interests to do so.
but...but... i dont like bananas :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Humans are all naturally caring and compassionate - we are also all naturally aggressive and violentQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
its a stupid statement really - what it means is that every Human who isn't "damaged" (read mentally healthy) is able to be caring and compassionate - it doesn't mean they actually will be
Potatoes are no more labour intensive than any other crop - that's a myth. In fact plantains could be said to be more labour intensive as people have to pick them by hand... I'm not sure about the space, but potatoes can be grown fairly densely and are heavy croppers. Potatoes are also more robust and can be stored for much longer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As I said above - it's not. In e.g. Sudan it's perfectly possible to grow potatoes sweet potatoes, yams, etc - it's not possible to grow bananas on the same land with the same amount of water and the same climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes, it's easy enough when you're in a part of the world with the right soil, climate... etc... cheap labour also helps to keep costs down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Growing grains is easier if the soil/climate is right for grains and wrong for bananas...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
hmm bananas are way more delicate than grain or potatoes indeed :P i hate bananas.
There's a sharp edge to that, overpopulation might be a worse deal. Just being a jerk it has nothing to do with how I actually act.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
but rich people get less kids than poor people actually because rich people have a carreer so usually they get kids late and more as a toy, to save their marriage or as a token of their love while poor people need to get kids as a garantuee that they have someone that will care for them when they are old and/or unable.
Overpopulation is best dealt with increasing living standards, rights for women and access to contraceptives. Poverty right above the starvation line seems to worsen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Exactly. So in a civilization with people living together, you experience individuals acting either way to the benefit or detriment of the society as a whole. This of course necessitates the question that Sasaki rejects, "Is this action moral?" as we deal with the diversity of actions and consequences that people undertake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
There must be social rules to have a coherent society, since there must be rules it comes naturally that we ask what these rules should be and evaluate why rules are the way they are.
Are you saying that if we were all sociopaths, we would be sitting around asking ourselves if we had a moral imperitive to act selflessly and compassionately? Of course not. That's like saying we would be sitting around asking ourselves if the sky was really blue or not even if we were all color blind.Quote:
If people were caring and compassionate by nature than politicians would never have come up with the idea of war.
Do you see how ridiculous of a statement that is?
Any argument you make for why it is good help other people is going to have as bedrock an appeal to peoples intuitions and instincts regarding compassion and altruism.The whole "do we have a moral imperitive to help end world poverty?" thing is kind of a dangerous gimmick. It tries to side step all the extremely important questions of how we do it and what's the best way to do it, and appeal straight to peoples unwillingness to callously say "we don't have to do anything". It's so blatant that it generally backfires and people say just that, which I don't think is a good thing. And the whole attitude is part of a general moralistic attitude towards reform where the idea is that what's really important is being in the right, having good intentions, and not so much the method. This is one of the worst of human vices.
There are people who act like you describe here. They look at actions and consequences etc for everything and ask themselves questions about it and try and figure the benefits and detriments etc. They are mentally ill and unable to care for themselves because they can spend hours spinning wheels like that and not get anywhere. Unconscious emotional tipping points, preferences, and aversions are an essential part of our ability to think and reason, especially about morality. There is far too much going on and it's very messy; no system can be true.Quote:
Exactly. So in a civilization with people living together, you experience individuals acting either way to the benefit or detriment of the society as a whole. This of course necessitates the question that Sasaki rejects, "Is this action moral?" as we deal with the diversity of actions and consequences that people undertake.
Do you think we have a coherent society based on social rules?Quote:
There must be social rules to have a coherent society, since there must be rules it comes naturally that we ask what these rules should be and evaluate why rules are the way they are.
Are you referring to this in particular?Quote:
There are people who act like you describe here. They look at actions and consequences etc for everything and ask themselves questions about it and try and figure the benefits and detriments etc. They are mentally ill and unable to care for themselves because they can spend hours spinning wheels like that and not get anywhere. Unconscious emotional tipping points, preferences, and aversions are an essential part of our ability to think and reason, especially about morality.
Clearly. Or are you making the point that the coherence is not 'perfect'?Quote:
Do you think we have a coherent society based on social rules?