The Life You Can Save

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

[Pengwuino]

Human nature. I also think a lot of people think that they can live the good life now and at some point, they'll return the favor to society... in the future... always.

Then there's the idea of "How can not buying a pair of shoes help someone in Sierra Leon or Niger?" The immediate response could be "give to cause X or cause Y". Then you can immediately respond "I don't trust cause X/Y, how do I know the money gets to the children?". I even hear some people respond "I don't give to them because they're mormons/christians/whatevers!" as if that really matters.

Then of course some people say that since they pay their taxes and that (in the US) our country is the largest provider of aid to africa, they are already helping children in africa. I believe under Bush, the amount of aid almost doubled to a couple billion a year so uhm... I suppose everyone has given about $8 a year. Not the greatest pair of shoes in my opinion.

I think the Haitian disaster was a good example of how people in the US view helping out people in poor countries. I remember reading an op-ed or an actual article about how someone didn't give any money at some donation booth or something for some reason (I don't remember the reason but it was a good one). The group that person was with and I believe the people running the donation booth got very belligerent with her complaining about how could she be so heartless. Guess what? She was a regular volunteer at a soup kitchen and did some other charitable work on a regular basis that I can't recall. Moral of the story? I think most Americans only care to be charitable when a celebrity or "everyone else" is being charitable. As if it is a social status thing.

[Lacy33]

Without reading or knowing about this book, my family was just talking about the subject yesterday.
We do not live high, fact is much more simple we would be Amish.
We gave money to the Haiti Relief funds. We boxed supplies with them under the direction of the NYC Haitian community.
Greg, I don't think any of the money or supplies got to the people.
I don't think it's that people don't care, I think it's hard to know who be able to run the funds through and organize in the areas we think we are helping.
Most of us know you travel and have seen a lot. That you are a dooer of good deeds. You have helped a lot. Had we known you were going ahead of time and knew you better then, we would have done better to send the money with you.. You could have found the little shoes and put them on the little feet yourself!

[Greg Bernhardt]

Human nature. I also think a lot of people think that they can live the good life now and at some point, they'll return the favor to society... in the future... always.

Certainly, but again, it's no excuse and Singer's argument holds. Those children who need a vaccine can't wait for our "future".


Then you can immediately respond "I don't trust cause X/Y, how do I know the money gets to the children?". I even hear some people respond "I don't give to them because they're mormons/christians/whatevers!" as if that really matters.

Indeed a problem and Singer dedicates an entire chapter to the issue of charity selection. He seems to favor UNICEF and claims proper charity investigation is well worth the effort.


Then of course some people say that since they pay their taxes and that (in the US) our country is the largest provider of aid to africa, they are already helping children in africa. I believe under Bush, the amount of aid almost doubled to a couple billion a year so uhm... I suppose everyone has given about $8 a year. Not the greatest pair of shoes in my opinion.

Interesting. The impact of Peter's claim is that he suggests donating +50% of what we make. Again, he wants us to think about a child we could vaccinate when we reach for soda. That is the power of the argument.


I think the Haitian disaster was a good example of how people in the US view helping out people in poor countries. Moral of the story? I think most Americans only care to be charitable when a celebrity or "everyone else" is being charitable. As if it is a social status thing.

It helps to get national attention. Again, it's the "out of sight, out of mind". However thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and buy $30k trucks. We know this but we continue to act this way. So we decide to not save a child every day we buy something we don't need.

[Lacy33]

I don't know if Peter talked about this in his well meaning book, but there are gangs, lame governments, politics, crime, violence and total disorgaization in the best cases keeping the supplies from getting to the people in Haiti.
I know your going to win the Noble Prize for peace one day, but Greg, you are going to have to do the math. That would be upstairs here on this sweet forum your posting. :smile:

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't know if Peter talked about this in his well meaning book, but there are gangs, lame governments, politics, crime, violence and total disorgaization in the best cases keeping the supplies from getting to the people in Haiti.

Yes, but that is not a reason to avoid giving. There is an organization called http://www.charitynavigator.org/ that evaluates charities. There you can find the good ones.

I want to stress that Peter also does not support directly giving the people in extreme poverty money or food. He advocates money go towards primarily to medical services and education.

[Lacy33]

Thank you for the link and look forward to touring the site in the morning. Medicine and education are a tall order. Hoping that you young people will have clear heads in spite of the confusion and materialistic world your senior generations have left you. That you can organize and create a dialoug that will succeed in getting enough to everyone.
There are so many young people with health and wealth of good intentions.
Find one another and make it happen.
We here and there will follow this link.
Thank you for your post.

[Pengwuino]

It helps to get national attention. Again, it's the "out of sight, out of mind". However thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and buy $30k trucks. We know this but we continue to act this way. So we decide to not save a child every day we buy something we don't need.

It really doesn't help. A parent doesn't teach a child to eat healthy if they eat a salad for every meal for one week every year as an example. I think when you have these disasters and celebrities get all gung ho for 5 minutes and then continue on with their private jets taking them everywhere, you're basically doing the same thing. The parent thinks they have done their part and in the end, they'll have achieved nothing. Same thing here. People believe they're charitable because they were forced once a year or so to actually give $10. I bet if you had an option to give $10 to UNICEF out of your paycheck, few people would, even though that would raise probably $20+ billion every year if even half the population opted in.

And yes, none of the reasons I listed are good reasons to not give. However, they are the reasons people use. People are distrustful. To top it off, unlike say Habitat for Humanity, you can't drive by the village you helped support to make you feel like it was worth it like you could the house you helped build.

In my opinion, a society has to develop charitable habits when it comes to people outside of the US. A quick search found this (http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf) stating international giving makes up only 4% of the $300 billion Americans give each year. Animal causes received 2% in relation.

[Greg Bernhardt]

And yes, none of the reasons I listed are good reasons to not give. However, they are the reasons people use. People are distrustful. To top it off, unlike say Habitat for Humanity, you can't drive by the village you helped support to make you feel like it was worth it like you could the house you helped build.

Certainly there are many reasons why we don't give (99% indefensible). What I'm really after here is a response to Singer's argument that "that any money spent on non-essential items and services rather than giving is morally wrong". I want people to take it completely literally. How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child. We are essentially murders! Does this make us bad people? We are walking past the drowning child in the lake. How do you deal with this? Candy bar vs child. Millions pick candy bar. Child dies. How does this make you feel?

[Kurdt]

Personally I would favour a non-interference policy in other cultures (africa, india...). They should develop and grow on their own. Admitedly a lot of them (if not all) have been directly affected by western culture in the past or at the present.

[Pengwuino]

Certainly there are many reasons why we don't give (99% indefensible). What I'm really after here is a response to Singer's argument that "that any money spent on non-essential items and services rather than giving is morally wrong". I want people to take it completely literally. How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child. We are essentially murders! Does this make us bad people? We are walking past the drowning child in the lake. How do you deal with this? Candy bar vs child. Millions pick candy bar. Child dies. How does this make you feel?

No, we're walking past our own neighborhoods while the child drowns 5000 miles away. There are great philosophical arguments about the morality of the situation. I think it is immoral, however. You can start running into some slippery slope arguments about all of this (eg. is it immoral to let the vaccinated kid then fall victim to starvation? then is it immoral to let the vaccinated, "well" nourished kid go without at least a high school education? then is it immoral to let the kid grow up and die in tribal warfare?). Unfortunately we aren't even near any of that and I'd be happy to see the day where the morality lies with whether or not we have to educate a vaccinated, well nourished 3rd world child.


Personally I would favour a non-interference policy in other cultures (africa, india...). They should develop and grow on their own. Admitedly a lot of them (if not all) have been directly affected by western culture in the past or at the present.

Oddly enough, the cultures that were interfered with the most in the past are the ones who are doing better (all things are relative of course). If we let them to their own devices, they would probably be a few hundred years away from the level we're at, at the least.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think it is immoral, however. You can start running into some slippery slope arguments about all of this (eg. is it immoral to let the vaccinated kid then fall victim to starvation? then is it immoral to let the vaccinated, "well" nourished kid go without at least a high school education? then is it immoral to let the kid grow up and die in tribal warfare?). Unfortunately we aren't even near any of that and I'd be happy to see the day where the morality lies with whether or not we have to educate a vaccinated, well nourished 3rd world child.


In terms of this argument, I believe it rests on the notion of immediate survival. Extreme poverty is one in which a person is not meeting it's survival needs. One in which a $15 vaccine will save it's life. What happens 10 years down the road is another story. But even in your scenario, you can ask yourself the simple question. Should a savable child die tomorrow because you think it's immoral for it to grow up without a high school education?

So you admit it's immoral. Tomorrow you will likely spend some money on things you don't really need. Money that could go to a saving a child that will die if you do not help. How will you live with that? No matter the distance, that child you could have saved has died. Does that make you a bad person? (i'm not trying to badger, just trying to get interesting answers)

[DanP]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.



Disguised Marxism.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Disguised Marxism.

So what. The argument stands.

[Kurdt]

Oddly enough, the cultures that were interfered with the most in the past are the ones who are doing better (all things are relative of course). If we let them to their own devices, they would probably be a few hundred years away from the level we're at, at the least.

I don't see that as a reason to get involved. The governments will eventually learn to take care of their people.

[Pengwuino]

So you admit it's immoral. Tomorrow you will likely spend some money on things you don't really need. Money that could go to a saving a child that will die if you do not help. How will you live with that? No matter the distance, that child you could have saved has died. Does that make you a bad person? (i'm not trying to badger, just trying to get interesting answers)

No. I think whether or not a person is good or bad is a compilation of how they act throughout their entire life. It certainly is a notch on the immoral tally though. It doesn't bother me though because if you start running through these arguments, you can easily either 1) find enough reasons to make yourself out to be on the same level as Hitler or 2) marginalize everything so that it's all irrelevant. I rather not open that box.

[Pengwuino]

I don't see that as a reason to get involved. The governments will eventually learn to take care of their people.

Sure. That's the core of the whole idea of charity though. Even homeless people can eventually get back on their feet without the help of charity. However, morally do we really want them to have to?

[disregardthat]

Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. If every dollar that would've gone to soda went to the third world, the soda industry would disappear. Same with everything else which provide that we don't need to survive. In the end, this would collapse the entire society as we know it today, and as individuals we would not have the economic freedom which allows us to donate. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.

The most effective, and in my opinion most moral, would be to affirm laws which incorporates some affordable amount of money into taxation that goes directly to organizations which help people in the third world.

[DanP]

So what. The argument stands.

Look, Greg, the solution is simple. Nobody forces those humans to reproduce. In fact, they shouldn't reproduce until they can afford the costs of raising a child.

But if they do, it's utterly immoral to expect the rest of the population of the planet to raise their offspring. It's the same old song, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Utopians which beleive that humans are blank slates and hence they can be social engineered into anything.

Second, raising to status is part of the human nature. Much of the so called "displays of status" are realized through non-essential items and services. Expensive art pieces, expensive cars, expensive designer clothes, whatever you got it.

Spending on such apparently "non-essential" items fills a very specific niche in humans. They are far from being "non-essential". They are powerful signals which most definitely have a role in the polarization and hierarchic stratification of society. They have far reaching implications, which go as far as access to (more) mates. They are intrinsic part of the human psychology and neurobiology.

[DanP]

However, morally do we really want them to have to?

Yes. Luck helps the ones which help themselves.

[Greg Bernhardt]

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.


We can't reach high levels of medicine and technology unless a girl buys a $400 handbag or unless a man buys a $40 steak?

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.

Look, Greg, the solution is simple. Nobody forces those humans to reproduce. In fact, they shouldn't reproduce until they can afford the costs of raising a child.

Education is needed, but not relevant to the argument. Are you are willing to watch the "child drown in the lake"? I think what you say is very disconnected to the actual event and situation. If you place yourself next to a child who needs a $15 vaccine to live to the next day and a movie ticket you really want to see. You would honestly choose the movie ticket?

[Ivan Seeking]

I've typed up three responses and deleted them all. Maybe I will come back and add those thoughts after I get some sleep, but I think this is a problem that all people of good conscience struggle with at some point in their life. Hopefully no one will take this as proselytizing, but this is a classic problem in Christian Theology. Just for the sake of context, I thought it might be appropriate to cite the relevant passage.

Matthew 19:16-26

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs. :biggrin:

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

[Pengwuino]

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.

That's interesting. By helping someone out, you deprive a company of money that deprives them of the ability to sustain/create jobs which deprives other people the luxury of being able to help others out.

This actually is something I was thinking about making a topic on. My idea was "Is it right for me to think that Americans would be better off if we weren't such poor critical thinkers when it came to scams and scam artists?". My thinking went along these lines: A scam is simply a transfer of wealth. A scam artist doesn't simply make money disappear, he'll spend it on things that go back into the economy which makes jobs etc etc for the most part. I think this is kinda along the lines of "take money from one, it takes from another which takes from another" whereas mine is "transfer money from one, it transfers to another etc. etc.". Maybe I should start that topic...

The most effective, and in my opinion most moral, would be to affirm laws which incorporates some affordable amount of money into taxation that goes directly to organizations which help people in the third world.

Doesn't this contradict your original statement though? Taxes that are directly taken out of the economy certainly would affect peoples means of providing charity.

Yes. Luck helps the ones which help themselves.

We live in a society where people would have no idea how to survive on their own. Without soup kitchens and food banks, most would die.

[disregardthat]

So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs.

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

It's time to be pragmatic and not blindly follow "ideals". What moral value is there in giving up everything you have, placing yourself in misery for others, compared to live an economically sustainable life while donating regularly for the rest of your life. First of all, you have the ability to give more money this way. Second, you don't betray your own worth for the sake of some ideal. Third, I would say it is immoral to make yourself economically dependent on others.

[DanP]

We live in a society where people would have no idea how to survive on their own. Without soup kitchens and food banks, most would die.

More space for You, me and Dupree :P

[disregardthat]

Doesn't this contradict your original statement though? Taxes that are directly taken out of the economy certainly would affect peoples means of providing charity.

The argument was that the situation that allows us to donate requires spending on non-essential items and services. However the premise is of course that we want to donate. The most moral thing is therefore to do this in the most effective way. Sustainable donation will still satisfy the premise for future donation. Call it organized charity, it has the same function as regular charity.

[Pengwuino]

I've typed up three responses and deleted them all. Maybe I will come back and add those thoughts after I get some sleep, but I think this is a problem that all people of good conscience struggle with at some point in their life. Hopefully no one will take this as proselytizing, but this is a classic problem in Christian Theology. Just for the sake of context, I thought it might be appropriate to cite the relevant passage.

So I'm not the only person who deleted several responses already!



So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs.

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

I've heard people talk about this part of The Bible. This can be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is that materials goods are such a powerful force with some people, that given the option of eternal life in heaven or their material goods, they'll almost always choose their possessions. It can be interpreted as as a worship of things over God. The idea that you can't be rich to go to heaven contradicts 'with God all things are possible'. In fact, there was a passage cited about a very wealthy individual who was given his wealth as an act of God. So one interpretation is simply don't worship your goods.

I think that interpretation has some good meaning in this context. While I don't think it condemns someone for having a candy bar instead of giving to UNICEF, it certainly would condemn a person for NEEDING a $250,000 super-luxury car just to park in the garage for people to see.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think that interpretation has some good meaning in this context. While I don't think it condemns someone for having a candy bar instead of giving to UNICEF, it certainly would condemn a person for NEEDING a $250,000 super-luxury car just to park in the garage for people to see.

I think it's just rationalizing. I think the original argument still stands in it's ideal state. If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong? Is it because you don't know that child? I think not being able to identify with the victim has a lot to do with it.

[Pengwuino]

I think it's just rationalizing. I think the original argument still stands in it's ideal state. If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong? Is it because you don't know that child? I think not being able to identify with the victim has a lot to do with it.

I'm talking about the bible passage.

I've already said it though, it is wrong. What else do you want?

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm talking about the bible passage.

I've already said it though, it is wrong. What else do you want?

What I want to know is why you don't change and how you deal with it. You said before you build some defenses, but are clearly aware of them. Being a "bad person" is ok for you? (again just trying to flesh out ideas)

[Pengwuino]

What I want to know is why you don't change and how to deal with it. You said before you build some defenses, but are clearly aware of them. Being a "bad person" is ok for you?

I already said I don't believe it makes me a bad person. You could run through arguments that makes every single person on this board a bad person if you use your logic. It would simply dilute what it means to be "bad".

[Greg Bernhardt]

I already said I don't believe it makes me a bad person. You could run through arguments that makes every single person on this board a bad person if you use your logic. It would simply dilute what it means to be "bad".

Look I don't want to hammer this around all day. But I think we both agree killing is bad. You agree that by choosing the $3 candy bar over saving the child is bad. And a person who repeatedly does bad things knowingly is referred to as a bad person, no?

[Pengwuino]

Look I don't want to hammer this around all day. But I think we both agree killing is a bad thing. You agree that by choosing the $3 candy bar over saving the child is bad. A person who repeatedly does bad things is known as a bad person, no?

So you're saying everyone is bad? Everyone who isn't an unvaccinated child in a 3rd world country that is.

[disregardthat]

We can't reach high levels of medicine and technology unless a girl buys a $400 handbag or unless a man buys a $40 steak?

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.


Greg, what is going to be produced if people only bought essential things? Essential things. This is not about $400 handbags, you are generalizing this. How will this not collapse the entire industry and hence the our entire society as we know it? How will this make us capable of donating as we do today? It is simply a non-logical position to claim the immorality of not spending every single penny you don't need to charity. What moral worth is there in an action which universalized renders us incapable of being moral?

Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need? I consider his position blindly idealistic.

[Greg Bernhardt]

So you're saying everyone is bad? Everyone who isn't an unvaccinated child in a 3rd world country that is.

Maybe. That's why this thread is in the Philosophy forum. :)


How will this not collapse the entire industry and hence the our entire society as we know it? How will this make us capable of donating as we do today? It is simply a non-logical position to claim the immorality of not spending every single penny you don't need to charity.

Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need?

Maybe we wouldn't need to donate, nor would our society collapse if we had started differently from the beginning.

Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is not about $400 handbags, you are generalizing this.

You are right, I am cherry picking a bit and that shows my wavering of thoughts from being practical to the ideal. But I am interested in the ideal because I think it's very compelling.

[DanP]

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.


How comes ? Please explain.



Education is needed, but not relevant to the argument.


Im not talking about education. Im talking about the bare necessitates of life food, vaccination (else you die). Before reproducing like rabbits, those humans should think if they are able to sustain the life of their offspring until they can doit on their own.

This whole theory is a displacement of responsibility. It shifts responsibility from parents to entities which are living thousand of miles away. This guy talks about morality. He is wrong. Even if accept his theory that morale has anything to do with this, the first thing I would ask is "Is it moral to reproduce when you know your child risk perishing of famine and lack of vaccinations?"



I think what you say is very disconnected to the actual event and situation. If you place yourself next to a child who needs a $15 vaccine to live to the next day and a movie ticket you really want to see. You would honestly choose the movie ticket?

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

[disregardthat]

Maybe we wouldn't need to donate, nor would our society collapse if we had started differently from the beginning.

Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?

You put it like as if we weren't as rich we are today the whole world could be saved. That is not how it is. Overpopulation will not be solved by collapsing rich societies or preventing them to exist. Only the presence of rich societies will enhance technology over the bounds of immediate necessity, and this is e.g. essential to solve future problems concerning local and global climate changes which will make more people suffer in the future. As constant water supply.

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things. A consequencialist argument gets a consequencialist reply.

[Greg Bernhardt]

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

You make some requests I may answer tomorrow, it's so late now. But... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't need. So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child. You may condemn that child now and rationalize the decision, but I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things.

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

[DanP]

So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child.

But it does not solves the underlying problem. That being, tomorrow another one of those children will be brought to life by irresponsible parents. That a new entity will need to be saved. This kind of help will amount at nothing, but to create a vicious cycle .

No, this is not the solution.

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, this is not the solution.

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

[disregardthat]

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

[DanP]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child with each spending decision.


It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you cant save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift of responsibility.

[Pengwuino]

Oh this is in the philosophy forum... no wonder it felt weird in here.

And by the way, there have been numbers thrown about as to how much it would cost per year to reasonably vaccinate every child and give every country an acceptable standard of water and basic necessities like that. The conclusion was that you're not gonna be talking about small deviations from our "exact way of life".

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

[Pengwuino]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

You also must realize that as to the analogy of the drowning child, sure you can save him. However, what if tomorrow he's stuck in a burning building? Then the next day he's being attacked by a dog. Are you a good person to save him from drowning but not from the burning building? By his argument, no, you're pretty much screwed, everyone is a bad person always.

Then the word "bad" becomes meaningless.

[DanP]

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

Im not arguing economics here. Im arguing that calling status seeking behaviors immoral is turning the blind eye to the realities of life. And if this whole issue have anything to do with moral cognition, it's way more immoral to bring childs to life only to make them work for your family.

In fact, I don't believe this has anything to do with morality. Both behaviors are amoral in my eyes.

[Greg Bernhardt]

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

There are likely a few essential reasons for building planes, but overall maybe we wouldn't need planes to give them food if we had this mentality from the start. The Zulu were just fine until the Dutch or whomever came along.

It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

He talks about it. I think he donates around 70%.


But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you cant save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift or responsibility.

No, he does. This is one small argument he makes on the first page. The next couple hundred pages he breaks everything down and talks in a practical and realistic way. I wanted to post this because the ideal is compelling and hard to dismiss if you take it as it is.

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

[DanP]

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

You think we evolved out of this ? IMO its enough to look at any electoral processes to see that we still stomp on/over each other heads to take over the tribe. But we learned to display our aggressiveness appropriate to the social context. Who was the one who put targeting crosses over Giffords's head , to talk just about one of the latest development in the wake of Tucson shootings ?

[DanP]

But I think we both agree killing is bad.

Killing is amoral IMO.

Is the social context of killing which makes you either look like a hero,a recipient of a congress medal or makes you an outcast hunted by law enforcement for confinement and execution.

[Reshma]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

My parents did experience borderline poverty back in the days when India was among the poorest of the nations. As someone from a developing nation, I can very well understand and relate to the problems of severe deprivation of food and medicines. I have not read Singer's book, but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.

This person came to my mind when I read this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-J5p9Zzc-4

Whenever I see eating competitions akin to "Man versus food" on international channels, somehow it makes my stomach churn seeing the amount of food being wasted.

[DanP]

but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.




Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

[Reshma]

Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey. Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.

I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

[DanP]

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

I dont think I misunderstood.


Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.


Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

This is what I asked you to explain. WHY on the earth do you think it's "necessary" to intervene and expect someone to feed and clothes somebody else ? Why expect help instead of helping yourself ?


I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I dont want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.


it can go a long way in making resources available for others.


It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or thats the least thing she/he can do.

[Reshma]

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I dont want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.


Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic. If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up with annoying co-passengers than being stranded for longer hours in traffic jams.

Charity is not something only a rich person can do. I don't expect a rich first world nation to solve the problems happening on my streets. Apart from situations of natural disasters, it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them.

[DanP]

Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic.




Yes, but the reason of this is because you fulfill a necessity for yourself. You save money for fuel which you will spend on other things and the train gets you in time at work :P


If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up annoying co-passengers by than being stranded for hours in traffic jams.


How can carpooling mitigate the traffic situation ? It's not like the number of passengers in your car will have any influence whatsoever on the final state of traffic.

What happens in reality is an equilibrium situation. As more and more ppl will carpool, the roads will become free enough that more and more ppl will be find attractive to drive comfortably on the road alone. In reality you will not see any improvement in traffic, what you will see it's an equilibrium which is probably already in place.

[K Rool]

Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple.

[akd_dka]

I am also from India . And I feel that the apathy shown by well-to-do people(myself included) from India towards the poor and downtrodden is shocking . It isnt even a case of "out of sight out of mind" for us Indians. We are quite desensitized to the poverty. So in that way we are more guilty than non-Indians. I hope I may contribute at least something to the society when I start earning my self.

@Reshma , great video.
It may well be argued that giving bread earning capacity than giving bread is more noble.
But still giving bread is better than doing nothing. That guy is real superhero , as the video title suggests. And in some cases as in that video giving bread can be a life saver .



Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or thats the least thing she/he can do.

It is not at all necessary. And the "well-off" ones are under no obligations. If they feel like donating only then, they should.
If a person is living a straight and non-corrupt life he is doing quite well.

In India , corruption is a bigger problem than people not doing charity.

[Lacy33]

Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple.


Ah, don't count me in on this one K Rool. I may be simple and I may be real lazy but not so much I don't care.

I am totally :surprised this thing went the distance without a rally to a cause. Any flippin cause.
Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.
Nobody is guilt tripping anyone.
some people are just sayin!

Now I am going to look for you to be my friend. :!!) Here I come...........

[DanP]

Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.


Who died trying ?

[Greg Bernhardt]

I dont think I misunderstood.

Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

This is what I asked you to explain. WHY on the earth do you think it's "necessary" to intervene and expect someone to feed and clothes somebody else ? Why expect help instead of helping yourself ?


Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.

DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.

Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

[DanP]

Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.


I agree, but the solution does not stay in individual donations. How many of you involved in this thread knows who was Norman Borlaug ? The solution to help those ppl is simply to come up with the solutions at the scale Borlaug did. The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in food industry.

IMO individual donations are as I said, a trap. First of all, as we seen in this thread already,
some ppl came to the conclusion that "when you have a surplus", you *SHOULD AT LEAST* give some away. This is not so. You give if you want, and instead of other ppl expecting you to give what you have, they should be grateful if you choose to give.


DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.


I walked the indian subcontinent, I worked in Sri Lanka, seen some god forbidden communities there, I seen poverty in Asia, I seen it in my country. I seen old ppl in hospitals , waiting for hours to have a MD look at them, barely able to contain their pain and not fall from the stairs for exhaustion. I seen in communist time old ppl with a rationalizing card waiting at interminable queues to get a bottle of milk. I seen enough ****, as many of us did.

Im not made of stone, each of those events caused emotions in me.

You can't accuse me of looking away. But yes, you can accuse me of being somehow disconnected now as we speak. Disconnected enough to say :

1. The solution to world social problems lies in politics and applied sciences, not in individual donations.
2. That the idea that ppl should cut on their "luxury items" is against human nature. Humans are obsessed with status, there is little surprise here, and those items are very powerful signals.
3. That nobody should believe that entity X has the obligation to help entity Y. It all good when X does it, but our society should not grow reliant on a higher class for survival. It's a two edged sword. IMO reliance on the higher class for survival will only widen the social gap
and will slowly institute a hegemony of the higher class over the clients.
4. Once you came to believe that "some persons should at least give", you are slowly closing yourself to Marxism.


Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

The immediate vicinity of a drowning kid would cause a very powerful activation of the limbic system in my brain. Powerful enough to override my frontal cortex, and cause me to act by either becoming frozen, either assume the risk and act to save the child, even if the water conditions are a threat to my well being.

The simple evocation of the scenario does not cause the same limbic system activation. In effect I can rationalize.

I dont tell you that I would walk away from the kid. Im telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I dont tell you that I would walk away from the kid. Im telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

[DanP]

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

Im also telling that I dont want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it. Today they ask you to give from your so called unnecessary luxury, tomorrow they'll bit the hand who fed them.

If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

I don't know what the success rate for the measles or smallpox vaccine is, but since no one really gets in the US, I'd conclude it's quite high. Saying there is no guarantee is not a good reason to refuse a boy a vaccine.


Im also telling that I dont want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?


But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it.

It is not anyone else other than yourself who should decide what is necessary and what is not. If you feel buying a $200 watch instead of a $100 alternative watch is worth the ramifications of not being able to use that $100 difference to save some children's lives, then so be it. I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer. This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?


If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

Yes he is a philosopher, this is what he does. Before you assume too much about him and his views I will again state that this whole thread is about one small argument he makes early in the book. I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think. For one thing he values volunteering time more than money. Certainly there are people like Borlaug who did great work as a humanitarian and Buffet who has pledged billions, but we can't all be these people. This argument is something everyone can be aware of and use to make better spending choices.

[Lacy33]

Who died trying ?

Martin Luther King
Ghandi
JFK
John Lennon
Joan of Arc
Benazir Bhutto
"Hermila Garcia, the 38-year-old chief of police of the town of Meoqui in the Mexican state of Chihuahua."
I'm sure I forgot one. Pardon.
My great, great grandpa was killed by Napoleon in a street fight. Grandpa was just in the hood trying to keep the French gang off the street.

And so on.

Really Mr. DanP
These are just the big names. How about all the little folks who serve in the forces. Fire, police, Army and so on?
How about the UN workers, and any aid program who goes into a dangerous,uncomfortable place to do good and gets hurts, sick or worse?
Blah blah blahh you know already.
Now go and do good!

[DanP]

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?


But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears which would work "for the good of the species", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. Im more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.



I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer.


It;s not you or Singer which Im worried about. Is the radical leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.



This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?


Are you appealing to my limbic system ? It wont work with me. But you have talent at framing your questions to appeal to emotions. I say framing, for you should have asked me "donate 15 USD instead of buying a watch which is 100 USD more expensive... ". But yeah, shame is a very powerful emotion. One of the motivators behind social conformity. If we would live in a world where the press should write such articles and the vast majority of your social group would exercise restrain and limit their status seeking behaviors, yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure. But we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.



I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think.
I would probably enjoy the book yes.

[Ivan Seeking]

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

[DanP]

Now go and do good!

Yes ma'am !

[Greg Bernhardt]

But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears which would work "for the good of the species", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. Im more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.

It doesn't, but I think we all have the capacity to have that golden charitable compass. Our ability to discuss it proves that. Is our morale will really this weak? I agree balance is key and realistic. But I and Singer feel everyone could do a lot more. Certainly go see that movie on the weekend and buy a nice silk tie. But there must be better conscious effort to weigh and consider these alternate options to help some humanity that are helpless. The only people who complain about having to help and are who are in the position to help.


It;s not you or Singer which Im worried about. Is the leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported. I'm not talking about people on welfare.


We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.

But again we do have the capacity to rise above. Just by discussing this issue you acknowledge your awareness to the issue, but still seem content to live in a world where you see yourself as the victim of nature. You think nature made me selfish, so I will not fight it.

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance. We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude. We personally need to look at ourselves and ask why we can't and whether we can live with the fact that we not doing more has cost lives.

Ivan, certainly the system is a working solution, but it has saved millions of people and it means everything to those people.

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance. We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude. We personally need to look at ourselves and ask why we can't and whether we can live with the fact that we not doing more has cost lives.

Ivan, certainly the system is a working solution, but it has saved millions of people and it means everything to those people.

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion? Many religious people would derive their defintion from the Bible or other religious texts, but to define morality in the absence of divine dicates gets pretty dicey. It seems a bit of a reach to say that your sense of morality applies to everyone else. One might argue, for example, that my moral obligation is to provide the best life that I can for my own children.

The system is working? Then give me the dollar amount needed to solve this problem once and for all, and a deadline. What you call a solution, I might call black hole for wealth. I have never seen an end game here.

What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country [which we are actively doing at this moment, btw, through our trade deficit].

I am completely sympathetic to your argument, but I am also sympathetic to the frustration of the problem.

[Greg Bernhardt]

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion?

I think everyone can agree that if you have the ability to save a life, it is moral to do so.


The system is working?

I forgot to add "not" as supported by my "but" :)


What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country.

Larger problems with the system, politics and sociology are irrelevant to the argument as I have discussed with DanP. If you can save a life by donating $15 to vaccinate a child with measles instead of going to movie, you do it. I don't care if the whole system doesn't work. It's about that one child you can effect with each spending decision. It matters to that one child.

[DanP]

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported.


Sure they do. We may differ a bit though in our vision on how this is best to be accomplished.



Just by discussing this issue you acknowledge your awareness to the issue, but still seem content to live in a world where you see yourself as the victim of nature. You think nature made me selfish, so I will not fight it.


This is false. But it's also a very predictable statement and it is not the first time I heard it. It comes up every time when someone dare to hint at evolutionary and biologic factors as having a modulative effect on human behavior. Acknowledging the nature IMO is not to become a victim, but to gain power. Understanding how our behavior is modulated by social forces, physical environment, genetics and evolutionary factors can be of great use to implement very practical social solutions to fight high criminality rates, implement social policies for the poor, preventive health care and so on.

Also I do not think that nature made me "selfish". Us humans are perfectly capable of both competitive and cooperative behaviors. But the interplay of those is complex, and it sits in a equibrium.

If anything, I say that understanding more about the human behavior can offer us a real chance in becoming more open toward each other, and implement realistic policies which
do work. Acknowledging this can save a great deal of frustration and lower the expectation
which one may have towards the integral of the society. It's also the key to "we must do better". Understanding how our social and moral cognition works is paramount for a good understanding of helping behaviors. Many of those factors are already known.

Our species is the least genetically constrained species which ever walked the earth. But at the same time, we have thousand of genetic propensities. Small modulations which will combine with modulations of the pre-natal environment, of the rearing environment, current environment and so on, and will create a resultant behavior.





Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance.

Its not apathy and ignorance. This behavior results from the interplay of many factors, ranging from biology to social forces acting from the society in which you live.


We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude.


Maybe they didn't had to overcome anything. Perhaps they are just a genetic variation of a receptor gene for the self regulation of oxytocin. This coupled with a certain type of rearing environment, may be enough to strongly modulate their behavior toward the end of the spectrum of helping behaviors. In a word, they where already the "saints" when they reached adult age. Please note that Im not saying they ARE this. Obviously I didnt studied them.

Just something to ponder to.

[Math Is Hard]

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?

Great thread, Greg!

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

[Greg Bernhardt]

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

I have been certainly guilty of this thought. He does bring it up early in the book, but there is a nice quick example I've heard in a Buddhism book I just finished also:

"A sleepy sea side town awoke to thousands of starfish washing up on their beach. Many people gathered to view and talk about it. After a bit, one boy rushed down to the beach and began throwing starfish back into the sea. A man came down and said "forget it, there are too many to save, what does it matter" and the boy opened his hand and said "it matters to this one".

Again, in this thread we end up thinking too big. This thread is not about so much as solving the entire issue, but saving one worthwhile life at a time by making better spending choices.

[Lacy33]

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

And because it is brought up now and then we reevaluate our personal potential. Good!
With even the potential for Excellent!

[K Rool]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

[Lacy33]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

:rofl: You're getting it.

[ThomasT]

What I'm really after here is a response to Singer's argument that "that any money spent on non-essential items and services rather than giving is morally wrong".He's assuming that it's necessary to help people in need, with the degree of necessity ranging from the sorts of people and situations you're talking about (very high), to, say, somebody who just needs a loan to get by for a while (very low). The question is, necessary according to what criterion or criteria? For the survival of humanity? Apparently not. For the health and well being of a significant portion of humanity? Apparently not. Could the governments, and the very rich, of the world better spend the money at their disposal to help vast numbers of abjectly poor people? Of course.

Is the situation in some impoverished region going to prevent me from buying and consuming stuff that I really don't need? Of course not. As Jarle has pointed out, modern societies are based on the development, production, marketing, and consumption of nonessentials.

Singer's argument is an emotional one intended to get an emotional response. It's valid only on that level in the sense that it might get a significant number of people who weren't giving before to give by making them feel guilty about how they spend some of their money. But I suspect that it will only affect a relatively small portion of the people it's aimed at.

How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child.This assumes, unnecessarily, that THAT money could have saved a child. An ungrounded assumption, I think.

How should one feel about governments wasting hundreds of billions of dollars when that money could have saved vast numbers of children? Now, that kind of money makes a difference. And the US government has, and wastes, that kind of money. Using Singer's argument to emotion, the US government is responsible for virtually every unnecessary death of every child in the world.

If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong?If it did, it would be wrong. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

What dooms these children to death is government policies and practices.

I want to stress that Peter also does not support directly giving the people in extreme poverty money or food. He advocates money go towards primarily to medical services and education.The medical services and education are important of course, but without an accompanying infusion of the stuff (like infrastructure, housing, MONEY and FOOD) that sufficient education might eventually allow the local populations to continue in sustainable communities, then it's all just a continuing temporary solution -- the main beneficiaries of which are transporters, distributors, paid medical, education, and charity staff, etc.

If I were to donate, say, $100 dollars per month to some charity, then I would want most of that money to reach some person or persons in need in the form of MONEY and FOOD. But I believe that very little, if any, of my donation would reach them in that form.

Only governments, and the very wealthy, can do what's really necessary to build sustainable modern societies in these impoverished regions. Putting it on average consumers in affluent societies is an interesting tactic, but it isn't a valid moral argument.

... I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.Of course. And this is precisely what makes the candy bar argument an emotional one rather than a logical one.

So, no, I don't feel bad about buying that candy bar, or that can of tennis balls or seeing that movie instead of sending the money to some charity.

And, incidently, though it isn't why I bought those things, I helped all the people whose lives and families depend on me buying those things.

[Zarqon]

My two thoughts on this:

1) The arguement has been made several times that paying those $15 will save one child, but I'm not so sure this is the full story. I don't have any personal experience of the real situation in places like africa, but from what I gather there are just too many born, such that all cannot survive as long as the system there looks like it does. There is not enough supplies like food to support the population, so if I pay $15 to vaccinate one child he will grow up to steal the food from someone else, who will die in his stead, and I end up not doing good, but only perpetuate the current missery.

Now, I understand this may be slightly extreme, and you might make a net saving effect by constantly pushing in more money, but I really don't like this as a solution. Instead I agree with many of the previous posters in that what is really needed is work on the bigger scale, foreign goverments making sure proper infrastructure is built etc. I don't feel inclined by buy a vaccine for someone, but if you can find me an organization with very competent and trustworth people trying to make long term infrastructure changes or similar (a la CJ Cregg's builing roads from The West Wing), then I will be a lot more inclined to put money there to help out.


2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any arguement that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second arguement for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

[DanP]

2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any arguement that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second arguement for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

An emotional response to an emotional argument. But I bet not quite the response Singer expected :P

[Greg Bernhardt]

Because this is the Philosophy forum, allow me to redefine the argument in a logical way and see what you think

P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter or medical care are bad

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

C1. Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

[DanP]

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.




You put it in an absolute form, in the form of a moral normative.

I will simply present you the statement that the idea of a moral normative is flawed . By itself , any action is amoral. It is neither wrong, neither right.

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Lets not forget the fact that killing someone can lend you in the electric chair, or make you the hero of the neighborhood. It's all in the social context. We hunt down domestic killers on our soil, but we send the best of us to kill in various regions of the world.

[akd_dka]

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.



It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

If we look at the life of Mahatma Gandhi for instance , he tried to find an answer for this and he came to the conclusion that even institutions such as railways , textile industries , hospitals are not important for a person's well being. (These are noble ideas indeed and Gandhi rightly didn't impose these on his people. He tried to inculcate it in his own life .)He discusses these ideas in his book "Hind Swaraj - Indian home rule". And some of his ideas are borrowed from philosophers such as John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. After reading Ruskin's book - "Unto this last" , Gandhi concluded that only life worth living is that of a land tiller and we should only wear home-spun cloth. These ideas are hard to carry out practically and even in India these have been met with limited success.


So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

IMO , if a person is earning his money through rightful non corrupt means he is entitled to do what he wishes with it provided it doesn't harm his fellow beings.

A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

[waht]

So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks in to "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.

But if you are rich and are financially secure, then that's a different story. Alot of rich people are philanthropists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Angelina Jolie, etc. But still, their contributions are absorbed by a blackhole. You can only get out of poverty by economic growth. And that takes time unfortunately.

[Greg Bernhardt]

It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

Certainly a person doesn't need to spend hours a day making arguments for what is and what isn't as important. I am confident most people can make these judgments on what they can do without, without much fuss. It doesn't have to be an exact science.


A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

But if a person has been informed that by them choosing a new pair of expensive high heels that a child would die because they needed that money for a vaccine. How is that not a wrong choice? You have a sick child in front of you and a pair of high heels and you choose the heels. Wrong.

[Greg Bernhardt]

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks in to "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.


The middle class does not need a new iphone to live. A person in extreme poverty does need a vaccine or a piece of bread to live. One gets the iphone, the other gets no vaccine or bread.

Please see this post
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

[DanP]

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

You're telling me that our society thinks that we shouldn't help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? I can't believe that is true.

Dan, show that premise (without any adulterating or adding opinions) to 5 people and tell me how many disagree with it.

[akd_dka]

But if a person has been informed that by them choosing a new pair of expensive high heels that a child would die because they needed that money for a vaccine. How is that not a wrong choice? You have a sick child in front of you and a pair of high heels and you choose the heels. Wrong.

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine. So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child .

Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.

[Greg Bernhardt]

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine.

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.


So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child.

We're talking fractions of a penny to the dollar. Far from compelling.


Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.
If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

[DanP]

You telling me that our society disagrees that we should help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? That is insane.

Dan, show that premise (without any adulterating or adding opinions) to 5 people and tell me how many disagree with it.

It doesn't matter what they say. They could say simply try to live up to what isthe perceived expected answer to this test. And Im pretty sure that all would come up with answers which do look good :P They would gladly lie just to look good or to avoid conflict, or to satisfy what they think is the answer the experimentalist expect from them

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

[akd_dka]

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.


I meant causal not casual.(I apologise if it was a typo from your side.)

I personally feel, that we should strive to do donations on a regular basis and should avoid unnecessary luxuries and wastages. But we can only hope that others learn from our example.

"Be the change you want to see in the world " should be our guiding light.




If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

[cobalt124]

Very interesting thread. I haven't read the book, but have heard about the case made. Apologies, I've spent a long time on

this and I'm not completely happy with it, some bits have gone missing, but I'm posting it anyway. Don't want to make waves

here, just asking questions.

Greg Bernhardt:
"...any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong...we all live immorally..."

He may have a point, based on the example given.

Pengwuino:
"...Human nature...."

I don't think it is. It looks more like a societal based choice. I also have my doubts about organized donation giving and

whether it actually helps in the long term, because I think for the most part it is done for the wrong reasons. I don't for

the most part.

Lacy33:
"...Greg...you are a dooer of good deeds. You have helped a lot..."

I can see this is true without even knowing the details.

Greg Bernhardt
"...think about a child we could vaccinate when we reach for soda..."

I believe that the solution would rest with the individual.

"...thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and

buy $30k trucks..."

We are sheep and we don't care.

Lacy33
"...in spite of the confusion and materialistic world your senior generations have left you..."

That is a major part of the problem here.

Greg Bernhardt
"...How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child..."

Thinking about it, I don't feel good, which is why I don't think about it. I've always felt it was true, and never acted on

that feeling.

DanP
"Disguised Marxism"

Some of the things Marx said may apply in a positive way here. Utopias and social engineering do not work. I think Marx had

something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on

fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.

DanP
"...raising to status is part of the human nature...which go as far as access to (more) mates. They are intrinsic part of the

human psychology and neurobiology..."

Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute

this.

Ivan Seeking
"Matthew 19:16-26 "

My take is: The world is wrong and the rich man is unwilling to do anything about it, but he is unhappy with this. I don't

wan't to be seen as preaching, I think there is a solution that is secular, concrete, and can work.

Jarle
"...It's time to be pragmatic and not blindly follow "ideals"..."

It doesn't have to be idealistic. Its a matter of changing what is wrong and keeping what is right at the individual level.

Individuals consume and the effects are felt worldwide. Why can't individuals help each other, and the effects are felt

worldwide?

"...giving up everything you have, placing yourself in misery for others..."

If you feel it would put you in misery, it would fail.

"...you have the ability to give more money this way..."

Why is it only money that has to be given? (again neutral question).

"...Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need?..."

Not for everybody. But the attention in this discussion seems to be going to the people that least need the attention.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?..."

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The

price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.

...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."

Jarle?
"...None of us can individually save the humanity..."

But maybe a lot of individuals acting individually can.

Greg Bernhardt
"... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't

need..."

And if many individuals do it, the consequences on mankind are improved.

DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."

There is no obligation. Only choice.

Reshma:
"...it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them..."

I share this sentiment. The more of it the better.

krool
"Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple."

He's asking for an honest answer to honest questions IMO, without judging any answers he gets.

DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?

Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.

DanP
...But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears

which would work "for the good of the species"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of

individuals, not the species.

DanP?
...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)

Greg Bernhardt
There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

Then maybe giving billions and billions and billions isn't the answer to the problem. More volunteers?

[DanP]

I think Marx had something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.


Not really. Such a stance is closer to social democracy. Ideologies steaming from Marxism all asked for revolutionary changes.


Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute this.


Human psychology include the so called "social psychology". Yes, society does modulate status seeking behaviors.


Greg Bernhardt
"...Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?..."

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.


We wage wars everywhere to protect our society, the western way of life, the value of democracy. It seems that our society thinks is well worth killing, causing distress, refugees, others for those abstract concepts


...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."


So it is raising to status.


DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."
There is no obligation. Only choice.


This is what you think. A good point of view. Others in this thread already expressed they beleif that yes " the well-off should at least do .... x or y". This is the root of all evil, the way to Marxism.



DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?



Frankly I dont care about their motives too much. They have their agenda, I have mine.
And really, it's not my responsibility to help anyone. I doit if I want, as you seem to have agreed earlier, is a freaking personal choice. But now, several paragraphs later, you seem to have shifted your position, and you insist that personal responsibility exists. Well, which one fo those two gonna be ?


Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.


It;s either a choice, an elective , either a responsibility. Make up your mind on this pls.


Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.


In the end, this cant result in a ESS. Such a society would be extremely vulnerable to profoundly egoistical humans, who would trive on the expense of others. They would quickly take over, till the population would end in a ESS.



DanP
...But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears

which would work "for the good of the species"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of individuals, not the species.


Individuals from very distant groups, supporting them pretty much equals "for the good of the species".

Just because the things could have happened differently, doesn't mean that they did :P The reality is pretty much the one you have, not what it could have been if and if anf if


...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)


Yes I am. There is no social pressure on me from any in-groups that I donate. No norms "tho shalt donate" to which I would feel the need to conform to protect my status in my group.

[waht]

The middle class does not need a new iphone to live. A person in extreme poverty does need a vaccine or a piece of bread to live. One gets the iphone, the other gets no vaccine or bread.

Please see this post
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

Before the industrial revolution, the whole world was in poverty. Average human life span in Europe was 40 years. And Singer wants to go that way, he favors a backward progress towards a pre-industrial era in hopes of solving the world poverty.

[JDStupi]

I just have comments on the subject and not so much a general position. First I'd like to say that Albert Camus's "The Plague" deals heavily with the concepts of guilt and social responsibility from both a secular and, in the form of a Christian priest, a Christian perspective. The book has individuals that run the gamut of opinions, from those who help and volunteer, to those who exploit the situation.
I'd also like to say that this essentially reads like a classic Nietzschean "Morality of the strong vs Morality of the weak argument"...
And finally, I know DanP, you said that you werenn't endorsing the argument/suggestion made in post number 73, so I'm not directing this directly toward you or anyone just saying that I usually disagree with such sociobiological "explanations" for moral behavior, largely because of the almost fatalistic nature of it.....It appeals to a shallow and premature understanding of nature vs nurture and attributes any characteristics to some combination of genetics and environment, but the problem is, is that it is pseudo-scientific. It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

[Greg Bernhardt]

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

Seemingly and I am arguing that is wrong.


No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

Very interesting! However if the person genuinely "freezes up" and panics at the sight of a child drowning, thus being unable to help, that is different. That person no longer has the choice. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.


Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.


The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.


Before the industrial revolution, the whole world was in poverty. Average human life span in Europe was 40 years. And Singer wants to go that way, he favors a backward progress towards a pre-industrial era in hopes of solving the world poverty.

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

[DanP]

It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

It is not such a disaster as you say. There is strong scientific evidence that expression of certain genes and the regulation of this expression modulates behavior. There are hundreds of studies done on this. Also good studies emerging lately from the field of behavioral genetics. And a lot of great studies in social psychology which show how many social factors and social cognition modulates behaviors.

I don't proclaim any morality steaming from biology and evolution. I claim the ultimate amorality of any such behavior. Humans are the most genetically indeterminate creature which walked the earth. Yet there are a lot of genetic propensities in each of us.

[waht]

Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?


First in the OP, Singer states that any financial action used to purchase unnecessary items to survival is immoral in light of the fact that there are impoverished people. Therefore by the definition of this statement it follows that in order become moral one has to give away all of your wealth to charity. Then Singer states that it doesn't hurt to spend $5 a month on charity, and most people would do it.

Where does such wide disparity in argument come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer because it's unrealistic for anyone to give up all of their wealth.

The US government gives lots of financial aide to poor countries. Where did that money come from? through taxes everyone pays.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.

That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html


Forty American billionaires have pledged at least half of their wealth to charitable causes – a combined value of at least $125 billion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0804/Billionaires-pledge-125-billion-to-Bill-Gates-charity-drive

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

I've read the 'Animal Liberation' and as a result I didn't want read any more of the author. Might as well be a vegetarian.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?

If it meets the second premise of the argument, why not.

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3088238&postcount=75


Where does such wide disparity in tone come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer.


Know that I haven't quoted Singer anywhere and I fully acknowledge I've likely butchered his ideas :D The disparity is because there is an ideal version and a realistic version. The ideal is the OP which says we should donate all non-essential money. The realistic says we need to simply weigh our spending choices better and more often opt to donate instead of buying something we really don't need.


That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html


1.6 billion sounds great. Lots of vaccines. Would help lots of people. I know what you are trying to say, but remember no matter how little impact this makes relatively it still matters to those who it does help. This is a moral argument.

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

[akd_dka]

. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.



Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.

Anyways ,without fussing over what's immoral and what's apathetic, I think books like "The Life you Can save" carry an important message. And I certainly hope it brings about appreciable social change.
Most of the times people don't do charity is because the "figurative drowning child" is not in front of their eyes.But books such as these help bring that child in plain view.

People like Bill Gates are coming forward and donating sizeable amounts. This is surely a source of inspiration. I am from India , and the trend is beginning amongst rich people here also. Mr Azim Premji has pledged 2 billion dollars for philanthropy.

I hope I can contribute my bit when I start earning my own money.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.


I kinda get what you are saying, but by definition apathy is "an absence of emotion or enthusiasm". So to me a person should still know saving the child is right even if they are apathetic. So they are both immoral and apathetic. Immoral that they don't save the child and apathetic that they don't care about the situation.

[DanP]

I

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

In a word, costs to the helper. Relative costs to self. It's easier to donate when you have shitloads of money, let's say 10% of that income, which btw, is tax deductible in most tax systems, then to donate when you are a middle class family which is better off "donating" that 10% to the college fond of the kids, for example. When education costs hundreds of thousands in dollars, it;s a very natural behavior to think first and foremost to your kin.

To come around this issue, Singer proposes that humans should cut back on status items, but what he doesn't see is that extremely few humans will follow his advice. Status is simply too important in this world, and is not as Singer says "unnecessary".

Then there is diffusion of responsibility. Even if we accept that humans are responsible for the life of someone thousand of miles away (theory which I don accept), you face a very high level of diffusion of this responsibility in society. You can see this in cases where a criminal act takes place on streets and nobody does anything. Besides obvious cases like fear, when you hear someone screaming "Help me" the impact of the request is more diffused when more humans are present at scene. Help me who ? (This si called bystander effect in social psychology, and the recommendation made is that a victim in such conditions always make the request explicit and personal, such as "You man, there, in the blue shirt, please help me" )

Also, norms of social justice, equity, reciprocity, social repsonsability, seemingly operates very well when you relate to your in-groups, but are not so powerful when applied to out-groups.

[Greg Bernhardt]

In a word, costs to the helper. Relative costs to self. It's easier to donate when you have shitloads of money

I'm not suggesting across the board percentage. Find one that works for you. Maybe it's 1%.


To come around this issue, Singer proposes that humans should cut back on status items, but what he doesn't see is that extremely few humans will follow his advice. Status is simply too important in this world, and is not as Singer says "unnecessary".


I fail to see how status is inherently essential to life. Either way, I agree, we think it's important. However that doesn't make it right. That is what I am trying to get after.


Then there is diffusion of responsibility.

DanP you keep offering me reasons why we don't give more. I know the reasons why and very very very few are reasonable. Certainly diffusion of responsibility is not a valid excuse to avoid giving.

[waht]

Know that I haven't quoted Singer anywhere and I fully acknowledge I've likely butchered his ideas :D The disparity is because there is an ideal version and a realistic version. The ideal is the OP which says we should donate all non-essential money. The realistic says we need to simply weigh our spending choices better and more often opt to donate instead of buying something we really don't need.

I know that Singer could make such a statement.

1.6 billion sounds great. Lots of vaccines. Would help lots of people. I know what you are trying to say, but remember no matter how little impact this makes relatively it still matters to those who it does help. This is a moral argument.

This is a nice statement, immune from any criticism of helping a fellow human being in need. But unfortunately this is an ideal case. The reality is unforgiving. Charities get abused, both by the people who run them and by the people who get help from them. Often funds go into a blackhole.

People in poverty are uneducated, women are oppressed, superstition and religion is strong, gangs are rampant who wield power and control, racism and ethnic hate of a local neighbor or tribe is strong as well, and often has been for generations.

As a result choices these people make to improve their lives are not what we want.

For example, there are lots of cases where the poor refused vaccines on religious grounds, and many people died as a result. There are cases where one group of people was helped, they attack and killed other group of people.

Also Christianity has pretty much a monopoly on Charity donated from the west. They help the poor, but at a cost of spreading Christianity, and indoctrinating the poor with their faith. Mother Theresa abused charities like that. She not only financed a huge network of Christian seminaries around the world, but actively opposed condoms, and artificial contraceptives which helped spread diseases, and infected and killed lots of people throughout her life, and beyond. Same goes with the Popes who take the same stance.

So while I'm for charities, I'm also for overhauling the current system, so that people who really need it can get it.

[DanP]

I'm not suggesting across the board percentage. Find one that works for you. Maybe it's 1%.


I direct a small part of my taxes to non-profit charitable organizations. We have this possibility in our tax system. That works for me.



I fail to see how status is inherently essential to life. Either way, I agree, we think it's important. However that doesn't make it right. That is what I am trying to get after.


Nothing is inherently essential to life, except nutrition, water, breathing gases, and protection from environment and competing groups. pf.com is not essential to life. Our computers are not essential to life. Our schools and our education are not inherently essential to life. Planes, trains, cars, not inherently essential. Science, not inherently essential.

But I urge you to look at the problem of status from a different point of view. Statistically, having a high social status, and being in a dominant position in a social hierarchy minimizes social stress. Chronic exposure to stress is detrimental to health. It's reasonably well studied scientifically that glucocorticosteroids modulate the immune function and down-regulate it. Thats pretty interesting. While status may not be inherently essential to life, it may very well be the key to live with lower levels of stress than others which are lower in the hierarchy, enjoy a better health, and an overall higher quality of life.


And about whatever status seeking behaviors are right or wrong. They are amoral. Yes status is important. That doesn't make it right, you say. But also doesn't make it wrong , I say.




DanP you keep offering me reasons why we don't give more. I know the reasons why and very very very few are reasonable. Certainly diffusion of responsibility is not a valid excuse to avoid giving.

In not offering an excuse here. I state a fact reasonably well studied in social psychology. If I could poof my fingers and magically all humans would be free of any cognitive biases whatsoever, then it would be an excuse. Greg, social forces are incredibly powerful. When responsibility is diffused, motivation to behave in a certain pattern becomes so weak that it's easily out-competed by whatever else you can do with those money. Like, buying an i-phone. At least having a new toy will activate your dopamine system for some brief moments. Sad, but true.

[DanP]

I have a question too, since I put too few in this thread.

Greg, what do you think, what demon makes the two of us spend brain power and time on a debate in pf.com and why aint we out there now to help old ladies cross the streets or whatever else ?

[ThomasT]

Because this is the Philosophy forum, allow me to redefine the argument in a logical way and see what you think

P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter or medical care are bad

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

C1. Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.
P3 is an invalid, or at least questionable, assumption.

[Greg Bernhardt]

P3 is an invalid, or at least questionable, assumption.

Great, tell me how.

This website lists some great charities doing great work
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

[ThomasT]

Great, tell me how.

This website lists some great charities doing great work
http://www.charitynavigator.org/There's no way to track your contribution.

Edit: You, vis Singer, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

These are global-scale problems that require national and international governmental actions. They're not problems that will be solved by a few aid agencies whether millions of middle class Americans contribute to those agencies or not.

The 'moral' action Singer is advocating (donation instead of candy bar) is not only not a moral requirement, but it also takes focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. Civic actions that change governments and hence policies.

[Greg Bernhardt]

There's no way to track your contribution.

I think you're trying to assert the possibility that every payment goes to administrative expenses? There will always be some admin expenses. If that is the case then your money is clearing the way for someone elses money to directly help save a child. Still seems worthwhile to me.

[ThomasT]

I think you're trying to assert the possibility that every payment goes to administrative expenses? There will always be some admin expenses. If that is the case then your money is clearing the way for someone elses money to directly help save a child. Still seems worthwhile to me.Not exactly. I edited my previous post. Here it is:

You, vis Singer and your logical argument, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

These are global-scale problems that require national and international governmental actions. They're not problems that will be solved by a few aid agencies whether millions of middle class Americans contribute to those agencies or not.

The 'moral' action Singer is advocating (donation instead of candy bar) is not only not a moral requirement, but it also takes focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. Civic actions that change governments and hence policies.

[Andre]

That's indeed a major problem, see this (http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/how-corrupt-is-the-world-food-program).

Obviously a charity organisation cost money to run. But how to prevent that the support is not about the poor of the rich countries giving to the rich of the poor countries?

[DanP]

Not exactly. I edited my previous post. Here it is:

You, vis Singer and your logical argument, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.



Yes, obviously, if you want to boost that **you** saved a life, you better go there in the middle dark Africa and do it, up close and personal. There is quite a lot of assumption in "giving away 15 dollars equates with saving a life". Giving away 15 USD is nothing else than giving away 15USD. Is is not saving a life.


So instead of "The life you can save" Singer's book should be called "The money you can donate".

[Zarqon]

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones. Even if people today in general can donate more than they do currently, the amount of available money is still limited. As such, I don't see how it can be argued that one should buy food or vaccine that saves a few lives, only so that they can grow up in a world of war, famine, overpopulation, underproduction and corruption. It would be much better if the limited money available were organized centrally to try and fix the underlying problems in their society on a long term basis (like a 10-40 year re-organization plan). After that, we would no longer need to buy food for them, they could arrange that themselves.

In view of this, I just don't see how it can be considered better morality to keep spending money on short term fixes, when so little is done for the real long term ones.


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

1) If everyone follow Singer's arguement, and donated all their available money to buy vaccines and food, we could keep some people from dying today, and we would have to keep spending the money forever to continuously keep people from dying.

2) If on the other hand we let some people die now, while at the same time save up the same amount of money for 10 years, and then start a 10 year collective plan to stop war and corruption and build infrastructure, then after 30 years maybe no one is dying anymore. Maybe on a 50 year scale, fewer people would have died in total.

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

My problem is that it seems to me that Singer's argument indicates that we should always go for scenario one, since there is always another child "infront" of you to be (temporarily) saved, and this just doesn't make sense to me.

[cobalt124]

Not really. Such a stance is closer to social democracy. Ideologies steaming from Marxism all asked for revolutionary changes.

I think we agree on this except for the usage of the word Marxism (I using it in relation to Marx, you in relation to ideolgies stemming from Marx). Ideologies will never work. I see social democracy as an evolving idea and so not an ideology. Similarly individuals helping each other across the planet in the same way you would help someone in your own street could evolve into a better way of living individual lives and improved conditions for the whole of the world. So I think Sanger has a valid point, on the individual level, and possibly wider.


Human psychology include the so called "social psychology". Yes, society does modulate status seeking behaviors.

You are sure society does not cause it? I only ask because your references to science in this thread appear general and don't seem to say much.

So it is raising to status.

I don't see this. Am I missing something crushingly obvious?

Frankly I dont care about their motives too much. They have their agenda, I have mine. And really, it's not my responsibility to help anyone. I doit if I want, as you seem to have agreed earlier, is a freaking personal choice. But now, several paragraphs later, you seem to have shifted your position, and you insist that personal responsibility exists. Well, which one fo those two gonna be ?.

I am saying only one thing (maybe not very well). This is it. IMO, the stance laid out in the first three sentences can only cause damage, certainly to your surroundings worldwide, and possibly to the individuals who choose that lifestyle. Changing that cannot be imposed, a lot of individuals would have to make a free choice. This is what Sangers question is about, but I belive if that choice was made by enough people, the world would be a better place for it.

It;s either a choice, an elective , either a responsibility. Make up your mind on this pls.

It's primarily a choice. I just believe that taking Sangers choice would make us more responsible, but thats just me. Don't remember mentioning anything elective, so i don't know what you mean.


In the end, this cant result in a ESS. Such a society would be extremely vulnerable to profoundly egoistical humans, who would trive on the expense of others. They would quickly take over, till the population would end in a ESS.

Again, all I see is a vague reference to a scientific notion. Would it be any worse for the vulnerable than the current situation is?

Individuals from very distant groups, supporting them pretty much equals "for the good of the species".

This seems to put "science before empathy" and I would argue can only be damaging (mainly to the vulnerable).

Just because the things could have happened differently, doesn't mean that they did :P The reality is pretty much the one you have, not what it could have been if and if anf if

And just because things are happening as they are now, doesn't mean they have to or should continue happening like that just because it benefits the people who have made it so (not aimed at you). The reality is the one you choose, it isn't given to you, by nature, for example.

Yes I am. There is no social pressure on me from any in-groups that I donate. No norms "tho shalt donate" to which I would feel the need to conform to protect my status in my group.

I was asking whether lifestyle choices are made to protect a perceived status in a group, rather than them being made by a free choice.

[kote]

I agree with Zarqon here. The point is people are not going to devote all of their resources to saving children. We witness this every day. More importantly, there isn't a single one of us here who could not potentially give more. Beyond economic resources (which are critical), each of us has a limited personal capacity.

I think it's important that we not forget that each of us has limitations. So what's the best way to maximize our personal capacities for giving? I disagree that the personal sense of satisfaction is irrelevant. The more I can realize and be satisfied by my charitable efforts, the more I'll be willing to give. I recognize this, and I'll end up giving more by taking advantage of it. In this case, the moral thing to do is to be selfish.

If I can't personally be satisfied by my efforts, I'm going to burn out and stop giving. In cases like this, I maximize my giving by focusing my efforts where I will receive a personal return, and I believe it's the most ethical way to approach the longer term issue.

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones. Even if people today in general can donate more than they do currently, the amount of available money is still limited. As such, I don't see how it can be argued that one should buy food or vaccine that saves a few lives, only so that they can grow up in a world of war, famine, overpopulation, underproduction and corruption. It would be much better if the limited money available were organized centrally to try and fix the underlying problems in their society on a long term basis (like a 10-40 year re-organization plan). After that, we would no longer need to buy food for them, they could arrange that themselves.

In view of this, I just don't see how it can be considered better morality to keep spending money on short term fixes, when so little is done for the real long term ones.


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

1) If everyone follow Singer's arguement, and donated all their available money to buy vaccines and food, we could keep some people from dying today, and we would have to keep spending the money forever to continuously keep people from dying.

2) If on the other hand we let some people die now, while at the same time save up the same amount of money for 10 years, and then start a 10 year collective plan to stop war and corruption and build infrastructure, then after 30 years maybe no one is dying anymore. Maybe on a 50 year scale, fewer people would have died in total.

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

My problem is that it seems to me that Singer's argument indicates that we should always go for scenario one, since there is always another child "infront" of you to be (temporarily) saved, and this just doesn't make sense to me.

[akd_dka]

Earlier, I was having trouble seeing why someone who spends his hard earned money on an unnecessary luxury is being immoral(perhaps unintentionally immoral).
But in the view of limited resources on our planet , I'm beginning to see Singer's arguement.

If a person buys a 15$ shoe and rarely uses it amounts to wastage of natural resources namely the raw materials involved in the shoe. It is true that his 15$ is in circulation.

But had he used that 15$ to provide for vaccinations , then the natural resources used in making that vaccine would be utilised in a better way.

(Had our planet say 100 times the natural resources needed by our population , then perhaps a person buying a 15$ shoe which he doesn't need might not be very immoral.But given our technological advancement the natural resources today hang in a precarious balance.)

As Gandhi said , "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed".

[cobalt124]

If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

Depends on how you do it. It doesn't have to be like that.

It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

It's possible that what Sanger is suggesting could be as well.

Before the industrial revolution, the whole world was in poverty. Average human life span in Europe was 40 years. And Singer wants to go that way, he favors a backward progress towards a pre-industrial era in hopes of solving the world poverty.

We can't go back to that, it's clearly unsustainable with our current populations. I don't see this as sacrificing as much as giving. And the feeling of giving something needed freely is far better than the feeling someone gets from owning a possession. I haven't answered why we don't do this, but a change in perspective on how the problem is seen could help.

[DanP]

Similarly individuals helping each other across the planet in the same way you would help someone in your own street could evolve into a better way of living individual lives and improved conditions for the whole of the world. So I think Sanger has a valid point, on the individual level, and possibly wider.


I dont think such a society can ever evolve into an ESS. It would be too vulnerable to "predator" genes who would simply thrive in such a society.



You are sure society does not cause it? I only ask because your references to science in this thread appear general and don't seem to say much.


Yes. Social forces modulate this behavior, but do not cause it. Biologic factors also modulate it. If you are interested in references, open up a thread
and Ill be glad to share more details.



I don't see this. Am I missing something crushingly obvious?


Yes. Access to females for men for example. There is a great deal of literature in psychology on status as one of the factors in attraction of females toward males. this behavior have been studied well, and it appears to be a universal behavior across all cultures. In effect you have (at least technically), the possibility to produce more offspring. If you consider the fact that humankind is half-way between tournament species and a pair bonding species, and that men are competing on females in the vast majority of cases, you see that status seeking behaviors are highly adaptive.



I am saying only one thing (maybe not very well). This is it. IMO, the stance laid out in the first three sentences can only cause damage, certainly to your surroundings worldwide, and possibly to the individuals who choose that lifestyle. Changing that cannot be imposed, a lot of individuals would have to make a free choice. This is what Sangers question is about, but I belive if that choice was made by enough people, the world would be a better place for it.


Yes, but the choice it is not made by too many humans, the status quo today is highly different of the world you evoke, and I believe it will be for a very long time. You cant be a warrior in every possible war. You have to choose a front :P



It's primarily a choice. I just believe that taking Sangers choice would make us more responsible, but thats just me. Don't remember mentioning anything elective, so i don't know what you mean.


We cant be responsible for everything and everyone. It;s an utilitarian point of view, if you will, but is realistic.


Again, all I see is a vague reference to a scientific notion. Would it be any worse for the vulnerable than the current situation is?


Yes. It wouldn't be in equilibrium.


This seems to put "science before empathy" and I would argue can only be damaging (mainly to the vulnerable).


Sad but true. And is not damaging to the individuals with the power.



And just because things are happening as they are now, doesn't mean they have to or should continue happening like that just because it benefits the people who have made it so (not aimed at you). The reality is the one you choose, it isn't given to you, by nature, for example.


Many "visionaries" where deluded by the same dream you have. That the reality is the one you choose, that humans are a blank slate on which you can write anything.

One was the beloved archkiller Chairman Mao:

On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written, the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Humans are not blank slates. They come with mammalian brains modeled by evolution. With behaviors modulated by our biology.



I was asking whether lifestyle choices are made to protect a perceived status in a group, rather than them being made by a free choice.

What the heck is a free choice ?

Humans come with a part of the brain called the pre-frontal cortex which is one of the latest parts of the brain to evolve, and which appears to be developed completely in a human only about the age of 25. It is implicated in ( among others) in executive decision making, cognitive behaviors , and social behaviors.

This part of the brain offers us a very wide range of decision making and expressing social behaviors. Yet the PFC doesn't not have total overriding capabilities over the limbic system of the brain, the sit of so many interesting behaviors, like sexual behavior, aggression, empathy, fear,reward and instant gratification.

The behavior you exhibit from an executive decision making process will always be modulated by the limbic system of the brain. So no, you do not have "free will" in the absolute religious and philosophical sense. It;s a permanent tug-o-war inside of you, played by various regions of the brain and the ropes are neurotransmitters. What you have is a still is enormous capacity for executive decisions.

Given the neurological connections between the components of limbic system and PFC, it is highly unlikely that free will in it's absolute, philosophical sense, exists. But this doesnt mean that humans are creatures which are genetically determined. No. It only means that biology **modulates** our behaviors.

And if you want to add more to this mess of "free will", you can add the enormous effects of social forces (conformity, compliance, obedience, social identity, cultures of honor) and cognitive biases on modulating behaviors. Free choice:rofl: Yes. >>> The PFC, The nature, The society :P The good, The bad and The ugly.

[turbo]

I think you're trying to assert the possibility that every payment goes to administrative expenses? There will always be some admin expenses. If that is the case then your money is clearing the way for someone elses money to directly help save a child. Still seems worthwhile to me.It is for this reason (low administrative overhead) that my wife and I contribute regularly to the Salvation Army. When they have a new sudden need of support (Katrina, Haiti 'quake, etc) we supplement our annual support with generous individual donations to help jump-start the disaster relief.

The Salvation Army does an incredible amount of good work here at home, but everyone should know that they offer sponsorship programs that allow you to target regions and even individual children all over the world with your money. Rather than respond to the deluge of pleas for money from lots of charities, my wife and I decided that we trusted SA enough to direct all of our human-services/charity donations to them.

We are also supporting members of several environmental-protection/animal-conservation groups, but at a very small fraction (combined) of the contributions to SA. SA is very nice, and they don't deluge you with endless requests for money (those requests cost money and add to overhead). They know that we are regular contributors, and the only time we get an additional plea for help is when they are faced with a natural disaster. That's OK.

[DanP]

TO lighten up the thread, I present

Free will: The Man, The Nature, The Nurture , the Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc&feature=fvsr

[SpeedOfDark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer[/url]
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

You're right and to a decent degree you are right, and there is almost no good excuse and anyone not accepting the fact is a cop-out.

Here's my cop-out, we can't feed the African people for ever there's to many of them and they need BILLIONS of dollars. They lack the resources to cultivate there own crops they can't sustain livestock and their dictator presidents and other warlords are trying to enslave them.

If I pay $5 right now or lets say a real number $1000, I may be able to send a child to school, feed him, and cloth him for lets say 6 1/2 - 8 years once that 8 years is up he's out of the money and things are right back where they started. Besides, if I give $1000 to a child in Africa Americans will probably take half that in some sort of wage to give to and vaccinate the African that I'm giving the money to.

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor. We've already poured waste baskets of money and yet they die everyday when there's a drought their we can't afford the water to keep all of them hydrated.

I know it's also sad, because their people but civilizations in history have been wiped out and seeing as 99% of all species are extinct. While I can, I want to, and I would do everything in my power to help, when time comes mother nature will wipe you out.

[Greg Bernhardt]

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food

I couldn't agree with you more and there are organizations out there you can support who do exactly this.

[turbo]

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor. We've already poured waste baskets of money and yet they die everyday when there's a drought their we can't afford the water to keep all of them hydrated.We need to teach better agricultural processes, and we need to support the distribution of seed of plants that pollinate freely. Allowing money to flow to projects that use GMO seed is counterproductive because farmers can't save their own seed - they are locked into begging for seed year after year. Monsanto is happy. Traditional farmers are screwed.

Next, clean water is not a cut-and-dried problem. When people are displaced through pressures of war, drought, whatever, access to clean water and sustainable sanitation techniques often fail. We don't want to see mass die-offs due to diarrheal diseases, but that's a natural consequence of herding people into places with limited natural resources.

[Pythagorean]

I remember hearing a discussion from aid workers who said that too much money/materials doesn't help a lot if they don't have the human resources to manage it (ie it gets stolen, lost, and wasted).

Their perspective seemed to be that the volunteers were much more valuable than the money.

[waht]

Depends on how you do it. It doesn't have to be like that.


It's possible that what Sanger is suggesting could be as well.

We can't go back to that, it's clearly unsustainable with our current populations. I don't see this as sacrificing as much as giving. And the feeling of giving something needed freely is far better than the feeling someone gets from owning a possession. I haven't answered why we don't do this, but a change in perspective on how the problem is seen could help.


This post was a response to the OP where Singer starts off saying we are all immoral the second you spend your money on unnecessary items in light of the fact there are starving people on opposite side of the globe. In order to save face, and emancipate yourself from such allegations you have to actively give up your wealth until you descent to a poverty level equal to that of those currently in most need.

We have discussed that this just an 'ideal' case, but it set the tone for this thread.

[baywax]

Unless I can deliver the care/cash myself, without a middle "man" in the middle, I don't feel confident in OXFAM or RED CROSS or any of the lesser NGO's abilities to keep their grubby little fingers out of the collection pot and pass 100 percent of the benefit of my cash along to a person in need.

This may be a paranoid reaction on my part but, some of the recent activities that have been reported re: Red Cross, Unicef, etc... have shaken my faith in the motives of the NGO.

So, what to do? Who's to say that Greg has not saved a number of lives already simply by starting this thread? Did that cost 5 dollars a month? No... er... well, lets pretend Greg doesn't own the site... Just stirring up a consciousness of these children and families in dire need is an act that goes a long way toward supporting their survival. I don't have the empirical evidence to back that up but it seem obvious that exposing the conditions, and discussing the people in danger leads to actions that serve to help them.

My choices in purchases can make a difference as well. There are big companies that have the resources to either track their support payments through a third party or make the effort to supply the medical teams or others on their own behalf. I tend to seek out this type of company when making a purchase.

The odd thing is that a buddhist would say that all these at risk people are experiencing karma from an earlier life and would let it go at that... with "compassion". This is the sort of thing that freaks me out about "all knowingness".

There are such simple things we can do or selectively support to change the course of those people in dire straights. For example, the iodine program set up by the Rotary Club here. Just a few really fun, extravagant fund raisers went into funding decades of iodine administration in underdeveloped nations.

[a4mula]

This has nothing to do with wealth or lack thereof. This is a direct referendum on individuality and personal responsibility. By accepting the responsibility of another you are not only robbing them of the ability to provide for themselves, but also the incentive and experience needed next time.

I find it morally repugnant that it would even be implied that it makes one a 'bad' person to allow natural selection to take place. Quite the opposite, I find that it takes a very strong person to set emotions aside and let a population reach equilibrium with both its habitat and social confines.

I also find it beyond hypocritical for the author of the book to make the statements reflected here and then publish a for-profit book. By his very own definition the purchase of said book is non-essential and therefore immoral. How much morality can be found knowingly leading others into such a trap.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I find it morally repugnant that it would even be implied that it makes one a 'bad' person to allow natural selection to take place. Quite the opposite, I find that it takes a very strong person to set emotions aside and let a population reach equilibrium with both its habitat and social confines.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you are then also implying that doctors should not help cure sick people nor should we help people who experience a disaster (flood, volcano, fires). After all we should let natural selection do it's work and not interfere.


I also find it beyond hypocritical for the author of the book to make the statements reflected here and then publish a for-profit book. By his very own definition the purchase of said book is non-essential and therefore immoral. How much morality can be found knowingly leading others into such a trap.

He states he donates 70% of the profit from book sales. The argument is an ideal. It is meant to challenge us in thinking about our obligations to helping those trapped in extreme poverty.

[DanP]

It is meant to challenge us in thinking about our obligations to helping those trapped in extreme poverty.

There is nothing to think of, for there are no obligations. Only options. Not that it's not funny to disagree with Singer on pf.com. Like I said before, it's golden if you help others from 3rd world countries , and it doesn't even matter if you have ulterior reasons or not. The deed remains. But it's not a responsibility of yours , nor an obligation.

[DanP]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you are then also implying that doctors should not help cure sick people nor should we help people who experience a disaster (flood, volcano, fires). After all we should let natural selection do it's work and not interfere.


It is still natural selection, whatever you help them or not. Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

It's flawed to assume that by helping you somehow "interfere with natural selection".

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is nothing to think of, for there are no obligations. Only options.

DanP I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Given the argument I hashed out into the three premises in which I believe you must follow to remain moral. Sure you have the option to not give, but then you are immoral.


It is still natural selection, whatever you help them or not. Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D

[DanP]

Sure you have the option to not give, but then you are immoral.



Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D

Greg, please answer this: With what power, give by who, you judge morality or judge me, (to go personal since you used the "you") as a immoral being ?

Divine ? If you answer yes, I can understand normative morality. Else is a null point, given that we humans judge everything in social context: killing, cheating, exploitation of others (even modern forms) and so on. Remember, we award medals to killers, if the arena happens to be Iraq, Bosnian, Afghanistan and so on. And rightly so, they do deserve those medals.

Society ? As I hinted in this thread, society considers donations optional. Your society and mine would rather buy an iPhone than donate. In descriptive ethics, morality of donations is optional.

Im very interested in your answer. I would like to hear it.


Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D


You and I will be long gone and probably only a subject to the anthropology of the future
when one will be able to say whose side is winning.

[cobalt124]

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones...


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

1) If everyone follow Singer's arguement, and donated all their available money to buy vaccines and food, we could keep some people from dying today, and we would have to keep spending the money forever to continuously keep people from dying.

2) If on the other hand we let some people die now, while at the same time save up the same amount of money for 10 years, and then start a 10 year collective plan to stop war and corruption and build infrastructure, then after 30 years maybe no one is dying anymore. Maybe on a 50 year scale, fewer people would have died in total.

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

So when we are buying our luxuries and driving our SUVs (I have one) and flying around the globe, do we think of any consequences at all? No. So we should be able to give unconditionally where needed and trust that the outcome will be more beneficial and less damaging than what we are doing now.



If a person buys a 15$ shoe and rarely uses it amounts to wastage of natural resources namely the raw materials involved in the shoe. It is true that his 15$ is in circulation.

But had he used that 15$ to provide for vaccinations , then the natural resources used in making that vaccine would be utilised in a better way.

I missed that too. It's less of a matter of trusting that good will come from it than I thought.

I dont think such a society can ever evolve into an ESS. It would be too vulnerable to "predator" genes who would simply thrive in such a society.

Yes. Social forces modulate this behavior, but do not cause it. Biologic factors also modulate it. If you are interested in references, open up a thread
and Ill be glad to share more details.

I think I'll do that, because I'm not convinced that the science should have the emphasis you are giving it, though your last post has caused me pause for thought. Thankyou.

Yes. Access to females for men for example...

Again, I think you are overemphasizing it's importance.

Yes, but the choice it is not made by too many humans, the status quo today is highly different of the world you evoke, and I believe it will be for a very long time. You cant be a warrior in every possible war. You have to choose a front :P

People can choose to consume, they can equally choose to give.




We cant be responsible for everything and everyone. It;s an utilitarian point of view, if you will, but is realistic.

What do you mean by a utilitarian point of view? You wouldn't have to be responsible for everyone, just give where it is needed. You are not responsible for General Motors when you buy an SUV.

To be continued....

[DanP]

Again, I think you are overemphasizing it's importance.


Perhaps :P Perhaps not. Look around you. What do you see ?



People can choose to consume, they can equally choose to give.


And males can choose to cease to want sex. Will it happen ?

[baywax]

Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

It's flawed to assume that by helping you somehow "interfere with natural selection".

On the contrary:

Life began when complex molecules came together in cooperation, to perform the functions that we now consider to be characteristics of life.

Cooperation therefore preceded evolution. We do not have to look to evolution to explain the origin of cooperation. It undoubtedly underwent further development through evolution when different forms of cooperation came into being, but cooperation as a concept is linked to life itself, not to evolution.

Cooperation is a form of goodness, but how prevalent is it in nature? Well, we see cooperation between molecules, between cells, between organs, between organisms, between groups, and between groups of groups. How much cooperation do we need to see before conceding its significance? How blind do you have to be to ignore cooperation as a factor in evolution? And it’s not hard to see that once cooperation was pulled into the evolutionary process and evolved into different forms, that it’s just one small step to altruism in the accepted meaning of the word, that is, kindness for its own sake. One small step that is, when a particular condition is satisfied.

Acts of kindness occur when people (and other animals) see themselves as being part of a greater entity. It is that reality that the advocates for individualism cannot accept. If organisms see themselves as being part of a greater entity, then that’s all that’s needed for group-based trends to appear. And it doesn’t matter what their genes think about it at all!

http://www.science20.com/gadfly/altruism_its_origin_its_evolution_its_discontents

And for some reason unbeknownst to many the altruism shown in an inter-species context apparently supports the survival and well being of all species involved... as is seen in symbiotic relationships like lichen or even between a dog and some kittens.

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/dog_cat_adopt.jpg

[EnumaElish]

I think Singer's brand of humanism is a derivative of the Rawlsian theory of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice), specifically, his concept of the veil of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance_(philosophy)), whereby "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."

Singer makes it more personal and therefore more provocative. Possibly more practical.

To expand a little, imagine the roles in the global society reversed: in this alternative universe, all PF'ers are born as poor, starving children. What would they then consider moral?

[DanP]

On the contrary:



http://www.science20.com/gadfly/altruism_its_origin_its_evolution_its_discontents

And for some reason unbeknownst to many the altruism shown in an inter-species context apparently supports the survival and well being of all species involved... as is seen in symbiotic relationships like lichen or even between a dog and some kittens.

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/dog_cat_adopt.jpg

That article is a funny little written piece which does contain a tautology. None in this world contends that cooperative/competitive behaviors in social species do not influence the chances of producing offspring. Not even Dawkins in his unfortunately named book "The selfish gene"

Genes who give raise to those behaviors will be judged by natural selection, have no doubt about it. Cooperation is advantageous sometime, as are competitive behaviors. An equilibrium is formed.

And if you want to know why a dog can feed a kitten, there are several courses on animal behavior on internet, some from prestigious universities. You'll see is not so impressive.

[DanP]

To expand a little, imagine the roles in the global society reversed: in this alternative universe, all PF'ers are born as poor, starving children. What would they then consider moral?

Hard to answer. Almost impossible.

[baywax]

That article is a funny little written piece which does contain a tautology. None in this world contends that cooperative/competitive behaviors in social species do not influence the chances of producing offspring. Not even Dawkins in his unfortunately named book "The selfish gene"

Genes who give raise to those behaviors will be judged by natural selection, have no doubt about it. Cooperation is advantageous sometime, as are competitive behaviors. An equilibrium is formed.

And if you want to know why a dog can feed a kitten, there are several courses on animal behavior on internet, some from prestigious universities. You'll see is not so impressive.

Regardless of the style in which the article is written it points out that even "natural selection" is a result of cooperation. So that, in this case, natural selection will not determine if cooperation continues to be a dominant requirement in survival but, rather, cooperation or the lack of it will determine whether we continue to survive/evolve or not. Competitive behaviors disregard the opponent while all along the opponent may carry genes or other elements that are beneficial to the survival of the "competitor". It wasn't until recently that the Cro Magnon or "modern man" was thought to have simply wiped out the Neanderthal in "competition" for resources and land. Now it is highly evident that the two species intermingled and exchanged genes and that many people have survived to this day supported by that genetic mix. This sort of "cooperation" has led to the limited survival of the Neanderthal species.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding _with_humans

As for the nurturing instincts of various species... one could easily say these instincts are based in the overall propensity for all matter to "cooperate" with its surroundings.

Its been decades since rich nations started helping the less developed nations. But the disparity continues. That's one thing that makes me think a few "competitive" minds between our giving and the act of helping are slowing medical and educational progress in Africa, Indonesia, India and other stricken peoples.

[DanP]

Regardless of the style in which the article is written it points out that even "natural selection" is a result of cooperation.

Which is a flawed idea, but anyway, it's funny.

[apeiron]

It is still natural selection, whatever you help them or not. Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

Except the difference is that humans are also the product of cultural evolution - memes some call them. And morals are social ideas that can be chosen on the basis of their probable consequences, even if they will still be judged by some environmental "fitness" criteria.

One thing about being human is that we can model and predict, which makes our evolutionary future rather less blind than you imply as "natural" here. We can look ahead and make choices.

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

[alt]

Except the difference is that humans are also the product of cultural evolution - memes some call them. And morals are social ideas that can be chosen on the basis of their probable consequences, even if they will still be judged by some environmental "fitness" criteria.

One thing about being human is that we can model and predict, which makes our evolutionary future rather less blind than you imply as "natural" here. We can look ahead and make choices.

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

I don't think he's posing - I think he's raised some important points. See my next post.

So far as humans being product of cultural evolution, yeah ..

And which animal life form on this planet has killed by far and away the greatest numbers of it own kind (per capita) ?

Cultural evolution at work !

[alt]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter sounds like a commie to me. Think it through.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

Secondly, presuming you feel the same, have you done the same ?

Thirdly and MOST importantly, let us assume for a moment that the wealthy West CAN save the mal nourished, sick, pestilence stricken multitudes - WHAT THEN ?

What is the global population ? Have you seen a population growth chart ? Fairly flat for millenia, and the last couple of centuries almost verticle.

WHAT THEN ? What do those multitudes do ? The reproduce, and for every one you saved, you now have 2, 3, .. pick a number.

WHAT THEN ? You go save them too ?

WHAT THEN ?

Peter's Pipe Dream ends in global catastrophy, nuclear warefare .. canibalism ..

Unless of course, we save 'em, then neuter 'em ..

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

I saw a program recently - about the worst slum in India (forgot it's name, sorry) - people there were happier than most Westeners.

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Pure communist talk ! (not you Greg - Peter)

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Let him first contemplate, let alone answer, the first part of my post, above. Then we can talk more !



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea [/QUOTE]

[alt]

..and just to add, perhaps they (India) can start taking care of themselves first.

Indians are probably the most discriminatory people on earth.

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/georgesept62001.html

``That's the tap for the upper castes. We are not allowed there,'' the 33-year-old Birum says as she sits on the dirt floor making bread on a coal-burning stove. Although water is supplied by municipal authorities, the few public taps in this shantytown of nearly 10,000 people are divided along caste lines. Taps for the lower castes are nearly a half-mile away, and the water barely trickles. Birum is a Dalit, the lowest rank in India's 3,000-year-old caste system, a pernicious practice that discriminates against nearly a fourth of the country's billion-plus population.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Peter sounds like a commie to me. Think it through.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

Secondly, presuming you feel the same, have you done the same ?

Thirdly and MOST importantly, let us assume for a moment that the wealthy West CAN save the mal nourished, sick, pestilence stricken multitudes - WHAT THEN ? ... ... ...

Absolutely none of your comments are important in refuting the main argument which was refined here in this link http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

[alt]

Absolutely none of your comments are important in refuting the main argument which was refined here in this link http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82


My comments refute this ..

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

As far as it goes, it's a nice feely goody statement, but take it to it's logical conclusion, and it isn't.

Are you suggesting that we (the Western World) should give everything other than what is absolutely VITAL to us, to charity so as to save the third world ?

[Greg Bernhardt]

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.


So you're telling me that out of the thousands of charities and billions of dollars they use yearly, no person has ever been helped?

Are you suggesting that we (the Western World) should give everything other than what is absolutely VITAL to us, to charity so as to save the third world ?

The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

[Ivan Seeking]

The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

The Christian tradition is to tithe, or "tenth". The idea being that one should give 10% of their income to either support their church [which presumably provides charitable services], or to help the poor directly.

[ThomasT]

It's been asserted that Singer's appeal to middle class Americans' guilt and the argument in post #82 are flawed, and that the conclusion that it's wrong to not donate to aid agencies given available disposable wealth is untenable.

I replied to your post #113 (my post #114) and haven't seen a reply wrt that from you yet.

A further consideration might be that insofar as giving to aid agencies has the effect of diverting focus from underlying problems and long term solutions (ie. masking the real moral and physical problems contributing to the continued suffering of impoverished people in various regions), then it might be argued that following Singer's moral directive would actually serve to perpetuate the suffering of impoverished people.

I don't feel, and never have felt, compelled to give to aid agencies. So far, your arguments don't persuade. But I'm open to any revision thereof, or a viewpoint that hasn't been considered yet. And there's always the possibility that I've missed something.

[Greg Bernhardt]

You, vis Singer and your logical argument, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

If you are suggesting that a donater must be the one injecting the child with a vaccine, that is absurd.

One example of a fantastic charity is Nothing But Nets http://www.nothingbutnets.net/ Donate $10 and you buy a kid a mosquito net. Every kid needs a net. Even as a tourist in east africa my hotel nets were riddled with holes.


These are global-scale problems that require national and international governmental actions. They're not problems that will be solved by a few aid agencies whether millions of middle class Americans contribute to those agencies or not.

The argument makes no claim to being the solution of the problem.


The 'moral' action Singer is advocating (donation instead of candy bar) is not only not a moral requirement, but it also takes focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. Civic actions that change governments and hence policies.

Please indulge me in how donating more frequently takes the focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. If you think DemRep Congo will all of a sudden change it's policies because they are receiving less aid, think again.


I don't feel, and never have felt, compelled to give to aid agencies. So far, your arguments don't persuade. But I'm open to any revision thereof, or a viewpoint that hasn't been considered yet. And there's always the possibility that I've missed something.

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest

[Greg Bernhardt]

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest

Thomas before I sound too much like a jerk, I want to clarify that there are many other ways to help instead of donating money. So if you do other things, such as volunteering, then great. Volunteering is an even better way.

[ThomasT]

Thomas before I sound too much like a jerk, I want to clarify that there are many other ways to help instead of donating money. So if you do other things, such as volunteering, then great. Volunteering is an even better way.You don't sound like a jerk at all. You sound like an empathetic, compassionate person.

I'm thinking about, and formulating a reply to your previous post.

[DanP]

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

You mean , like you do, Apeiron , as usually ? Empty words ? Give me a break. This is all you are able to produce , empty words. Try harder. I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, lets stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

[ThomasT]

If you are suggesting that a donater must be the one injecting the child with a vaccine, that is absurd.Is it any more absurd than P3? Which says, "By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care ..." . Maybe you can (are), maybe you can't (aren't). You have no way of knowing. The only group that you can be sure that your donation helped is the aid agency itself. And maybe the person making the donation in some emotional way.

The argument makes no claim to being the solution of the problem.I understand. Giving to aid agencies, and feeling good 'enough' about that action, and hence doing nothing wrt civic actions that might contribute to changing governments and hence policies, might actually contribute to the perpetuation of the 'permanent temporary solutions' that are currently the de facto status quo.

Please indulge me in how donating more frequently takes the focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution.It doesn't necessarily, however I suspect that in most cases it does. But Singer's appeal and your argument don't address what might be done to help bring about a lasting solution.

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest.Arguments to emotion aren't going to persuade me that I should give to aid agencies. In any case, they're invalid in the philosophy forum.

[DanP]

Absolutely none of your comments are important in refuting the main argument which was refined here in this link http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

But your whole logic in that post is flawed IMO. I pointed you an issue with the absolutism of good and bad, others pointed you other issues. I put you a personal question which you refused to answer so far, by what power you judge right or wrong , moral, immoral? Divine ? Social ? Personal ?

For none can accept the absolute statements of normative morality, unless they come from God.

[Zarqon]

So when we are buying our luxuries and driving our SUVs (I have one) and flying around the globe, do we think of any consequences at all? No. So we should be able to give unconditionally where needed and trust that the outcome will be more beneficial and less damaging than what we are doing now.


I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this reply to my post. My arguement was meant to refute Singer's statement that we should be morally compelled to donate in order to save any starving child immediately "in front" of you. I think this won't work.

My post was not meant to refute the idea of donating at all, I do agree that we can and should do something. It's just that every dollar spent on temporary solutions like buy food and vaccine for people that will grow up to a very dysfunctional world, without doing anything to fix their world, is a dollar not spent right.

If you follow Singer's argument there is no escaping the fact that you have to go for short term solutions because there's always another child to save. The reason that there is always another child to save, is because we aren't fixing the underlying problem, which is that they can't sustain themselves.



regarding the Rawlsian arguement:
I may seem like a good arguement to say: put yourself in the situation of a starving child and ask yourself, would you want to the world to buy you food? Yes, of course you would, but that does not make it the best way to act! I still advocate that it would be better if we collectively formed a long term plan to really fix their world, rather than keep perpetuating short term solutions, even if it means we have to look the other way if some people die now.

[alt]

So you're telling me that out of the thousands of charities and billions of dollars they use yearly, no person has ever been helped?

No, I'm not. I'm sure people have been helped. What I'm saying, is where do you draw the line, and is helping the third world, en masse, ultimately a good thing. The billions they (charities) use yearly ? OK - double it - triple it. WHAT THEN ? This is the point that's studiously avoided each time such a discussion comes up. WHAT THEN ? Those millions and millions that you have saved and made healthy and well, will reproduce, into an already burgeoning population. You've only shifted the problem a generation or two, and made it double or triple worse. That is, unless you introduce a mass sterilisation program, at which point, you may as well say you've taken over the role of the diety (or natural law, depending ..)


The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

But earlier, you said ..
Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong.

A 60g ipod is also non essential - heck, I honestly have never had any ipod at all, and am doing fine. The $130 dinner I just had with the missuss was non-essential; though very enjoyable. The luxury car I drive is non essential. This web-site is non-essential.

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine, is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

There is something very wrong with HIS proposition though, I reckon !

edited to insert 'dinner' after $130.

[DanP]

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine, is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

There is something very wrong with HIS proposition though, I reckon !

edited to insert 'dinner' after $130.

I think before he judges others based on his views of normative morality and taking a "holier than you" stance through this, Singer should quit his job at Princeton, and go do some up close and personal job in Central Africa. Actually save someone with his hands :P

Then, and only then, you can boost that you saved lives. Else, all can one say is "I had an extremely minor part with my donation to UNICEF to support their action in WahteverCountry which, according to their report, had the following consequences"

Also, Ill quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, criticised Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organisation's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.[41]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".

To mods: Im interesting in how Singer reconciles the two very different stances he has, one in which he seems to justify killing babies, and one in which he basically calls the whole western society immoral because "we do not donate our surplus". This is not an attack to his character.

[alt]

I think before he judges others based on his views of normative morality and taking a "holier than you" stance through this, Singer should quit his job at Princeton, and go do some up close and personal job in Central Africa. Actually save someone with his hands :P

Then, and only then, you can boost that you saved lives. Else, all can one say is "I had an extremely minor part with my donation to UNICEF to support their action in WahteverCountry which, according to their report, had the following consequences"

Look, I must agree. Earlier on I said "Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?"

I haven't read his book, but from what's been posted here it seems that in fairly certain terms, he calls all our spending, other than on essential items, immoral.

That's a very strong, and IMO, offensive accusation, and entitles us to put the spotlight back on HIM, and ask him about ALL of his non-essential spending.

edit - grammar - error in '(un)certain'

[alt]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".


Didn't see that first up - you must have just edited it in.

Wow ! Just .. WOW !

[baywax]

I think the best solution is to facilitate the self sufficiency of all nations.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

(Chinese Proverb)

Some of the programs that install clean water wells in communities are an activity I support along with secular education. This seems the least "enabling" of charities and the least "commie".

[Mkorr]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering. If it is the case that he supports euthanasia, then he most likely does this because it allegedly causes less suffering than being severely disabled and supposedly an act of great mercy. This seems on the surface compatible with the position that not helping poor people is immoral, regardless of the truth of falsity of either of the two positions?

[cobalt124]

Yes. It wouldn't be in equilibrium.

How is that worse for the vulnerable.

Sad but true. And is not damaging to the individuals with the power.

A stance based purely on intellect. And I dispute it is not damaging to the individuals with the power.

Many "visionaries" where deluded by the same dream you have. That the reality is the one you choose, that humans are a blank slate on which you can write anything.

I'm not a visionary. I'm not choosing a reality. I'm saying if individuals give what they can freely, things will improve. I don't see an outcome. Just improvement. Humans can make choices.

One was the beloved archkiller Chairman Mao:

Unfortunately, this is not true. Humans are not blank slates. They come with mammalian brains modeled by evolution. With behaviors modulated by our biology.

Mao achieved nothing in this respect. Individuals have to decide for themselves.

What the heck is a free choice ?

Sloppy language from me here. I meant "rather than being made without regard to protecting a perceived status in a group".

Humans come with a part of the brain ... **modulates** our behaviors.

Not convinced science applies here to the extent you allow it. Hopefully I'll get time to open the thread.

And if you want to add more to this mess of "free will"...

My sloppy again. Don't want a discussion on free will, I don't think that would be very useful in this thread.

TO lighten up the thread, I present

Free will: The Man, The Nature, The Nurture , the Movie

One of my favourite films.

they need BILLIONS of dollars

They need help. Money alone won't do it.

we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor.

Imposing this on people is wrong and won't (isn't) working. Capitalism won't (isn't) saving them. Democracy won't (isn't) saving them. Only individuals can save them.

We've already poured waste baskets of money and yet they die everyday when there's a drought their we can't afford the water to keep all of them hydrated

Maybe we are doing something wrong, for the wrong reasons.

when time comes mother nature will wipe you out.

Maybe we should stop doing it and leave the wiping out to Mother Nature.

I couldn't agree with you more and there are organizations out there you can support who do exactly this.

Monsanto is happy. Traditional farmers are screwed.

An example of a perceived good being done for the wrong reasons.

Their perspective seemed to be that the volunteers were much more valuable than the money.

I believe money alone will never fix it.

[baywax]

I believe money alone will never fix it.

I believe what you do with money can fix/f***up anything.

[EnumaElish]

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering.Does Sophie's Choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie's_Choice_(film)) reduce suffering? I am not going to say that "choosing one child over the other increases total suffering," but does it make an indent? When somewhere, someone is playing God (intentionally or not); are our choices between letting the boy die or letting the girl die?

Formally, what is his metric of utility? If it's maximin, then suffering is not indented a bit as long as one child dies (the worst off). (Unless the child is better off dying? -- which may be his case for euthanesia?) Clearly it's not maximin, but something of an additive function. But, it does seems to exclude "utility from candy." So it's an additive function over a predetermined set of goods ("necessities") and/or a set of individuals ("the starving"); and it ignores questions like "the agony of deciding who is going to die."

[chiro]

I'd be very interested in seeing exactly how much money gets to the intended victims either through infrastructure projects, food, clean water and so on, instead of the money getting lost in so called "administration" and "other" costs.

[Lacy33]

"that a mind without a heart... is nothing. ..."
Memorable quotes for
The Chosen (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082175/quotes?qt1378244

[alt]

I think the best solution is to facilitate the self sufficiency of all nations.



(Chinese Proverb)

Some of the programs that install clean water wells in communities are an activity I support along with secular education. This seems the least "enabling" of charities and the least "commie".

Nations are, by logical extention, self sufficient. Their populations gravitate to a level akin to what their financial or other resources dictate. Interferance with that by way of well meaning charity, only creates dependency, then higher population with more dependency.

Why on earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

[cobalt124]

This post was a response to the OP where Singer starts off saying we are all immoral the second you spend your money on unnecessary items in light of the fact there are starving people on opposite side of the globe. In order to save face, and emancipate yourself from such allegations you have to actively give up your wealth until you descent to a poverty level equal to that of those currently in most need.

Morality doesn't need to be an issue. If we can consume without thinking about the morality/consequences, why can't we give where it is needed. I don't see how that leads us down a worse path than the one we are going down now.

So, what to do? Who's to say that Greg has not saved a number of lives already simply by starting this thread? Did that cost 5 dollars a month? No... er... well, lets pretend Greg doesn't own the site... Just stirring up a consciousness of these children and families in dire need is an act that goes a long way toward supporting their survival. I don't have the empirical evidence to back that up but it seem obvious that exposing the conditions, and discussing the people in danger leads to actions that serve to help them.

This is the issue for me. There is a sense that you don't need to know the ins and outs of outcomes. If you do something good good will come of it. I thinks it's true of PF in general. A good thing done for good reasons with the good outcomes here but not known initially. If a race hate (say) web site was opened, you can guarantee that no good would come from it. So I'm sorry, but in this somewhere is a sense of right and wrong, whether we like it or not, but at the end of the day, only individuals' choices can fix this. Maybe sanger is telling us this.

I find it morally repugnant that it would even be implied that it makes one a 'bad' person to allow natural selection to take place. Quite the opposite, I find that it takes a very strong person to set emotions aside and let a population reach equilibrium with both its habitat and social confines.

There is a difference between nature having its own way, and letting nature have its own way. I don't see this as strong at all.

He states he donates 70% of the profit from book sales. The argument is an ideal. It is meant to challenge us in thinking about our obligations to helping those trapped in extreme poverty.

And none of us want that challenge. I'm only committed to thinking about it at the moment.

and it doesn't even matter if you have ulterior reasons or not. The deed remains.

I would argue that it does matter, money alone does not fix this, and the ulterior motives inherent in the solutions so far tried will mean they will fail (as they are).

It is still natural selection, whatever you help them or not. Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

It's flawed to assume that by helping you somehow "interfere with natural selection".

Yes, natural selection will decide, we can't decide for it.

Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D

Me too!

And males can choose to cease to want sex. Will it happen ?

You can tell me more about that one when I get round to opening the thread.

Hard to answer. Almost impossible.

So when challenging Sanger we get biology, sociology, psychology, we get ESS and Dawkins, albeit very generally. And when challenging Sangers opponents in this thread we get five words. The answer clearly is the moral stance would be far closer to the opposite of the stance taken now.

Its been decades since rich nations started helping the less developed nations. But the disparity continues. That's one thing that makes me think a few "competitive" minds between our giving and the act of helping are slowing medical and educational progress in Africa, Indonesia, India and other stricken peoples.

Agreed.

Which is a flawed idea, but anyway, it's funny.

Glib.

[cobalt124]

One thing about being human is that we can model and predict, which makes our evolutionary future rather less blind than you imply as "natural" here. We can look ahead and make choices.

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

More to think about. I'll reserve my judgement on the posing.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

Sanger isn't asking for sacrifice IMO. He's asking for individuals to give unconditionally, where there is a need.

I saw a program recently - about the worst slum in India (forgot it's name, sorry) - people there were happier than most Westeners.

So it is possible that not giving unconditionally to a need can cause harm, i.e. the possessions make us less happy.

I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, lets stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

Leaving issues like this primarily to science is a very dangerous tack to take.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this reply to my post. My arguement was meant to refute Singer's statement that we should be morally compelled to donate in order to save any starving child immediately "in front" of you. I think this won't work.

Agreed. Moral compulsion won't work. Choosing to give will, IMO, improve the situation.

It's just that every dollar spent on temporary solutions like buy food and vaccine for people that will grow up to a very dysfunctional world

I would say the world is already dysfunctional, and doesn't want to listen.

we aren't fixing the underlying problem, which is that they can't sustain themselves.

The underlying problem could be a dysfunctional world.

even if it means we have to look the other way if some people die now.

For the same reasons that we can't force individuals to give, we can't decide who is to die and when. The idea is to give what you can, freely, to a need. The moral issue then goes away.

Damn, just noticed he's called Singer, not Sanger.

[EnumaElish]

With the possible exception of the U. S., Singer should/must be addressing government spending. In most countries, most "middle class" live almost comfortably but not quite, they are taxed heavily directly and indirectly; they regularly face choices like "heat one more room or buy that textbook for the kid," and there's nary an office party with three times the food that anyone could possibly eat (so they cannot take it leftovers to home). Technically, they don't have much discretionary income, monetary or in "goods." (Discretionary income becomes nonzero above the poverty income, see http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/10/figure/F1, but poverty income does not include textbooks or comfortable heating.)

The remaining course of action for their moral citizenry is to influence their government's spending decision; as in "LHC vs. Africa." That is, in that course of action, giant spending items like the LHC are the easy targets.

[baywax]

Nations are, by logical extention, self sufficient. Their populations gravitate to a level akin to what their financial or other resources dictate. Interferance with that by way of well meaning charity, only creates dependency, then higher population with more dependency.

Why on earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

Included in my definition of a population's self sufficiency is its ability to manage a sustainable population. (And not by way of culling or genocide, fascism or religious persecution, etc...) more by way of a well distributed education system. For instance, in the west (with its mandatory education policies) population growth has slowed

Almost all population growth is in the developing world. As a result of differences in population growth, Europe’s population will decline from 13% to 7% of world population over the next quarter century, while that of sub-Saharan Africa will rise from 10% to 17%. The shares of other regions are projected to remain about the same as today.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html


Here's some further evidence that a developed and somewhat self sufficient nation will manage the growth of its population where a "developing" nation may not have the infrastructure to effect a decrease in growth through better education.

Paige Whaley Eager argues that the shift in perception that occurred in the 1960s must be understood in the context of the demographic changes that took place at the time.[18] It was only in the first decade of the 19th century that the world's population reached one billion. The second billion was added in the 1930s, and the next billion in the 1960s. 90 percent of this net increase occurred in developing countries.[18] Eager also argues that, at the time, the United States recognised that these demographic changes could significantly affect global geopolitics. Large increases occurred in China, Mexico and Nigeria, and demographers warned of a "population explosion," particularly in developing countries from the mid-1950s onwards.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's just rationalizing. I think the original argument still stands in it's ideal state. If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong? Is it because you don't know that child? I think not being able to identify with the victim has a lot to do with it.

Given the context of the discussion, is this immoral?

For only $240 dollars, you can change a child's life.
S95xz6901sw

I do see one problem with the theory of ignorant bliss. I assume you would agree that nearly all mentally healthy people have a basically good nature. No one would want to watch a child drown. But wealthy people who live in impoverished countries usually do ignore the suffering. And the same can be said for Americans who visit those countries. Most people are compelled to give in some fashion, but only to such a level that is comfortable. I've never even met a missionary who gave away 50% of their personal wealth while working with the poor.

In our own country, during the Great Depression, there were plenty of people who turned away starving beggers who knocked on their door. When push comes to shove, "Me and mine" is not a 50/50 option.

[cobalt124]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

[waht]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

Toby is an exception because he doesn't have children. What if every middle class parent were to donates 30% of their salary to charity ahead of their own children, is that ever going to happen?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

There is also the 50% club which the facebook founder just joined
http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-news/peter-singer-on-the-buffett-club-billionaires-behaving-beneficently-or-not/3842

In that link there is also a fun video of when Singer was on the Colbert Show.

[cobalt124]

Toby is an exception because he doesn't have children. What if every middle class parent were to donates 30% of their salary to charity ahead of their own children, is that ever going to happen?

Yes, it may be different in families. For one, if you give significantly it's not going to be an individual choice, it it going to be a family choice. But those discussions wouldn't take place if an individual in a family goes out for a beer, smokes, eats a chocolate bar, drinks coca cola and so on. This is where giving certainly would work, and Singer is asking us to think about this.

[cobalt124]

I believe what you do with money can fix/f***up anything.

Money alone doesn't (hasn't) always fixed anything.

"that a mind without a heart... is nothing. ..."

And potentially dangerous.

[DanP]

H

Not convinced science applies here to the extent you allow it. Hopefully I'll get time to open the thread.




Look, my role is not to convince you that science applies or not. Only you can do that.

[DanP]

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering. If it is the case that he supports euthanasia, then he most likely does this because it allegedly causes less suffering than being severely disabled and supposedly an act of great mercy. This seems on the surface compatible with the position that not helping poor people is immoral, regardless of the truth of falsity of either of the two positions?

Allegedly is the right words. Singer is a monument of hypocrisy. He doesnt hesitate to call the bulk of our society immoral, while at the same time he assumes God like judgment once again, postulating that disabled babies do not have a place on this planet.

The two positions(donate or you are immoral) and (thou shalt kill the disabled children) are irreconcilable IMO.

Why not use money to make more foundations to help disabled children ? OUR children ? Is it better to donate to NGOs which will poor the money god knows where, then save our babies which Singer would not mind to be exterminated ?

[DanP]

The answer clearly is the moral stance would be far closer to the opposite of the stance taken now.


.


You see what you want to see :P

[DanP]

Yes, it may be different in families. For one, if you give significantly it's not going to be an individual choice, it it going to be a family choice. But those discussions wouldn't take place if an individual in a family goes out for a beer, smokes, eats a chocolate bar, drinks coca cola and so on. This is where giving certainly would work, and Singer is asking us to think about this.

And what will you tell to you children when they are 18 and they ask you "mom, dad why is my college fund 1/2 of that of my schoolmate and he gets to go to University X and I cant afford it" ?

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs, instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".

[Antiphon]

Does Singer also believe it is imperative to make war on oppressive governments who induce unnecessary starvation?

[cobalt124]

And what will you tell to you children when they are 18 and they ask you "mom, dad why is my college fund 1/2 of that of my schoolmate and he gets to go to University X and I cant afford it" ?

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs, instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".

If they didn't the response would surely be:

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs go out for a beer, smoke, eat chocolate bars, drink coca cola and so on instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".

[DanP]

If they didn't the response would surely be:

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs go out for a beer, smoke, eat chocolate bars, drink coca cola and so on instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".


Ahh, really funny . You think that:

1. social gatherings with social of family are not necessary. Because, we all know, humans perform well at job / family / whatever when they live like hermits and dont go out at all. No restaurants, no dinners, no beers, no friends. Unfortunately the idea is flawed to the bone, such expenses are not really unnecessary. They do contribute to satisfy the social needs of a human being. Yes, a dinner with your wife, a beer with coworkers friends ...

2. Smoking is an addiction, an ICD most likely. Alcoholism as well.. those ppl needs our help , not to be called immoral by do-gooders

3. Eat chocolate bars: is nutrition non-essential for you ? Can you live with air alone ?

4. Drink Cocal Cola. Again, it's an aliment with a certain nutritional value. What, now Im immoral if I drink Coal to satisfy my requirement of daily CHOs ?

So maybe, just maybe, you may want to find other "unnecessary" items for your list ?

My points stands. Your first and foremost duty is to your kids.

[cobalt124]

Ahh, really funny . You think that:

I do apologise, I wasn't trying to be funny, or sarcastic or anything. That's just how I see it, and that seemed the quickest, most direct way to express it.

1. social gatherings with social of family are not necessary. Because, we all know, humans perform well at job / family / whatever when they live like hermits and dont go out at all. No restaurants, no dinners, no beers, no friends. Unfortunately the idea is flawed to the bone, such expenses are not really unnecessary. They do contribute to satisfy the social needs of a human being. Yes, a dinner with your wife, a beer with coworkers friends ...

Yes, it's to what excess it is done. I don't see it as all or nothing. You saying there is no excess? Just to make sure, this does have to be an individual choice.

2. Smoking is an addiction, an ICD most likely. Alcoholism as well.. those ppl needs our help , not to be called immoral by do-gooders

I don't believe I have accused anyone of being immoral in this thread.

2. 3. Eat chocolate bars: is nutrition non-essential for you ? Can you live with air alone ?

Again it's an issue of excess, and I reckon we could survive nutritionally without chocolate. It's hardly a health product.

4. Drink Cocal Cola. Again, it's an aliment with a certain nutritional value. What, now Im immoral if I drink Coal to satisfy my requirement of daily CHOs ?

Ditto.

So maybe, just maybe, you may want to find other "unnecessary" items for your list ? ?

Crisps, fast foods, cakes.... to excess.

My points stands. Your first and foremost duty is to your kids.

It doesn't, and mine is.

[DanP]

Yes, it's to what excess it is done. I don't see it as all or nothing. You saying there is no excess? Just to make sure, this does have to be an individual choice.


What Im saying is that socialization is a requirement for humans. Second, I cant quantify whatever is there an excess or not. If my restaurant of choice charges 140 on a dinner for two instead of 40something, you cant define that automatically as an excess. You have no idea what makes me feel good, or how much money I can spend on the items you deem "unnecessary". Things are OK as they are now. Some donate, some do not.
You cant call the ones who do not donate immoral. You have no idea about their lives, their plans, their struggles with money. It may look that they are having a lot of unnecessary items, but it's not for you to decide that. Its not for any of us.


Again it's an issue of excess, and I reckon we could survive nutritionally without chocolate. It's hardly a health product.

Ditto.

Crisps, fast foods, cakes.... to excess.


It;s not up for you to decide how much one should eat, you know ? It;s not up to anyone to say "you should eat 1867 kcal/ day, the rest is excess and you should donate".

Besides the argument that "we could survive nutritionally without chocolate" has no place here. For it can be easily generalized "we can survive nutritionally without any specific food". Just get another one :P Which I reckon still will cost money.



It doesn't, and mine is.

5?

[cobalt124]

What Im saying is that socialization is a requirement for humans. Second, I cant quantify whatever is there an excess or not. If my restaurant of choice charges 140 on a dinner for two instead of 40something, you cant define that automatically as an excess. You have no idea what makes me feel good, or how much money I can spend on the items you deem "unnecessary". Things are OK as they are now.?

It's an individual choice.

It;s not up for you to decide how much one should eat, you know ? It;s not up to anyone to say "you should eat 1867 kcal/ day, the rest is excess and you should donate".

I'm not deciding. Is anything I said incorrect?

Besides the argument that "we could survive nutritionally without chocolate" has no place here. For it can be easily generalized "we can survive nutritionally without any specific food". Just get another one :P Which I reckon still will cost money.

I wasn't the one who introduced the nutritional value of chocolate.

[DanP]

It's an individual choice.



Good. Than do you agree that Singer has no case, and he is not to be allwoed to make judgments in the form of a "moral imperative" on hard working citizens who work their asses of for their money ?



I wasn't the one who introduced the nutritional value of chocolate.

No indeed. You was the one who claimed is unnecessary, and later hinted that it is so because "we could survive without it". We could, yeah, but again, noone has anything to say about what Im taking my RDA of CHO from. If it's not chocolate, maybe is an expensive organic labeled food.

[cobalt124]

Good. Than do you agree that Singer has no case, and he is not to be allwoed to make judgments in the form of a "moral imperative" on hard working citizens who work their asses of for their money ?

I've been careful to keep out of that argument, so please do not try to lump me in with it. If individuals make a choice on what Singer is suggesting, I believe it will be for the better. Morality doesn't necessarily have to come into it. I don't see this as being about Singers judgements, just the question he posed.

No indeed. You was the one who claimed is unnecessary, and later hinted that it is so because "we could survive without it". We could, yeah, but again, noone has anything to say about what Im taking my RDA of CHO from. If it's not chocolate, maybe is an expensive organic labeled food.

It is unnecessary. RDA of CHO has nothing to do with the OP, so I won't comment.

[DanP]

This is a nice quote from a Frans de Waal interview:



Q: So do you think we're more bonobo or more chimp?

A: Uh, I usually say that we're both. Is that a good answer? No, you want a choice!

Q: Well, if you had to make a choice.

A: I would say there are people in this world who like hierarchies, they like to keep people in their place, they like law enforcement, and they probably have a lot in common, let's say, with the chimpanzee. And then you have other people in this world who root for the underdog, they give to the poor, they feel the need to be good, and they maybe have more of this kinder bonobo side to them. Our societies are constructed around the interface between those two, so we need both actually.
l

Equilibrium between competitive and cooperative behaviors. It's they key of our society, probably the key of any population of animals in this world.

I believe that the human bonobos should not think of themselves as being better and more righteous than the human chimps. We stay in balance because of both.

[apeiron]

Try harder. I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, lets stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

It's great to see that you now adopt my view that it is all about competition~cooperation in equilibrium. This is the key to understanding the natural logic of morality as you say.

And also that you are an enthusiast for de Waal's work.

I think if we study the primates, we notice that a lot of these things that we value in ourselves, such as human morality, have a connection with primate behavior. This completely changes the perspective, if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bonobo-all-us.html

[DanP]

It's great to see that you now adopt my view that it is all about competition~cooperation in equilibrium. This is the key to understanding the natural logic of morality as you say.


I don't have a problem with your word-view per se. I have issues with some of the conclusions you draw from it.

An example was your attempt to sell oxytocin as anything to do with morality. Or even in this post, that there is a natural logic to morality.

Moral sense IMO requires a fully working theory of mind. You don't get that till pretty late life in your life, probably at about age of 10.

Nature is amoral. Morality doesn't require any existence of a natural logic in morality. You (with the help of the society) can build a "moral sense" from amoral rudiments. Cooperative and competitive behaviors, a theory of mind, emotions.





And also that you are an enthusiast for de Waal's work.

Big fan. But it doesn't mean I chew anything he says. However, I don't have a particular problem with the quote you pasted, since it can be interpreted in many ways, and only god knows what he really meant with it, especially considering the audience of that interview.

Did he meant that we have to tap in our AMORAL resoruces (biological resources) to build a moral sense ? He is damn right, we cant have a theory of mind without a RTPJ to support it. Furthermore , our biology modulates every behavior we have. So what's interesting here ? Nothing.

The moral load of a behavior comes from the social context in which the behavior was executed. It;s descriptive in nature, and reflects the believes and norms of a society at a certain moment in time. It is not normative, moral norms do not come from God, neither do they come from nature. The come from society, and they are not absolute, it's all about context.

Killers can be both heroes and outcasts :P



Second the claim that tapping for morality in our biological resources gives a "different worldview" than the selfish gene theory is flawed IMO.

For it is easy for a "selfish gene" to create an altruistic individual, if by doing so it maximizes the number of its copies in the gene pool.

I think ppl in general are scared shitless of the world "selfish". That Dawkins choose an unfortunate name for his book.

[apeiron]

I You (with the help of the society) can build a "moral sense" from amoral rudiments. Cooperative and competitive behaviors, a theory of mind, emotions.

What is it that makes these rudiments a-moral?

There is a sense in which they are natually right or wrong. They are either biologically functional or they are not. If you are saying right and wrong is defined by some supernatural agency or criteria, then fine. But as soon as you take a stance based on what is natural, then it is semantic quibbling to say there is no right or wrong about it.

However, I don't have a particular problem with the quote you pasted, since it can be interpreted in many ways, and only god knows what he really meant with it, especially considering the audience of that interview.

Oh it doesn't seem difficult to fathom what he is saying. He says what we humans call moral behaviour has its clear roots in the biology of social animals. And that the selfish gene school of thought, which attempts to reduce global behaviours to the atomised statistics of gene counts, is - nasty.

moral norms do not come from God, neither do they come from nature. The come from society, and they are not absolute, it's all about context.

Sociology just repeats biology here. As you say (or as I said), evolution drives species to a suitable equilibrium balance of competitive and cooperative behaviours. The balance is fine-tuned and not just plucked out of the air. It happens in animals with genetic evolution, and has happened again in humans with memetic evolution.

Amoral is a term that was invented to describe the aberrant individual - the one with unnatural behaviours. Usually an immaturity, psychopathology, or socialisation issue would be the cause.

Your thesis is that reality has no morality. The universe couldn't care. So humans invent rules and play by them - for no particular reason.

Yet it is just so obvious that both on a biological level, and a sociological one, there is a fine-tuning of behaviours for functionality. There is a 'right' way to live. Even if it does require the juggling of apparently conflicting impulses like competition and cooperation. That is one reason why social creatures have large brains. To juggle these alternatives well.


Killers can be both heroes and outcasts :P

:uhh: Posing again hey? Or can you source a study that explains the variables involved.

[DanP]

What is it that makes these rudiments a-moral?

There is a sense in which they are natually right or wrong. They are either biologically functional or they are not.




Killing is biologically functional. Hence right, after your theory and because it's naturally right, it is moral. An interesting point of view you present here. I think now I slowly start to fathom what school of thought Singer may have followed when he advocated its moral to kill disabled babies. Just kidding .

This is not some unimportant semantic, as you always try to downplay it. It's fundamental.

I have no problem accepting your wild speculations, but then we must call each behavior who in any way whatsoever contributes to an equilibrium moral.




Oh it doesn't seem difficult to fathom what he is saying. He says what we humans call moral behaviour has its clear roots in the biology of social animals. And that the selfish gene school of thought, which attempts to reduce global behaviours to the atomised statistics of gene counts, is - nasty.


This is what you want to see, or perhaps you had a long correspondence with him or had some beers and he confirmed this sense of it.



Amoral is a term that was invented to describe the aberrant individual - the one with unnatural behaviours. Usually an immaturity, psychopathology, or socialisation issue would be the cause.


A thesis, with no support in reality IMO. Amorality, or moral nihilism, is a strong and perfectly valid current in philosophy. It represents the point of view that

Morality may simply be a kind of make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that represents nothing real and is seen as a human creation[1] p. 292

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

Now I can understand if you prefer to call those ppl sick, psychopaths, or whatever else. And if you want to extend those diagnostics to utilitarians as well, whp take it even further, and argue that killing innocents is not always wrong. In a way, they put the ethical load in context, exactly like I do. Singer himself argues that killing innocents is not always wrong.

But Ill have to disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with Singer, IMO.


Your thesis is that reality has no morality. The universe couldn't care. So humans invent rules and play by them - for no particular reason.


Yes, the universe couldn't care less. Do you have a different point of view ? I don't get exactly what you are trying to say here. You claim that there is a purposeful design and that the universe "cares" ?

Also I didnt said that the moral rules are invented for no particular reasons. I said that behaviors are largely amoral. Killing is neither right or wrong. It's the social context which gives the ethical load. And so humans have established a rule that killing your neighbor is wrong. And another one that killing in self-defense the one who enters your house is right. And another one that killing "others" in wars to protect one's way of life is not only right, it makes you a hero. Same in the streets of your city, if you have a badge and the victim is one of the bad guys. And a very gray rule that killing somebody in an accident is not so bad, and should be "forgiven". And another rule that killing animals to feed yourself is OK. But yet another particular rule that killing your dog to eat it is not OK :P But then the Chinese ppl came and they said its right to kill your dog and eat it.

Without a theory of mind, humans are unable to make moral judgments on others. You don't get that from "nature". You get it from the social context. This is the one of the biggest problems your theory has.

So yeah, go ahead and prove it to the world, for the burden of proof is on you.



Yet it is just so obvious that both on a biological level, and a sociological one, there is a fine-tuning of behaviours for functionality. There is a 'right' way to live. Even if it does require the juggling of apparently conflicting impulses like competition and cooperation. That is one reason why social creatures have large brains. To juggle these alternatives well.


And it just happens, the right way to live is the one you long to see coming to life :P


:uhh: Posing again hey?

What are you, like 5 years old Apeiron ?

[cobalt124]

I believe that the human bonobos should not think of themselves as being better and more righteous than the human chimps. We stay in balance because of both.

Its about doing something that will make things better, not being better. Though we probably differ on what better means here.

"if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years."

This sounds more like it. Morality from our biology. Which doesn't mean biology takes precedence over morality. Same with sociology and psychology.

[DanP]

This sounds more like it. Morality from our biology. Which doesn't mean biology takes precedence over morality. Same with sociology and psychology.

The problem with that is very simple. You cant make any moral judgment without a theory of mind.

The theory of mind is not developed in a human until the age of 10. The PFC is not completely myelinated till the the age of 25. The implications are simple, those parts of the brain are heavily modeled by social interactions.

It is absurd to postulate a moral sense arising from biology. Our behaviors are modulated by biology. They are later subjected to moral judgments, and ALWAYS judged within the social context. It's all about social context.

[alt]

Its about doing something that will make things better, not being better. Though we probably differ on what better means here.

"if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years."

This sounds more like it. Morality from our biology. Which doesn't mean biology takes precedence over morality. Same with sociology and psychology.

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

[DanP]

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

Maybe it "feels right", therefore it must be true? The noble thing to do. Romantic ideas like Rousseau's "Noble Savage" utopia. That humans are pure , noble creatures, and it is our society which corrupted the hearts of men, and we have but to choose and we will return to the natural state of bliss :P

[cobalt124]

You cant make any moral judgment without a theory of mind.

If you really believed that you wouldn't get so emotive about Singers moralising. You would just state he doesn't have a theory of mind. End of discussion. Unless I misunderstand you.

The theory of mind is not developed in a human until the age of 10. The PFC is not completely myelinated till the the age of 25. The implications are simple, those parts of the brain are heavily modeled by social interactions.

Sorry, I'm missing your point here.

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

If you give something freely where there is a need I believe it can only do good. The situation you describe may be being caused by witholding things that are needed, for example, as has been stated in this thread, education.

Maybe it "feels right", therefore it must be true?

Given up on morality and started on feelings? In this thread, I haven't invoked morality or feelings. I don't need to.

[disregardthat]

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality. If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong. This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

[DanP]

If you really believed that you wouldn't get so emotive about Singers moralising. You would just state he doesn't have a theory of mind.


It seems to me that you are falling for emotive arguments. It's OK, but not really important here. Do you even understand what psychology calls "theory of mind" ? It's role in performing moral reasoning ? I frankly doubt it. Else you wouldn't emit such absurd statements like the one bolded.

Do you realize that Singer is performing moral reasoning, no matter if he concludes that we must donate to poor, euthanize disabled babies, or simply concluding that is not always wrong to kill an innocent being ? That the prerequisite of this kind of reasoning and attributing the immoral quality to someone based on this reasoning is a fully developed theory of mind ? Apparently not.


End of discussion.


What? You think you’re some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that?

Get a grip. You can retire from the thread at any moment you desire, but you dont get to say when a discussion has ended. :devil:



Given up on morality and started on feelings? In this thread, I haven't invoked morality or feelings. I don't need to.

I wasn't talking with you, I was talking with Alt :P

[DanP]

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality. If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong. This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

It can be a utilitarian PoV, much like Singer himself utilizes to justify abortion. Note that Singer simply attacks the statement usually used by right to live activists "It is wrong to kill an innocent human being". He argues that it is not necessarily wrong to kill a innocent a human being. Interesting from a man who judges the rest of the humankind for the fact it does not donates to the poor, but nevertheless, utilitarian philosophy is valid, and mainstream in philosophy of morality and ethics :P

[Payton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q95kX_EP2Nk

[alt]

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality.

Then don't pontificate morality to me. And cynicism is a good thing I would have thought - why, this site has abundant cynism of many things, as well it should. But what did you find twisted ?

My experience in life has been that taking short term / long term, and micro / macro consequences into account, is alway a worthwhile, indeed an essential, thing to do. The most successful individuals, corporations, governments, do it.

If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong.

It has been a consequence of natural selection / law, since as far back as you care to look, that life forms HAVE starved when resources ran out - a self balancing system.

In fact, I don't think I've even said that we should leave people to starve. I have posed a few questions, that neither you nor anybody else, have attempted to address. As unpalitable as they might be, they need to be addressed.

What is horribly wrong about contemplating the fact that if you save and make comfortable a large number of people, they will reproduce and present the next generation with a two or three fold problem ?

A problem that your next generation can ameliorate only through a two or three fold increase in such charity, or mass sterilisation ?



This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

I don't quite understand you last sentence.

edited - 1st line changed for clarification.

[alt]

If you give something freely where there is a need I believe it can only do good.

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely where it is need can only do bad.

[cobalt124]

What? You think you’re some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that?
Get a grip. You can retire from the thread at any moment you desire, but you dont get to say when a discussion has ended.

That was meant to be end of "emoting".

[cobalt124]

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely where it is need can only do bad.

Presumably in the question you asked. Maybe so. Individuals consume without thinking through the consequences, why would unconditional giving without thinking through the consequences make the current situation worse?

[alt]

Presumably in the question you asked. Maybe so. Individuals consume without thinking through the consequences, why would unconditional giving without thinking through the consequences make the current situation worse?

Cobalt124, I have a little difficulty in understanding your sentences (probably my fault). If your last couple of lines (underlined) refer to the unconditional giving of charity, please read my points in my previous posts. I've made them often enough - I can't just keep making them.

If not, that's OK too.

[apeiron]

This is what you want to see, or perhaps you had a long correspondence with him or had some beers and he confirmed this sense of it.


Your post is too filled with bad logic to be worth arguing. But de Waal clearly does not support your way of thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all

Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.

Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.” The building blocks of morality are not nice or good behaviors but rather mental and social capacities for constructing societies “in which shared values constrain individual behavior through a system of approval and disapproval.” By this definition chimpanzees in his view do possess some of the behavioral capacities built in our moral systems.

“Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

[DanP]

Your post is too filled with bad logic to be worth arguing.

So all are your posts in this thread, but yeah, thanks for giving up. Im tired to see emotional posts in which one or another longs for morality to come from God, or Nature but they are unable time and again to produce the slightest proof. God forbid moral norms are man made conventions, they yell. Blasphemy ! Proof man, proof. You can silence me once for ever on the subject if you produce scientific proof.


As for de Waal's opinion that most of the biologists share the impression that selfish genes give raise to selfish individuals, this is largely false. I didn't met a single one in my life who could be tricked by this, and who embraced this point of view. Most of them (All to whom I talked) clearly seen that a selfish gene can give raise to cooperative individuals.


Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.”


This pretty much means that killing ppl somewhere in Middle East is moral, and also that buying an iPhone instead of donating to the poor is also moral.

[apeiron]

Im tired to see emotional posts in which one or another longs for morality to come from God, or Nature but they are unable time and again to produce the slightest proof. God forbid moral norms are man made conventions, they yell. Blasphemy ! Proof man, proof. You can silence me once for ever on the subject if you produce scientific proof.


Again you are demonstrating a failure to be able to focus on what is being argued.

You say ethics is pragmatic and utilitarian. And what could be more based on utilitarian principles than evolution?

If morals are "just" conventions, rather than based on sound functional principles like actively balancing competitive and cooperative behaviours, we should expect to see persistent moral codes that do not conform to this evolutionary imperative.

And secondly, if competition~cooperation is a key balance to be struck here (which you now appear to accept), then logically we would expect that it would apply wherever evolutionary forces are at work. So it should apply at the biological level (as is abundantly evident), and also at the sociological level (as again it does).

Humans really have no choice but to develop moral codes which efficiently negotiate between competitive and cooperative behaviours.


As for de Waal's opinion that most of the biologists share the impression that selfish genes give raise to selfish individuals, this is largely false. I didn't met a single one in my life who could be tricked by this, and who embraced this point of view. Most of them (All to whom I talked) clearly seen that a selfish gene can give raise to cooperative individuals.

Where did you get the impression de Waal was saying most biologists believe this? I am now beginning to believe you when you say you just cannot work out what he even means to say in quite straightforward quotations. I thought you were just trying to ignore the fact he contradicts your arguments.

If you have read the article you cited, de Waal was talking about the religious idea that humans are cursed by original sin. Christianity (taking its theology from Plato's tripartide theory of mind) tries to separate man from nature (so the higher part becomes godly).

A scientist of course is concerned with putting humans back into nature. So this is why it is important to show that human morality is completely natural. It is neither god-given, nor some arbitrary convention. It is all about functional behaviour, evolved behaviour.

Of course genes can underwrite cooperative norms. That is de Waal (and my) point. And culture clearly does too.

But I am sure you will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what has been said. You don't appear to have a coherent worldview here and so you keep making self-contradictory statements. Then getting all huffy when this is pointed out. :P

[DanP]

Again you are demonstrating a failure to be able to focus on what is being argued.


Actually you are self-blinding yourself.


You say ethics is pragmatic and utilitarian. And what could be more based on utilitarian principles than evolution?


Peter Singer ? :devil:


If morals are "just" conventions, rather than based on sound functional principles like actively balancing competitive and cooperative behaviours, we should expect to see persistent moral codes that do not conform to this evolutionary imperative.


And we do. The moral codes stipulates "you should not kill". No moral code I seen says "You should not kill, but there are exceptions: you can kill the "others" as a soldier when your group wants resources or territorial control" , or a code which says "Its ok to buy iPhones when "the others" are starving"

The reality is that we do kill each other all the time. As it's expected from the evolutionary imperative you quote. We do it accordingly to in group / out group paradigms. We do it in wars for resources and territorial control. For raising to status. We exhibit highly cooperative behaviors when we decide to go and kill "the others". We learned to cooperate
to the end of exercising aggressive behaviors. But, btw so did chimps. They are also very happy to gang together to kill all the males from the colony in the next valley.

The reality is that we buy iPhones and "the others" do starve. Those are facts. Not philosophical babbling.

One of the reasons we need law enforcement is because all this babbling about how morality and moral codes are evolved doesn't hold any water. You know why humans are nicer than chimps ? Because we invented police and efficient weapons to keep each other at bay. A equilibrium situation. Not because we evolved to be moral creatures.



Humans really have no choice but to develop moral codes which efficiently negotiate between competitive and cooperative behaviours.


So you agree that humans developed moral norms ?






A scientist of course is concerned with putting humans back into nature. So this is why it is important to show that human morality is completely natural. It is neither god-given, nor some arbitrary convention. It is all about functional behaviour, evolved behaviour.


And this is why for some showing that morality is completely natural became an obsession, to the point it reassembles a new religion. Because some long to see their philosophical ideas supported by science. It is IMPORTANT to be true, as you so willingly say. Like it is important for Vatican to make sure all beleive there is a God. The difference between this and conventional religious dogma is replacement of God word with Nature word.



But I am sure you will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what has been said. You don't appear to have a coherent worldview here and so you keep making self-contradictory statements. Then getting all huffy when this is pointed out. :P

While at the same time you see everywhere omens and portents of your theory. To the point you almost blinded yourself to social factors. It's weird how you switch from hardcore all out social psych when it suits your theories, to an all out evolutionary psych and neurobiology when it other theories of yours. So much for your coherence.

[apeiron]

The reality is that we buy iPhones and "the others" do starve. Those are facts. Not philosophical babbling.

Can you really so miss the point of the thread? These are new behaviours - both being able to buy iPhones, and to actually know people are starving way out of sight. So given this new situation, we need to evolve the right functional behaviour. And to be able to do this, it would really help to be "scientific" - to have a sound model. If we know that what we want to achieve is to strike the usual balance between competition and cooperation, then we can actually now apply a broad theory of utility.


And this is why for some showing that morality is completely natural became an obsession, to the point it reassembles a new religion.

It is simply being scientific. Joined up thinking.

[DanP]

Can you really so miss the point of the thread? These are new behaviours - both being able to buy iPhones, and to actually know people are starving way out of sight. So given this new situation, we need to evolve the right functional behaviour. And to be able to do this, it would really help to be "scientific" - to have a sound model. If we know that what we want to achieve is to strike the usual balance between competition and cooperation, then we can actually now apply a broad theory of utility.


I guess then for you ganging up an Army against another to control territory and resources is also a new behavior . Perhaps one dating back to the moment Steve Jobbs unveiled the first iPhone ? Give me a break.
You also completely miss the fact that the iPhone is a simple status signal, and status seeking behaviors are as old as humanity. Before iPhone , it was something else. And after iPhone4 it will be something different.
And for that matter, that it was always someone starving in society. And whats sad is, that it didn't even need to be "far away". It could be right outside the area where the dominant class enjoyed their status.






It is simply being scientific. Joined up thinking.

You claim it is. Science will have to produce more proof that philosophical babbling.

[apeiron]

I guess then for you ganging up an Army against another to control territory and resources is also a new behavior . Perhaps one dating back to the moment Steve Jobbs unveiled the first iPhone ? Give me a break.
You also completely miss the fact that the iPhone is a simple status signal, and status seeking behaviors are as old as humanity. Before iPhone , it was something else. And after iPhone4 it will be something different.
And for that matter, that it was always someone starving in society. And whats sad is, that it didn't even need to be "far away". It could be right outside the area where the dominant class enjoyed their status.


Again, merely a jumble of disconnected and unsourced remarks that do not address the argument.

Why would I be concerned with historical adaptive balances when the subject is new ones?

What difference does it make if the iPhones are status markers when the subject is the morality of how you divide your personal resources?

If people allowed people to starve in plain sight in the past, then this is only relevant if it can be properly sourced as a claim and then the reasons modelled.

Are you beginning to see how reasoned argument unfolds? :P

A structured approach to understanding is one that can keep levels of explanation properly separate.

So for instance - something that has been a continuing problem with your responses - there is the question of what is morality qua the "uncaring" universe versus the question of morality qua "caring" evolution. Different levels of context, different kinds of answers.

Instead your approach to debate is to invent crazy statements for those who are frustrating you - such as because one situation is new, then all situations are new.

It would be good practice for when you go to college to try and marshall a structured argument here. Starting with the question of do you believe human morality is completely constrained, partially constrained, or wholy unconstrained by evolutionary logic?

Have a go at a clear statement on this. Having regard for the scientific evidence provided by the likes of de Waal.

[DanP]

It would be good practice for when you go to college to try and marshall a structured argument here. Starting with the question of do you believe human morality is completely constrained, partially constrained, or wholy unconstrained by evolutionary logic?


It would be a good practice for when you go to college to limit yourself to scientific evidence, instead of empty speeches. Unless yeah, if you will go one day to study philosophy, then you can talk all day long. But to respond your question: our neurobiology modulates behaviors. Including what you call moral behaviors. (cooperation / competition) and which I dont agree they are "moral".I believe they have nothing to do with morality. Modulates is key word here. They are neutral, and only the social context in which they are executed gives them an ethical load. Anyone who claims an all out origin of morality in nature is deeply misguided IMO, even if I accept your defi9ntion of morality.


Have a go at a clear statement on this. Having regard for the scientific evidence provided by the likes of de Waal.

Sure. Present the scientific evidence of your claims, that "morality is completely natural" and Ill be more than happy to do what you ask. I don't care if you present de Waal's work or anybody else, but you need to present papers which support your claims. But please, not Oxytocin papers again.

If you dont know where to start to look from those papers, may I suggest you "The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology" Jonathan Haidt's Science 316, 998 (2007)? It will get you started in finding more and more papers on moral psychology. You will find out that the ppl at the top of their field are much more cautious than you when claiming an all out, complete, origin of morality in nature. And still, an enormous quantity of the speculation regarding morality are completely unproven yet in a scientific way. There are tones of research which need to be done. So far, all is speculation. Find proof for what is discussed in Haidt's paper , and you are all set.

[apeiron]

Modulates is key word here. They are neutral, and only the social context in which they are executed gives them an ethical load. Anyone who claims an all out origin of morality in nature is deeply misguided IMO, even if I accept your defi9ntion of morality....
....may I suggest you "The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology" Jonathan Haidt's Science 316, 998 (2007)?

This is yet another example where you cite people who directly contradict your stances. Haidt is in fact far more "biological" than me.

Saying that people are wired at a reflexive level for "bodily and spiritual purity and the importance of living in a sanctified rather than a carnal way" is for instance the kind of thing I'm sure would rankle with you - given how you are always talking about the way you like to "hit on" girls :P.

Anyway, Haidt's analysis is a start but far too simplistic. There are two major mis-steps he makes. The first is to drive a wedge between affective and cognitive reponses. This is old cogsci thinking where input is followed by output. And the second is trying to reduce all the evolutionary information to genetics (what I mean by too biological). In humans, the evolutionary change is also happening at the sociocultural level.

But that is to take the debate to a more detailed place. It seems that you think things like "modulation" is "neutral". Which drops us back into the impenetrable thickets of your logical inconsistencies. There is no hope of a structured argument if you cannot see the contradictions in the very language you use.

[DanP]

This is yet another example where you cite people who directly contradict your stances. Haidt is in fact far more "biological" than me.



I pointed you to that paper not to consolidate my position, but to give you an idea where to start searching for papers which may support your point of view. A friendly gesture of help. Please do that, and when you have found scientific proof , present it. Remember, not empty words again, proof in the form of a scientific paper that morality is all out natural.




Anyway, Haidt's analysis is a start but far too simplistic. There are two major mis-steps he makes. The first is to drive a wedge between affective and cognitive reponses. This is old cogsci thinking where input is followed by output. And the second is trying to reduce all the evolutionary information to genetics (what I mean by too biological). In humans, the evolutionary change is also happening at the sociocultural level.

But that is to take the debate to a more detailed place. It seems that you think things like "modulation" is "neutral". Which drops us back into the impenetrable thickets of your logical inconsistencies. There is no hope of a structured argument if you cannot see the contradictions in the very language you use.

That's all nice, but as usual you are unable to produce anything at all to support your claims, except words and words and words. Ill take anything you have. Except more empty words. Just post a list of peer reviewed papers which prove that morality is all natural and Ill take my time to go through all of them in the next several weeks.

The problem with you is that you can't or won't produce the evidence you claim to exist. Just do it already. You are not worth listening to without those papers.

[apeiron]

I pointed you to that paper not to consolidate my position, but to give you an idea where to start searching for papers which may support your point of view. A friendly gesture of help. Please do that, and when you have found scientific proof , present it. Remember, not empty words again, proof in the form of a scientific paper that morality is all out natural.
.

Why would you argue for one thing and present evidence for the other? Doesn't really ring true does it. Either you didn't read or didn't understand what Haidt said, similar to the way you cited de Waal and then had to back away hastily.

And the burden of proof is the other way round here (being a science forum and all). If you can cite examples of moral codes that are at base un-natural, then let's hear it. Sure, not everyone or every society is perfectly adapted, but that too is part of the natural view.

Just post a list of peer reviewed papers which prove that morality is all natural and Ill take my time to go through all of them in the next several weeks.

Why would I need to when you keep doing that for me :P. Why not now go through Haidt at your leisure and consider the evidence he presents. He says even religious experience and proscriptions against carnality have a genetic basis so far as he is concerned. Pretty extreme, eh.

As I said, I think Haidt is much too simplistic. But at least his words aren't immediately self-contradictory. He presents a logical argument.

[DanP]

Why would you argue for one thing and present evidence for the other? Doesn't really ring true does it. Either you didn't read or didn't understand what Haidt said, similar to the way you cited de Waal and then had to back away hastily.


I simply came to the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about and pointed you at some papers which contains ideas like yours, and asked you to present proof for their claims. A good conclusion, since besides an oxytocin paper you was unable to post on this board anything at all to support your theories. I specifically asked you to <<Find proof for what is discussed in Haidt's paper , and you are all set. >> .



As I said, I think Haidt is much too simplistic. But at least his words aren't immediately self-contradictory. He presents a logical argument.

More words. Exactly what I came to expect from you. You are unwilling to post any papers to support your claims. I guess from a very simple reason, either you have no idea where to look for them, either they don't exist. At this point, both ring equally plausible to me.

[apeiron]

You are unwilling to post any papers to support your claims. I guess from a very simple reason, either you have no idea where to look for them, either they don't exist. At this point, both ring equally plausible to me.

But its you who said...

Equilibrium between competitive and cooperative behaviors. It's they key of our society, probably the key of any population of animals in this world.

So how can you now turn around and disclaim this position?

Nothing you say ever adds up. At every turn you contradict yourself.

Sometimes you make statements consistent with moral nihilism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Other times you seem to go along with ethical naturalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

But anyway, despite your doubts, the science of morality is a busy field - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Perhaps you can read these pages and work out just what you believe so future discussions are not so riddled with self-contradiction. :P

[DanP]

So how can you now turn around and disclaim this position?


Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?



Perhaps you can read these pages and work out just what you believe so future discussions are not so riddled with self-contradiction. :P


Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

[apeiron]

Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?

So why do they feature so strongly in Haidt's article on moral psychology? What on earth are you talking about?


Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

I'm waiting for you to address the evidence you yourself posted. Haidt says...

Extending a theory from cultural psychologist Richard Shweder (40), Jesse
Graham, Craig Joseph, and I have suggested that there are five psychological foundations, each with a separate evolutionary origin, upon which human cultures construct their moral communities (41, 42). In addition to the harm and fairness foundations, there are also widespread intuitions about ingroup-outgroup dynamics and the importance of loyalty; there are intuitions about authority and the importance of respect and obedience; and there are intuitions about bodily and spiritual purity and the importance of living in a sanctified rather than a carnal way.

So what is it exactly that you dispute about Haidt's analysis?

You can find the longer version of his argument here...
http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf

Haidt lays out five different moral intuitions and the relevant evidence. Now tell us how he is wrong.

[DanP]

What on earth are you talking about?


What on earth are you talking about ? I asked you to present proof on your statements. I told you once, find proof for Haidt;s points (or yours for that matter ) and you are all set, no one will be able to contest anymore that morality is a Nature's given gift.


Just doit already. Or admit that you have nothing to show, save for speculations. Haidt also have no evidence, he claims evolutionary origins, but he unfortunately cant prove that. You go now and find that proof, then come back and post it.

[apeiron]

find proof for Haidt;s points

But he supplies that himself in his articles. So what on earth are you on about?

[DanP]

But he supplies that himself in his articles. So what on earth are you on about?

he doesnt. He speculates.

[DanP]

de Waal (1996) suggests that a building block of human morality visible in chimpanzees
is the desire for peace and harmony within the group.

Is this a "desire" for pace of harmony, or a cold consequence of the fact that in chimps females leave the group at puberty, wile related males remain in the group ? Hence in-group fighting is drastically reduced, while violence toward out groups sky rockets ? Lets not forget, the chimps invented the "army" with their border patrols, and a rudimentary form of genocide. Species like baboons where males leave the groups at puberty ,
are riddled by insane in-group fighting for dominance.


We think this desire is related to the ingroup foundation: group-living creatures prefer (have an innate valuation of) harmony within the cooperative groups upon which they depend both for material sustenance and intergroup defense.


Sure we do. but it has nothing to do with morality. It's reciprocal altruism, in its most cold biological sense. Everything they claim to be the result of "desire for hramony, morality, whatever ", can be explained through the selfish gene theory. A theory which also explain pretty well why we compete for status, why we cheat on each other, why the average duration of a marriage is so small in the western world, why we buy IPods, why many humans dont really care that others are starving, why humans are able to switch allegiances so easy, why Zimbardo seen what he seen in the so called "Stanford Prison experiment", why we need law enforcement and courts of law, even why we sometimes do apparently perplexing acts like giving a substantial tip to a stranger we will never seen again in our lifes.

There is no need to postulate innateness of morality.


We find this desire in ourselves: we are a part of the community of
morality researchers that has long been divided on the question of moral innateness.


Small wonder. This will be like the differences between conservatives and liberals, an ongoing battle with no conflict resolution in sight.


This makes us uncomfortable, for we really like and value the many members of our
community, and we have tried, in this essay, to show how all are right about something,
all have something to contribute.


I like you too Apeiron.


We propose that some degree of harmony and synergy
can be restored if most morality researchers were willing to endorse this statement: the
first draft of the moral mind has diverse moral content that was specified in advance of
experience, but this innately given content gets revised and greatly extended during the
course of development as children actively construct their moral knowledge within a
cultural context that uses narrative to shape and guide the development of specific
virtues.


Or they can embrace the point of view that morality is man made, that evolutionary behaviors have no moral bearing, that only the social context gives them an ethical load, and that kids acquire their "moral sense" slowly from developmental experiences, and a functional moral judgment ability only once they develop a full theory of mind. It would restore the harmony as well :P


Is anyone ready to celebrate with us?


Not quite yet.

All quotations are from Haidt's morality paper http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf.

[cobalt124]

Alt asked if somebody could comment on his/her questions:

Peter sounds like a commie to me

How is Peter Singer a communist?, not that it has anything to do with the OP.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given
proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

No.

Secondly, presuming you feel the same, have you done the same ?

I don't see it as a moral issue, or necessary to have feelings about it. I believe Singers suggestion can reduce suffering.
Have I done the same? No.

Thirdly and MOST importantly, let us assume for a moment that the wealthy West CAN save the mal nourished, sick, pestilence stricken multitudes - WHAT THEN ?

At the very least, the west, its governments and its peoples could do way more than what we are doing now.

What is the global population ? Have you seen a population growth chart ? Fairly flat for millenia, and
the last couple of centuries almost verticle.

WHAT THEN ? What do those multitudes do ? The reproduce, and for every one you saved, you now have 2, 3, .. pick a number.

WHAT THEN ? You go save them too ?

WHAT THEN ?

Resources are finite, so education and population control would be required, or we just let things ride as they are.

Peter's Pipe Dream ends in global catastrophy, nuclear warefare .. canibalism ..
Unless of course, we save 'em, then neuter 'em ..

How about we move away from the "them and us" mentality which causes suffering.

I saw a program recently - about the worst slum in India (forgot it's name, sorry) - people there were
happier than most Westeners.

Why do you think they were happier?

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to
save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years,
the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a
movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Pure communist talk ! (not you Greg - Peter)

Seems a straightforward question.

Indians are probably the most discriminatory people on earth.

Discrimination anywhere ("them and us"?) will get in the way of saving lives and reducing suffering.

Are you suggesting that we (the Western World) should give everything other than what is absolutely VITAL to us, to charity so as to save the third world ?

Give what we choose to, unconditionally.

Those millions and millions that you have saved and made healthy and well, will reproduce, into an already
burgeoning population. You've only shifted the problem a generation or two, and made it double or triple worse.

Education. And population control will have to be faced by every nation at some point.

you may as well say you've taken over the role of the diety (or natural law, depending ..)

I see a lot of this going on in this thread, and "deitising" of science. Science doesn't choose. People choose. Whether via a
god, evolution, biology, sociology or psychology.

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine,
is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

Hopefully I am not going off topic too much by saying that morality need not come into this.

Why on earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

I wonder what people in China and India have to say about populations in the west. Them and us. It causes suffering.[/QUOTE]

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

By unconditionally giving where there is need. One planet, one set of resources. Population control will be necessary
everywhere at some point in time, or we can just let nature take its course.

[QUOTE=alt;3094254]My experience in life has been that taking short term / long term, and micro / macro consequences into
account, is alway a worthwhile, indeed an essential, thing to do. The most successful individuals, corporations, governments,
do it.

By what measure of success? By whom?

What is horribly wrong about contemplating the fact that if you save and make comfortable a large number
of people, they will reproduce and present the next generation with a two or three fold problem ?

Possibly it's the way it is being phrased.

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely
where it is need can only do bad.

Not necessarily, if it is done for the right reasons.

Cobalt124, I have a little difficulty in understanding your sentences (probably my fault). If your last
couple of lines (underlined) refer to the unconditional giving of charity, please read my points in my previous posts. I've
made them often enough - I can't just keep making them.

I am referring to unconditional giving.

[alt]

Alt asked if somebody could comment on his/her questions:

How is Peter Singer a communist?, not that it has anything to do with the OP.

From post #1 in this thread;
Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong.

To me, that's the sort of mentality I generally categorise 'commie'.

Haven't you thought it through ? Are you REALLY happy to give away EVERYTHING other than your basic neccessities ? If not, are you happy to be called Immoral ?

No.

So you confirm, that he DOESN"T give all his money, other than for essentilas, to charity. According to my (his) first point, above, he is immoral, and now, hypocritical.

I don't see it as a moral issue, or necessary to have feelings about it. I believe Singers suggestion can reduce suffering.

Can reduce suffering .. in the short term, though that too might be dubious. ANyway, what about the long term ? A couple of generations down the track, when the population, being enabled, naturally explodes ?

Have I done the same? No.

So you haven't given your all, either; OK (tut tut ..)

At the very least, the west, its governments and its peoples could do way more than what we are doing now.

Way more, waay more, waaay more, or waaaay more ?

Resources are finite, so education and population control would be required, or we just let things ride as they are.

Ah .. population control .. there's the god complex sneaking in. What's the point in enabling them them to breed, only to later have to 'double' stop them ?

How about we move away from the "them and us" mentality which causes suffering.

Humans have always had a 'them and us' mentality. Evermore. All life runs on survival of the fittest. In any case, dare I say it, an 'us and us' mentality, smacks of communism - again.

Why do you think they were happier?

Because material possessions, and an abundance of food, etc, doesn't seem to be the secret to happiness.

Seems a straightforward question.

As do many other unanswered ones.

Discrimination anywhere ("them and us"?) will get in the way of saving lives and reducing suffering.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Did you get a good look at the link I posted which detailed extreme discrimination by upper castes in India againt the lowest castes ?

Give what we choose to, unconditionally.

I disagree.

Education. And population control will have to be faced by every nation at some point.

Within their own, probably. I find it bizzare, however, that we, or some in the West anyway, have decided it's appropriate to educate them, enable them to reproduce, then neutralise their ability to do so - or at leasr control or restrict it. Who died and left us the boss ?

I see a lot of this going on in this thread, and "deitising" of science. Science doesn't choose. People choose. Whether via a
god, evolution, biology, sociology or psychology.

Hopefully I am not going off topic too much by saying that morality need not come into this.

I wonder what people in China and India have to say about populations in the west. Them and us. It causes suffering.

I wonder too. I'll bet they're not keen to make it grow.

By unconditionally giving where there is need. One planet, one set of resources. Population control will be necessary everywhere at some point in time, or we can just let nature take its course.

Better to let nature take it's course in the first place, I reckon. Your 'population control' at some point in the future, will most likely turn out to be nuclear warfare and canibalism.

By what measure of success? By whom?

You disagree with the proposition that it's better to consider consequences than not ?

Possibly it's the way it is being phrased.

You lost me. What were you trying to phrase ?

Not necessarily, if it is done for the right reasons.

Well, yes, but that wouldn't be unconditional, would it ? Which is what you said earlier.

I am referring to unconditional giving.

Unconditional but for (what you consider to be) the right reasons, Uh-huh ..

[apeiron]

All quotations are from Haidt's morality paper http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf.

You mean all from the conclusion. Is that the only paragraph you could be bothered reading?

You keep whining about wanting proof. Then deal with the evidence in the body of the paper. Start with the five intuitive responses Haidt lists and tell us why his evidence in support of them is no good.

[DanP]

You keep whining about wanting proof.


And you keep babbling platitudes instead of presenting it.


Then deal with the evidence in the body of the paper. Start with the five intuitive responses Haidt lists and tell us why his evidence in support of them is no good.



Not conclusive. There is no evidence in there, only speculations.

[Zarqon]

smacks of communism - again.


Even though I, like you, am not convinced by Singers arguements, I really wish you would stop using "communism" as some kind of end of the line for the argument. Communism is just an idea among many on how to organize the society. Stating that something is commie doesn't by itself say anything about an arguement being right or wrong, you still have to explain WHY it is right or wrong in this particular case.

[nismaratwork]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

I agree, and it's the secret to our success as humans, and why we'll manage to lose it all. If we can ignore someone starving down the road (not in the USA I suppose), then people will ignore anything. I'm sorry, but we're doomed to the fate of all runaway apex predators, and the world and the universe will be unfazed with that passing as is by our presence.

[cobalt124]

To me, that's the sort of mentality I generally categorise 'commie'.

Thankyou for the explanation. Though I agree with Zargons sentiments on this.

Haven't you thought it through ? Are you REALLY happy to give away EVERYTHING other than your basic neccessities ? If not, are you happy to be called Immoral ?

So you confirm, that he DOESN"T give all his money, other than for essentilas, to charity. According to my (his) first point, above, he is immoral, and now, hypocritical.

I'm not taking it that personally. Morality and feeling and good intention aside, I think he has a point. It seems more and more I am missing the point of this thread. I latched onto the usefulness of the act in question, rather than the morality of it, which are both under discussion here.

Can reduce suffering .. in the short term, though that too might be dubious. ANyway, what about the long term ? A couple of generations down the track, when the population, being enabled, naturally explodes ?

Based on my reading the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer, like he seems to have done, I've not gone too much into the practicalities of this, which given what has been achieved by people so far, I don't see as imsurmountable. So I think it is valid to discuss what Singer is suggesting, and see where it can go, without necessarily going into practicalities, or morality, or feeling, or good intention.

Way more, waay more, waaay more, or waaaay more ?

Way more.

Ah .. population control .. there's the god complex sneaking in. What's the point in enabling them them to breed, only to later have to 'double' stop them ?

Well, I was tarring you with a "god complex" brush too re "them and us", because that is how you seem to be coming across. I may be wrong. Any scenario anyone cares to come up with, will have to consider population control at some point, so like any situation where a decision like this has to be made, lets hope no one is playing God.

Humans have always had a 'them and us' mentality. Evermore. All life runs on survival of the fittest. In any case, dare I say it, an 'us and us' mentality, smacks of communism - again.

I'd like to know more about that. I don't see that.

Because material possessions, and an abundance of food, etc, doesn't seem to be the secret to happiness.

I confess to being confused, I don't know whether you actually mean this, or you are being sarcastic, or what? But if it is the case, then it is possible that what Singer is suggesting can benefit all round? Too commie?

As do many other unanswered ones.

Because they don't get answered.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Did you get a good look at the link I posted which detailed extreme discrimination by upper castes in India againt the lowest castes ?

I read your quote, not the link. Where are the good intentions in discrimination?

Within their own, probably. I find it bizzare, however, that we, or some in the West anyway, have decided it's appropriate to educate them, enable them to reproduce, then neutralise their ability to do so - or at leasr control or restrict it. Who died and left us the boss ?

I'm hoping education would allow people to make more informed choices rather than westernise them, but I take your point. No-one can be the boss in this. the consequences are on the whole planet.

Better to let nature take it's course in the first place, I reckon. Your 'population control' at some point in the future, will most likely turn out to be nuclear warfare and canibalism.

I don't think it's that hopeless, either with regard to nature, nuclear warfare or cannibalism.

You disagree with the proposition that it's better to consider consequences than not ?

I'm disputing the success of governments, companies, and individuals. What is being measured to determine their success, and who is doing the measuring?

You lost me. What were you trying to phrase ?

We can forget that one. I misread what you were saying.

Well, yes, but that wouldn't be unconditional, would it ? Which is what you said earlier.

Unconditional for the individual giving, the right reasons being it will make things better, possibly for everyone.

Unconditional but for (what you consider to be) the right reasons, Uh-huh ..

I think there is a rational, secular way to do what Singer asks in his question, and I think it could improve the lives of a lot of people, and I'd like to find out if, or how right or wrong,that idea may be.

[alt]

Even though I, like you, am not convinced by Singers arguements, I really wish you would stop using "communism" as some kind of end of the line for the argument. Communism is just an idea among many on how to organize the society. Stating that something is commie doesn't by itself say anything about an arguement being right or wrong, you still have to explain WHY it is right or wrong in this particular case.

It was meant in the vernacular. A colloquialism like 'sounds commie' or 'smacks of communism' is not uncommon, particularly amongst your countrymen (assuming you're American).

But look ..

any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong

.. is, IMO, highly offensive and just plain wrong. What do you call it ? How do you feel about it ? Is it something you do yourself ?

[alt]

cobalt 124;
I'm not taking it that personally.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

Morality and feeling and good intention aside, I think he has a point.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

It seems more and more I am missing the point of this thread. I latched onto the usefulness of the act in question, rather than the morality of it, which are both under discussion here.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Based on my reading the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer, like he seems to have done, I've not gone too much into the practicalities of this, which given what has been achieved by people so far, I don't see as imsurmountable. So I think it is valid to discuss what Singer is suggesting, and see where it can go, without necessarily going into practicalities, or morality, or feeling, or good intention.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Well, I was tarring you with a "god complex" brush too re "them and us", because that is how you seem to be coming across. I may be wrong.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Any scenario anyone cares to come up with, will have to consider population control at some point, so like any situation where a decision like this has to be made, lets hope no one is playing God.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

I confess to being confused, I don't know whether you actually mean this, or you are being sarcastic, or what? But if it is the case, then it is possible that what Singer is suggesting can benefit all round? Too commie?

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I read your quote, not the link. Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

What ARE you talking about ?

I’m hoping education would allow people to make more informed choices rather than westernise them, but I take your point. No-one can be the boss in this. the consequences are on the whole planet.

People have been making appropriate choices for millennia, from what they abstract from the world around them, and from the natural forces and recourses available to them, without hanging by a thread in anticipation of your education. Populations, societies, nations have risen, fallen, risen, fallen .. are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall ?

Or do you propose something even more bizarre, i.e., feed them, make them well and capable, but them keep them in some sort of stasis, so that they can’t overly reproduce, over consume, become a threat to you, etc .. a stasis according to your image of what’s right for them ?

I’m disputing the success of governments, companies, and individuals. What is being measured to determine their success, and who is doing the measuring?

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Even my dog considers the consequences of his actions. I too, consider the consequences of my actions, as do larger entities.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Unconditional for the individual giving, the right reasons being it will make things better, possibly for everyone.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think there is a rational, secular way to do what Singer asks in his question, and I think it could improve the lives of a lot of people, and I'd like to find out if, or how right or wrong,that idea may be.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest. Let us know what you find out.

We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

[EnumaElish]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html
Sometimes we should choose to protect the environment and the nonhuman animals that depend on it, even if that denies economic opportunities to some people living in extreme poverty.He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

[alt]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html
He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position

Interesting article - and I agree with your above (especially my underlined). From the article ..

But this concern for the poor appears to be in tension with the need to protect our environment. Is there any point in saving the lives of people who will continue to have more children than they can feed? Don't rising populations in developing countries increase the pressure on forests and other ecosystems? Then there is climate change. How would the world cope if everyone were to become affluent and match our per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions?

In the above, he says what I've been saying all along here. Then he adds more fruit to the cake by 'developed nations have fewer children and consume less' .. LOL.

News flash - China just introduced a lottery for new motor vehicle purchases. No longer can the average 'developed' Chinaman/woman buy a new car at will - they have to participate in a state lottery to win the right to do so. New car sales dropped by 60% - 70%.

[cobalt124]

an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

[nismaratwork]

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

As a casual poster and reader on this thread, I have to say that I think you've been getting your butt handed to you by literally everyone here who has addressed your points. Maybe, and I'm just floating this as a concept, you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend.

You're sharing your thoughts with others, which indicates that you do care what others think and believe; you're failing terribly at making your case, or that of Singer. You're not really coming across as rational or ethical, just reactive and misanthropic. If that's what you're trying to communicate, success!... but if not, as someone who is mostly reading this, you really have a TON to defend.

[EnumaElish]

The companion article to Singer's, by Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist"/"Cool It" Lomborg: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074360837994874.html?m od=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_TheSaturdayEssay

... and here's a link to Save the Children's "Newborn and Child Survival Campaign" (http://sca.savethechildren.se/Middle_East_and_North_Africa/What-we-do/Newborn-and-Child-Survival-Campaign/).

[alt]

The companion article to Singer's, by Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist"/"Cool It" Lomborg: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074360837994874.html?m od=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_TheSaturdayEssay

... and here's a link to Save the Children's "Newborn and Child Survival Campaign" (http://sca.savethechildren.se/Middle_East_and_North_Africa/What-we-do/Newborn-and-Child-Survival-Campaign/).

The more I read of or from this Singer fellow, the more he seems like a real fruitcake.

And to think - he's an Aussie ? .. sigh ..

[nismaratwork]

The more I read of or from this Singer fellow, the more he seems like a real fruitcake.

And to think - he's an Aussie ? .. sigh ..

We agree... which probably means that he's DEFINITELY a fruitcake.

As for AU.. relax, popular culture aside we all know you're a developed nation in the modern world; one fool can't tarnish that.

[alt]

As a casual poster and reader on this thread, I have to say that I think you've been getting your butt handed to you by literally everyone here who has addressed your points. Maybe, and I'm just floating this as a concept, you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend.

You're sharing your thoughts with others, which indicates that you do care what others think and believe; you're failing terribly at making your case, or that of Singer. You're not really coming across as rational or ethical, just reactive and misanthropic. If that's what you're trying to communicate, success!... but if not, as someone who is mostly reading this, you really have a TON to defend.

I see your points, but a little harsh perhaps ? Anyway, he doesn't seem a misanthrope to me. Somewhat confused perhaps - or reticent to carry the point ?

Cobalt - I hope my direct manner, and Nismars perhaps more direct, doesn't deter you from making your points. I may not agree with what you said so far, but I respect the fact that you have a view and hopefully, you might like to make it more clearly.

Right .. wrong .. doesn't matter. I've been right, I've been wrong .. the discourse is what's important.

Again, please don't misinterpret impatience and direct talk, for aggression or ill will.

[cobalt124]

...you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend....

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.

...misanthropic...

I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.

...or reticent to carry the point?...

More logical argument needed. OK.

Cobalt - I hope my direct manner, and Nismars perhaps more direct, doesn't deter you from making your points.?...

No way. I'm enjoying it.

Right .. wrong .. doesn't matter. I've been right, I've been wrong .. the discourse is what's important...

That's one of the main reasons I am here.

Again, please don't misinterpret impatience and direct talk, for aggression or ill will.

I haven't. And won't.

[nismaratwork]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

[alt]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Cool ! Hope to hear from you soon. This sure is an interesting subject.

[alt]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

[cobalt124]

OK Back to it. I created most of this before my previous post.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Yes, I'm off topic. I will start another thread. I didn't enter it to defend Singers moral stance, which is his business, I'm interested in the practicalities of the idea he is suggesting.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Thankyou, I wasn't always sure where you were coming from in this, good to know. I picked up on Singers idea last year sometime from a radio programme and it stuck with me. Then this thread was started. But I never picked up on the moral argument, just how/if it could work. I'm not a keen fan of how aid money is generated for the vulnerable, as I see it, people give money for the wrong reasons, and giving money is easy. It seems to me more is needed.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

I probably won't, from what you post about it, I don't think I'll learn anything new. I'm not western/capitalist bashing here....

What ARE you talking about ?

....hence I ask, specifically about the caste system, "Where are the good intentions in discrimination?". It will just make the situation worse.

...are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall?...

No.

...become a threat to you, etc...

I don't see any threat.

...according to your image of what’s right for them?...

According to an individuals image of what is right for themselves. I can't imagine a person having medically preventable premature death as an image of what is right for themselves.

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Then the question is "Whos consequences?". Success would be saving people from a medically preventable premature death, for a start.

...as do larger entities...

Individuals ultimately.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Just for the record, I'm not against free enterprise and capitalism divorced from greed and corruption, and I have never been a socialist.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest.

It's not a quest, though it may have come across as one. I don't have the time for quests.

Let us know what you find out. We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

I can't think of a better place to find out than here.

[cobalt124]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

[nismaratwork]

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

[nismaratwork]

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

This purely out of curiosity... masochist... in the old game of "one of these things is not like the other" that does stand out. The first three can be synergistic to bring you enjoyment... the latter is sexual pleasure through pain, or in general the concept of enjoying suffering. Personally, I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible... you'd enjoy the misery and no longer be miserable. Yet another "Sesame Street" lesson, Oscar The Grouch says something along the lines of, "I hate X, which makes me happy! I hate being happy, which makes me sad, but that makes me happy... which makes me sad... which makes me happy!..." and so forth.

Sorry, I have Sesame Street on the brain... one of the nieces just loves the old runs of the show when Henson was alive. Still, it seems to suit the situation...

[cobalt124]

...I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible...

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

[nismaratwork]

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

[cobalt124]

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

[nismaratwork]

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

No, that would be anhedonic, the inability to experience enjoyment... masochism is a paraphilia where you derive sexual excitement from the experience of physical pain. In less formal parlance, it refers to a kind of, "auto-erotic schadenfreude".

[cobalt124]

I'm using it in the colloquial sense "enjoyment of what appears to be painful or tiresome" from my dictionary.

[alt]

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

That's cool. People engage in debate for any number of reasons I suppose. Eventually their motivations take second place to the substance of their debate.

---------------

Cobalt, seen your latest. I have some serious time constraints at the moment. Hope to reply in detail soon.

[BobG]

I bet if you had an option to give $10 to UNICEF out of your paycheck, few people would, even though that would raise probably $20+ billion every year if even half the population opted in.



I'm not sure about this. The Air Force (and probably other departments of the federal government, given the name) has the Combined Federal Campaign once a year where employees can sign up to donate a certain amount out of their paycheck for the charity of their choice. At least in the Air Force, it always had an extremely high participation rates (in 90% range), even if some of the participation was of the token variety (very small amount of money).

[EnumaElish]

Wow, never realized you are/were part of USAF, BobG! How exciting and prideful it must be, (and how nerve-wrecking for the ordinary man on the street, or the average internet user)!

You guys have really put your life "on the line" for many of us here, I guess, so "thank you!"

[alt]

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).


I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."


Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

[nismaratwork]

Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

[alt]

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

The issue I've tried to canvass here, is - how do you make comfortable and empower, educate, etc, millions of people, and then keep them in a stasis of your choosing ? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but I am saying that such questions needs to be thought through, and that answers need to be proffered by the proponents of such ideas.

[cobalt124]

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

[nismaratwork]

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

Thanks cobalt, I look forward to it, you keep me on my toes.

Alt: Thanks very much! I agree with what you're saying, and that's the dangerous nature of revultions... you tear down the capacity to gather and have those thoughts. Even the extreme elements are going to insist on a voice now, and they need to have it... but the military needs to guarantee they are only a VOICE. They can have an ambition, but it's shaped away from known dangerous (AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah) structures.

If you look at the history of Turkey, you can see the military first locking down to protect their new constitution (new quite a while ago), but NOT stifling the political process. Now we have the emergence of a moderate religious party that isn't trying to stone women or put them in sacks.

I think the stasis you reference needs to be both cultural, with people retaining a sense of their national identity without having to demonize another figure... and military. There is just no other institution in Egypt that has the power right now. In addition, I see it as a VERY good sign for the interim that the military leadership has promised to uphold all current treaties; to me that says radical elements are NOT running the show (yet), and there is real hope for a gradual transition over decades and more to a true democratic Egypt.

I don't know what a democratic Egypt looks like, and I doubt the Egyptians do either... as you say, that's going to be a very long and active debate in all sectors. To do that, there needs to be stability, but not Mubarak's brand of stability.

[alt]

Thanks cobalt, I look forward to it, you keep me on my toes.

Alt: Thanks very much! I agree with what you're saying, and that's the dangerous nature of revultions... you tear down the capacity to gather and have those thoughts. Even the extreme elements are going to insist on a voice now, and they need to have it... but the military needs to guarantee they are only a VOICE. They can have an ambition, but it's shaped away from known dangerous (AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah) structures.

If you look at the history of Turkey, you can see the military first locking down to protect their new constitution (new quite a while ago), but NOT stifling the political process. Now we have the emergence of a moderate religious party that isn't trying to stone women or put them in sacks.

I think the stasis you reference needs to be both cultural, with people retaining a sense of their national identity without having to demonize another figure... and military. There is just no other institution in Egypt that has the power right now. In addition, I see it as a VERY good sign for the interim that the military leadership has promised to uphold all current treaties; to me that says radical elements are NOT running the show (yet), and there is real hope for a gradual transition over decades and more to a true democratic Egypt.

I don't know what a democratic Egypt looks like, and I doubt the Egyptians do either... as you say, that's going to be a very long and active debate in all sectors. To do that, there needs to be stability, but not Mubarak's brand of stability.

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

[nismaratwork]

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

Thanks alt, and yeah... in the Egypt thread Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, and more. It's not just ugly, it's POST-Orwellian!

[alt]

Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/ts_afp/scienceuspopulationfood

A snippet ..

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

[cobalt124]

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I think this is a problem for every nation, not just the developing world, like global warming....

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

....both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

[DanP]

like global warming....

What global warning ?



....both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.


Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.



Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

[cobalt124]

Good to see you back DanP, thought you'd gone for good!

[cobalt124]

What global warning ?

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.

Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.

That doesn't seem to address the issue.

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

[DanP]

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.


But is their problem, not ours. You cant help those who don't want to be helped. What do you propose, to wage war against every government which refuses to embrace the western way of life ?



That doesn't seem to address the issue.


Sure it does. It will ensure or at least make big strides towards ensuring we will have our homelands much better prepared to take care of their own, when the time comes.



Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

It's working. It's our superior science and economy which saves the ones who would otherwise perish. Western science. Western money which got put in agricultural research.
Globalization is the answer. And everyone of the citizens of the 3rd world should accept it and welcome it, because is the only thing which will deliver them.

[CronoSpark]

A very complicated question. I've skipped over the entire thread, as there is too many posts to read, so I hope I am not repeating another person's argument. I present hypothetical scenario where we only worried about the essentials. This might be good given the society we live in, but after some deeper thought I realized that everything is much more interconnected than I originally imagined.

For example, let's say everyone of us did not go to the movies to watch the latest show. This means that we will in effect reduce the amount spent on projection/TV/cinematic/cut jobs/etc..., resulting in less technological advances in the film industry, which could affect other sectors (touch screens, etc). People who were inspired by specific movies to develop ground-breaking technologies might have also not have those eureka moments if movies never existed. Of course this is an exaggerated case, but everything seems to be tied together. Even the items that you'd think are the least essential could in the end be tied to very vital sources of income for research in important technologies.

So, in a very strange way, it could be possible that if we spent only on the essentials and gave money to save other people's lives, we delay the progress on developing ... lets say, an infinite energy source, or a way to mass produce cheap fresh water by 5+ years, which could result in even more deaths. But of course, on an ethical level, if I am able, I would personally try to help save others somehow.

There probably is some term or book on this already, but just sharing my thoughts.

[sourlemon]

Lolz, I got to page 5 and gave up. But I'll put in my 2 cents anyway.

To me, the problem with Singer argument is that he assumes if we run into trouble someone will help us. So suppose I follow Singer advice and spend on "unnecessary" things, then I'm morally doing the right thing. Now, let's talk about unnecessary things. Of course junk food or an extra cars are unnecessary things. So let's cut that. But then think about it, do I really need the internet to live? Is that really necessary? Ok. Cut that. What about this apartment that I'm living in? Do I need a $900 apartment? If I move into a poorer neighborhood, I could save at least $300 in which I could donate to charities. How about my savings? My health care? Wouldn't I give those away if I see a child drowning? Why should I eat three meals a day I could save a child by having two?

Where do you draw the line?

And if I have no saving, what happen when I get fire? How long can I live on unemployment? And what happen when I can't find a job after the unemployment period? I would become homeless and depend on soup kitchen to feed me. Now I have to depend on other generosity to save me. But what if they don't, I'm in big trouble aren't I? Or what if they don't feel my case is bad enough because saving a child from a disease is more important than feeding me? I'm screwed then! Not only that, by continuously thinking that I can save a child by not buying a candy will cause me great harm because I'll continuously have guilt when I buy on unnecessary things. This will cause stress, unhappiness, and maybe depression. And who knows, because of that stress/depression, I may acquire some sickness. Now I have to use other people money to cure my sickness, instead keeping myself healthy and make money to save others.

I understand Singer's point of view, but I think it's ok to spend on unnecessary things. It makes people happy and I don't think it's right to stop someone from being happy if their happiness isn't causing anyone any harm. I don't see how it's morally wrong to buy a candy. It makes me happy and gives people a job. I worked hard for my money, why shouldn't I spend it the way I want to? I could also argue that if I invest in myself, I can be a better help to those people in need. For example, if I have candy at my desk, I work harder because I have sugar which makes me happier. This in turn will lead to me getting a promotion which allow me to have more money to give back to those in need.

Take Warren Buffett for example. If he didn't save his money and invest, would he be the billionaire he is today? Would he be able to give that much back? Or if all who feel it's morally wrong to spend money on yourself contribute to charity, would it be as much as what Buffet has given? I doubt it.

We keep thinking being poor is bad because you can't afford internet or a car. But that's not necessary true. My family was really poor to the point that my parent couldn't buy me a banana. I had about 3/4 pairs of clothes. But I had a great childhood. I didn't have a flu shot every year (if ever), but I hardly remember being sick. Sometimes I think we do more harm than good by pushing our standard to them. It's like giving them the internet for one day then take it away. If you haven't given that to them, then they wouldn't know what they're missing. So is it really a bad thing by not giving what we have to them? I'm not saying that it is bad or it isn't. But it's something to think about.

I also agree with DanP that those parents should really be careful about giving births to children they can't take care off. It's totally irresponsible. And so come the argument of what is right? Which one benefit more? Should we give the children their shots or spend the money on educating people so they can stop having kids they can't take care of. Don't you think we save more lives by educating the parents? I'm just posing the question. (I actually side with giving shots to the children because I just don't have the heart to say no to them.)

PS written this at 2-3 am in the morning, so half of it is probably incomprehensible.

[nismaratwork]

Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because people rely on him. He is a role model. This is America. People do whatever the they feel like doing, you got a problem with that? Because they have a right to. And because they have guns and no one can [BLEEPING] stop them. As a result, this country has one of the worst economies in the world. [B]When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else

music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery

Fanciful and comedic, yes, but it strikes me as the result of Singer's view. Life is a competiton with cooperation... there is always competition.

[apeiron]

Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?

Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

Kudos to Q Goest who just pointed out this introductory paper on chaos/complexity which has a succinct summary of how competition~cooperation is generally taken as the local~global dynamic of hierarchically organised social order....

http://www.necsi.edu/projects/baranger/cce.pdf

Finally, there is one more property of complex systems that concerns all of us very closely, which makes it especially interesting. Actually it concerns all social systems, all collections of organisms subject to the laws of evolution. Examples could be plant populations, animal populations, other ecological groupings, our own immune system, and human groups of various sizes such as families, tribes, city-states, social or economic classes, sports teams, Silicon Valley dotcoms, and of course modern nations and supranational corporations.

In order to evolve and stay alive, in order to remain complex, all of the above need
to obey the following rule: • 6 • Complexity involves an interplay between cooperation and competition.

Once again this is an interplay between scales. The usual situation is that competition on scale n is nourished by cooperation on the finer scale below it (scale n+1). Insect colonies like ants, bees, or termites provide a spectacular demonstration of this.

For a sociological example, consider the bourgeois families of the 19th century, of the kind described by Jane Austen or Honore de Balzac. They competed with each other toward economic success and toward procuring the most desirable spouses for their young people. And they succeeded better in this if they had the unequivocal devotion of all their members, and also if all their members had a chance to take part in the decisions. Then of course there is war between nations and the underlying patriotism that supports it.

Once we understand this competition-cooperation dichotomy, we are a long way from the old cliche of “the survival of the fittest”, which has done so much damage to the understanding of evolution in the public’s mind.

Amen to that. :P

Although Baranger does get it slightly wrong as it is competition that exist at the n level, and co-operation that exists at n+1 level. (It works out in his examples. like bourgeois families, as every n is formed cooperatively as the n+1 of the level below, and so because of its new coherence, can become the next scale of competitive, or constructive, action).

[DanP]

Kudos to Q Goest who just pointed out this introductory paper on chaos/complexity which has a succinct summary of how competition~cooperation is generally taken as the local~global dynamic of hierarchically organised social order....

http://www.necsi.edu/projects/baranger/cce.pdf





Nice paper, still it says nothing about the origins of morality.

[apeiron]

Nice paper, still it says nothing about the origins of morality.

It says the origin lies in the basic principles of complex systems. But you keep whistling your tune :smile:.

[DanP]

It says the origin lies in the basic principles of complex systems. But you keep whistling your tune :smile:.

The origin of what ?????? It has no hint to morality, unless you area dead bent on seeing one.

As for tunes, yeah, it seems you are a great singer as well. :smile:

[nismaratwork]

The origin of what ?????? It has no hint to morality, unless you area dead bent on seeing one.

As for tunes, yeah, it seems you are a great singer as well. :smile:

From what I can see it's an argument that morality has its roots in pro-social traits of lower animals we inheritied and evolved with. Those who cooperated and abstained from acts that left a social animal alone forms the basis for what we call morality. I believe that there's a good reason it boils down to the 'Golden Rule'... it's the logical basis for our actions.

I'd say what we call morality is a valuable construct that involved an interaction between members of a system; those who fail, are culled (see bees and ants) while those who interact according to norms may pass on genes.

[DanP]

From what I can see it's an argument that morality has its roots in pro-social traits of lower animals we inheritied and evolved with.


I dont see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.


Those who cooperated and abstained from acts that left a social animal alone forms the basis for what we call morality. I


So if you are a chimp which cooperates with other chimps to form a border patrol to kill males of another chimp group, committing the incipient forms of genocide, you exhibited
the basis for moral behaviour ? Since surely, this behaviour is cooperative, and prevents the chimp soldier from getting isolated :P

Remember, cooperation is essential not only for building, but for destroying. Humans create new technologies, makes life for each other nice and easier when they cooperate, and yet they are also at their maximal destructive potential when they cooperate with each other forming armies, developing nuclear weaponry , systematically killing everything which is not from their group (Sebia / Bosnia / Croatia is a good recent example)

Humans also become very good at torturing others when they form groups which cooperate. Remember Zimbardo and Stanford Prison Experiment ? Cooperation of the "guards" to humiliate and destroy the "prisoners" was interesting to watch.

Cooperation is also so powerfully destructive that we need laws in economy to prevent it from happening. We call them "anti-trust laws"


believe that there's a good reason it boils down to the 'Golden Rule'... it's the logical basis for our actions.


Golden Rule is a prank.



I

[nismaratwork]

I dont see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.



So if you are a chimp which cooperates with other chimps to form a border patrol to kill males of another chimp group, committing the incipient forms of genocide, you exhibited
the basis for moral behaviour ? Since surely, this behaviour is cooperative, and prevents the chimp soldier from getting isolated :P

It forms the basis for cooperative behaviour, I didn't say we were perfect, or pleasant. If you want the shortest possible answer: yes.

Remember, cooperation is essential not only for building, but for destroying. Humans create new technologies, makes life for each other nice and easier when they cooperate, and yet they are also at their maximal destructive potential when they cooperate with each other forming armies, developing nuclear weaponry , systematically killing everything which is not from their group (Sebia / Bosnia / Croatia is a good recent example)

I agree, but nobody said that nature was kind, or that objective morality exists (well, not me at least) beyond our dreams. Killing and destruction is a necessary element of a realistic world; cooperation in that minimizes casualties, or rather, gives the opportunity to do so.

Humans also become very good at torturing others when they form groups which cooperate. Remember Zimbardo and Stanford Prison Experiment ? Cooperation of the "guards" to humiliate and destroy the "prisoners" was interesting to watch.

I would call that short-circuiting our morals by banking on other elements of our neurology and psychology. I'd add, in that scenario, they believed they were acting in accordance with instruction by moral men. The system worked, the outcome was the failure, and it exposed the pathological side of cooperation. Then again... "Conscience is an anticipation of the opinions of others." (Henry Taylor)

Cooperation is also so powerfully destructive that we need laws in economy to prevent it from happening. We call them "anti-trust laws"

It is destructive to some, it works well for the monopoly, but putting that aside, so what? Cooperation is not everything that's pro-social, neither is victory; ask an extinct apex predator. Maybe we're not as moral as you'd hope?


Golden Rule is a prank.

How so?

[DanP]

It forms the basis for cooperative behaviour, I didn't say we were perfect, or pleasant. If you want the shortest possible answer: yes.


I agree, but nobody said that nature was kind, or that objective morality exists (well, not me at least) beyond our dreams. Killing and destruction is a necessary element of a realistic world; cooperation in that minimizes casualties, or rather, gives the opportunity to do so.



All social behaviors emerge from the same balance between competition and cooperation. Inherently, they carry no moral load. The moral load is only given through social context. Killing can make you a candidate for death row, or win you a medal of the Congress. Maiming someone in the streets will land you in jail for aggravated assault. Do the same in the ring and you'll land a fat paycheck and the adulation of fans. Same actions, different social circumstances.

Besides, if morality does not objectively exists, it cant be evolved. Behaviors do objectively exists. What are you left with then ? Descriptive morality. Which is nothing but a narrative
of what some group considers "right or wrong".


I would call that short-circuiting our morals by banking on other elements of our neurology and psychology. I'd add, in that scenario, they believed they were acting in accordance with instruction by moral men. The system worked, the outcome was the failure, and it exposed the pathological side of cooperation. Then again... "Conscience is an anticipation of the opinions of others." (Henry Taylor)


Nah, I don't think they believed they acted in the concordance with instructions of a moral man. Rather, the power of authority has given free hand to the beast within :P



It is destructive to some, it works well for the monopoly, but putting that aside, so what? Cooperation is not everything that's pro-social, neither is victory; ask an extinct apex predator. Maybe we're not as moral as you'd hope?


So no evolved morality exists :P The only thing which exists are behaviors which may lead to more or less reproductive success. The ethical load comes into play only when social context is taken in account, and the complex behavior - social context is reported to the man invented ethical rules which pass at a certain place and time as "moral".



How so?

Because things are gray. The Gray rule works. The rules who say "Cooperate with your in-group because it is in your interest. If someone to which you cooperated does not return,
punish him severely. Watch out for business opportunity. You need to raise over others in your group, but you need to do so in a social context which is accepted by the others. SO when opportunity arises, be mindful how you use it"

More or less, this is what all humans do.

[nismaratwork]

All social behaviors emerge from the same balance between competition and cooperation. Inherently, they carry no moral load. The moral load is only given through social context. Killing can make you a candidate for death row, or win you a medal of the Congress. Maiming someone in the streets will land you in jail for aggravated assault. Do the same in the ring and you'll land a fat paycheck and the adulation of fans. Same actions, different social circumstances.

Besides, if morality does not objectively exists, it cant be evolved. Behaviors do objectively exists. What are you left with then ? Descriptive morality. Which is nothing but a narrative
of what some group considers "right or wrong".



Nah, I don't think they believed they acted in the concordance with instructions of a moral man. Rather, the power of authority has given free hand to the beast within :P




So no evolved morality exists :P The only thing which exists are behaviors which may lead to more or less reproductive success. The ethical load comes into play only when social context is taken in account, and the complex behavior - social context is reported to the man invented ethical rules which pass at a certain place and time as "moral".




Because things are gray. The Gray rule works. The rules who say "Cooperate with your in-group because it is in your interest. If someone to which you cooperated does not return,
punish him severely. Watch out for business opportunity. You need to raise over others in your group, but you need to do so in a social context which is accepted by the others. SO when opportunity arises, be mindful how you use it"

More or less, this is what all humans do.

I'd have to agree with everything you've said, except one: the beast in people is far worse than what that experiment showed... that really is just group action in my view.

So... yeah, I don't believe in absolute morality, but you've outlined what I do believe nearly completely.

[apeiron]

I dont see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.


Remember, all you have to do to argue against the thesis that human morality is based on the standard social animal need to balance competitive and co-operative behaviours is to come up with convincing arguments of moral customs that have nothing to do with striking such a balance.

So far your arguments have all been along the lines of "chimps and nations co-operate to fight, gee that's really immoral." Which contradicts your own position because it both accepts the basic dichotomy and points out the immorality of an unbalanced outcome, the morality of balance outcomes.

But I agree, everyone (doesn't) see what he wants. :P

[DanP]

Remember, all you have to do to argue against the thesis that human morality is based on the standard social animal need to balance competitive and co-operative behaviours is to come up with convincing arguments of moral customs that have nothing to do with striking such a balance.


Not really. Social behavior arise from this balance. That's all. No morality or immorality.


So far your arguments have all been along the lines of "chimps and nations co-operate to fight, gee that's really immoral." Which contradicts your own position because it both accepts the basic dichotomy and points out the immorality of an unbalanced outcome, the morality of balance outcomes.


I never said this behavior is immoral. Time and again I supported the amorality of evolved behavior, and the idea that the moral load exist only in social context, and morality are man made rules. The example was given simply to contradict the idea that morlaity exist because pro-social behavior. If you are a chimp, murder can be a pro-social behaviour. It gets you a place and females.

[apeiron]

Time and again I supported the amorality of evolved behavior, and the idea that the moral load exist only in social context, and morality are man made rules.

Yeah, so again, where are the examples of the man-made rules that are not based on the evolutionary imperatives described by the dichotomy? Where is the evidence that social evolution is somehow different from biological evolution when it comes to what constitutes a healthy balance?

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, so again, where are the examples of the man-made rules that are not based on the evolutionary imperatives described by the dichotomy? Where is the evidence that social evolution is somehow different from biological evolution when it comes to what constitutes a healthy balance?

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

Hmmmm... I'm not sure that they can be seperated, but if I were to pick one:

Theft of IP in a digital format by people who would not, and could not afford it, is still largely frowned upon as a natural extension of theft.

[DanP]

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

You see, that's exactly the problem with your diatribes. Its highly entertaining philosophy, but you are not able to present any proof that morality is evolved. You'd wager, you would able to think some proofs for your philosophy. Nada, zilch , barred zeroes.

Besides of course your "highly convincing" oxytocyn argument you was so proud of half a year ago or so.

"Selfish gene" theory explain very well competitive and cooperative behaviors. There is no need to postulate any kind of innate, evolved, heritable morality. It doesnt exist. Morality and moral codes are man inventions.

[apeiron]

Hmmmm... I'm not sure that they can be seperated, but if I were to pick one:

Theft of IP in a digital format by people who would not, and could not afford it, is still largely frowned upon as a natural extension of theft.

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

[apeiron]

You see, that's exactly the problem with your diatribes. Its highly entertaining philosophy, but you are not able to present any proof that morality is evolved. You'd wager, you would able to think some proofs for your philosophy. Nada, zilch , barred zeroes.

Besides of course your "highly convincing" oxytocyn argument you was so proud of half a year ago or so.

"Selfish gene" theory explain very well competitive and cooperative behaviors. There is no need to postulate any kind of innate, evolved, heritable morality. It doesnt exist. Morality and moral codes are man inventions.

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).

And first you say morality is man-made, a constraint encoded in a social context. Then you dispute that social contexts would evolve on exactly the same grounds as biological ones. Why should man-made morality be arbitrary when so clearly it needs to respond to the same evolutionary pressures?

There is no structure in your arguments. Just confused posing.

[nismaratwork]

Uhhh... why do I get the sense that I just stepped in the middle of a long and ongoing fight?

edit: Oh, and will you guys get pissed off if I say that to me, it looks like you both AGREE?

[apeiron]

Uhhh... why do I get the sense that I just stepped in the middle of a long and ongoing fight?

edit: Oh, and will you guys get pissed off if I say that to me, it looks like you both AGREE?

What, are you volunteering to referee here? :cool:

Anyway, here are the set of statements that seem easy to agree...

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.
- Social behaviour also has biological roots.
- What both levels of evolution have in common is negotiating the balance in competition~cooperation.
- Outside of the biological realm, moral ideas have no basis (just as life itself is meaningless so far as the view of inanimate matter is concerned).
- However, organising principles such as the second law are meaningful even to inanimate matter, and so perhaps could be considered a basis to morality in a very generic sense.

(This last is probably the most controversial statement as it says "entropy production is good", and so life can be judged on its endeavours in that regard.)

The problem that DanP has is that he in many other threads wants to emphasise how little he cares for social constraints. They are meaningless to him (and should be for all of us as well).

Yet he also finds the evidence forces him to agree with the truth of these individual statements.

The result is he keeps making a confused connection between the lack of a clear physical basis to moral ideas and the existence of an all too obvious social evolutionary one. It is the only way he can maintain his chosen stance frequently seen in other threads.

[nismaratwork]

What, are you volunteering to referee here? :cool:

Heh... no. :wink:

Anyway, here are the set of statements that seem easy to agree...

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.
- Social behaviour also has biological roots.
- What both levels of evolution have in common is negotiating the balance in competition~cooperation.
- Outside of the biological realm, moral ideas have no basis (just as life itself is meaningless so far as the view of inanimate matter is concerned).
- However, organising principles such as the second law are meaningful even to inanimate matter, and so perhaps could be considered a basis to morality in a very generic sense.

(This last is probably the most controversial statement as it says "entropy production is good", and so life can be judged on its endeavours in that regard.)

The problem that DanP has is that he in many other threads wants to emphasise how little he cares for social constraints. They are meaningless to him (and should be for all of us as well).

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value. Life has no value, nothing has any value that's transient in the face of infinity, but we like it all the same, so we engage in a mutual fiction and try to live well.

This may not be what DanP believes, but it's the impression I've gotten, and it's something like my view.

Yet he also finds the evidence forces him to agree with the truth of these individual statements.

The result is he keeps making a confused connection between the lack of a clear physical basis to moral ideas and the existence of an all too obvious social evolutionary one. It is the only way he can maintain his chosen stance frequently seen in other threads.

Hmmmm... I need to read other threads, and of course hear DanP's rebuttal.

Oh hell, maybe I am willing to referee... you're both reasonable men.

edit: I don't think this is a good way to live, but in a way, I believe it's correct: "Life is meaningless, life is empty. When we take a life, we take nothing of value." (Brent Weeks)

[apeiron]

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realise as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans :smile:. And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

[nismaratwork]

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realise as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans :smile:. And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

I think that morality is a useful tool like any other, and I think it's a real construction of people and evolutionary biology. I don't think that when everyone is dead, it will matter; whether that happens in a hundred years, a million, or a billion. I'm not feeling angsty, I just place the value of say, a human life in the context of the connections that person has with others. If those connections don't exist, it comes down to one person's private world, their future, and nothing more.

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

[apeiron]

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social..

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist. And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.


I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

[nismaratwork]

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist.

Note that I've consistantly said, "norms", because I don't beieve in a code to "live up to", that isn't a pastiche of fictions. I want to run a 100 mph, but failing to do so doesn't imply the reality of such speed in humans simply because I've set it as a goal. Social norms are useful only as that; norms... not good, not bad, just rules of the road which are changing and changeable given time and place.

And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.[/quotee]

We seek balance for a number of reasons, including the desire to avoid punishment. Around .6%-1% of the population can't even make that determiniation, but those imagined norms are no less binding. That balance is as changeable as the context you're in anyway.

[QUOTE=apeiron;3175759]What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

Could we have only 2 choices and still have free will? I'd say yes, so why complicate matters? Besides, evolution has allowed for people beyond just sociopaths who lack the capacity to function according to social norms; they have been very successful despite many millenia spent trying to eradicate them. Free will is the ability to choose, or withold a choice (the ultimate 3rd choice), I'm not arguing against free will.


But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

It's far too Platonic for my taste; for me form and substance are different. You have correctly identified my views on the matter, and... while I wouldn't ascribe to any one school of thought, I definitely identify with SCP.

[DanP]

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).



Like always, you are fallacious in extreme. I only dispute your claims that oytocin is any kind of proof that morality is inborn. Those claims are voodoo. I might be posing as you say, but you are the only person on this site who in several hundreds posts produced nothing else but empty philosophy. You cant prove anything you say.

The song remains the same. Just about everybody finds a religion to preach :P

[DanP]

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?



The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

Actually, no. What actually happens is that humans seen a medium in which they can steal almost at will, because the law enforcement is elusive on internet, the arm of law is weak, and the identity of the thief is much more easier to be protected.


There is no self organizing morality here. It's the same old song. Humans seen a way to break the laws and get away with it. It is not "self evolving morality on internet" which will stop them, but unleashing the hounds to cut with their teeth the offenders. It is organization of law enforcement, and fighting back against of the offenders which will put an end to this.

No morality. Those humans steal. They know it. They also know that for now they can get away with it. This is how much humans act.

And no, the equilibrium of price is not born of morality. Is born from the wish of the big record companies to minimize the loss. Not because they seen the "immorality of their rip-off prices". As long as they dont control the internet, they will just play to minimize their loss. If they manage to control the internet, rip-offs , as you call them (nothing is a rip off, btw, as long as you find idiots paying for it ), will come back. It's cold game theory.
A way to maximize their profits in changing market conditions. And so it is for the ones who infringe IP. Maybe one day the price for this IP will be so low , and the presence of law stronger, that paying the lowered price will be more easy then breaking the law. Cold game theory again. Morality my ***.
[QUOTE]

[DanP]

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?


How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times when you believe it;s a functional religion ?

[DanP]

Heh... no. :wink:


but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.



I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

[DanP]

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.



Actually no. Those constrain arise from the clash of many different social behaviors in different social contexts. Those behaviors have no ethical load whatsoever by themselves.

Morality doesn't evolve to constrain anything. It's a man made narrative, a descriptive of human beleifs over the equilibrium in a certain moment in time in a certain society. Some of the elements of the story may correspond to the actual equilibrium, describing it correctly, some are personal beliefs, some are "fantasy". It also has no normative value. All in all, it's human make-belief, which fails to describe properly the equilibrium you talk about.

It's just a flawed story narrating human perception of the equilibrium. I can understand why humans have such a strong wish to make morality more than a flawed story. They are snared and blinded by ideals, going as far as inventing countless gods to give normative strength to the flawed descriptive story called morality, story which describes only believes.

[nismaratwork]

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

Hmmm... I think that gray area you're mentioned is the interaction between evolved morality (fear of retribution, a sense of wrongness, empathy) and the much larger realm of social structures. I'm not suggesting that this should be an article of faith, but it's hard to ignore in the light of major personality disorders, and common behaviours indipendant of social pressures.

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks. It's as easy to seperate the two as it is to tell whether or not something is "genetic", or "environmental"... answer: both.

[DanP]

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks.

Well, it's clear that they form the basis of social interaction. Not so clear IMO about morality , moral sense and so on. IMO an emotion such as fear is nothing but an emotion. Some choose to see it as a rudiment of
morality. Their right. But I want proof about it.

Humans don't even agree of what morality is. There are several philosophical currents about it. Some pretend that adding the words genes, oxytocin, innates to a morality discussion will make such a philosophical current science. Unfortunately, it remains philosophy so far.


If you are interested you can read Jesse Prinz's paper on the subject of innate morality here. Its interesting.

http://subcortex.com/MoralityInnatePrinz.pdf

[nismaratwork]

I'll read anything except harlequin romance. :wink:

Hmmmm... you want proof that I'm not sure you can get without resorting to interpreations of the role of neurotransmitters and hormones. Still, I can see why you and Apeiron keep going around in circles... you want hard evidence, he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

I need to read more about this before I referee, forgive me guys.

[DanP]

he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.


Philosophy constitutes no evidence. Anyway, behaviour It's a subject I love so I continue to play my song.

[nismaratwork]

Philosophy is not evidence, but it can be convincing and lead to evidence. We know so much, and yet are so baffled by the complexity of the human body and brain... at some point we have to speculate based on the best available data. True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

[DanP]

True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his. :devil:

But if conclusive scientific evidence arises Ill be forced to accept it. That will be the case with even some serious evidence point towards that conclusion. If I die before those come, so beeit. Evolution doesnt care if I was right or wrong, and I wont turn in my grave should they someday discover that morality is innate :P

[apeiron]

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his. :devil:


As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.

BTW, because you again seem out of focus, the thesis is not that morality is innate, it is that it is evolved. And further, that it is organised according to general systems principles. If you must bluster, at least bluster about something resembling the argument. :P

[nismaratwork]

Guys... we all bluster sometimes, and there are few issues as passionate as those touching on morality. Dan... you're taunting apeiron, and simply preferring your own views is not philosophy.

Apeiron... you've presented a lot, but your conclusions are not incompatible with Dan's... I'm baffled as to why you seem to have such rancor for his view.

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

[DanP]

As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.



Philosophical ramblings are not evidence Apeiron. You didnt presented any kind of evidence. As you do in all your posts, you always steer away from anything which can pass as evidence.

[octelcogopod]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

[nismaratwork]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

It's not cold and uncaring, it just is what it is, and that's pretty amazing... it just kind of stinks for humans. Given that we're a mere shred of the universe, a speck on a speck, I'd say the universe is ticking along quite well.

Anyway, I'd add, empathy is moderated to a great degree by priming, and also for many requires either a vivid imagination and experience, or proximity as in... seeing, hearing, and smelling the suffering of another.

It's one thing to talk about someone dying in fear and agony, and another to be close enough to smell their fear... some people need that immidiacy... and a very small number are pathologically unmoved.

[ptalar]

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

That is an understatement.

[ptalar]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

There are too many people in the world. The worlds resources are becoming scarce. The quality of human life is becoming cheap, hence the outsourcing going on. I cannot be responsible for other people who should of not been born based on the world resources being scarce and not equally distributed. If a family has 12 kids is that morally just? If they are poor and starving am I responsible for their irresponsibility? If I buy some toys for myself rather than give them money to eat am I the guilty one or the smart and shrewd one? As long as I replace myself and I take care of my own that is all I should be responsible for. Not everybody else. Our taxes take care of the rest.

[nismaratwork]

That is an understatement.

Awww... you say the sweetest things with those marbles in your mouth. :wink:

Hey, WhoWee, Russ, Ivan, Al, CAC, etc... you want to take the "world is overcrowded" fallacy, or shall I?

The world isn't crowded... it's snug... take the USA, we have a lot of food and space. True, if you dumped 5 or 6 hundred million more people in our population overnight we'd have to give up much, but "too many people"? Nah.

Too many people usually means, 'Too many poor people, too many people in a given resource area.'

[ptalar]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

[nismaratwork]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

Hmmm, excess people on the planet is one thing Phil, but it's more to do with the lifestyles we lead rather than the sheer number of people. In short, economics come into play, it's not a practical challenge if we all magically worked together.

In practice, because we rely on oil, coal, NG, Metals, Phosphorus, etc... it's about access to resources at a certain clip that matters. As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

You shouldn't feel guilty about giving your money to the poor AFAIK, and even if that were a lost cause, I don't think it's a cause for guilt.

[apeiron]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

[apeiron]

As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

[DanP]

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.


So what ? The market in India is open, and the price for their work is a resultant of the market conditions. As the market conditions will change, so will the price for their work. It;s already an equilibrium for current conditions.


You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.


No, not everyone does. And unless you want the world a big communist country, there always be what you call "imbalances". Some will have better air and better wages tan others. Maybe we deserve it. Perhaps what you call "imbalances" is actually the equilibrium. A free market equilibrium. Only commies believed in legends, such as controlled markets for the benefit of everyone and for the sake of "balancing" things socially.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, said Marx. I bet he was seeking "equilibrium and re-balancing" as well. Only that it doesn't work that way. The failure of Marxism is not a a theoretical question. It is reality. It happened time and gain in the world. Every regime based on Marxism collapsed into an economical black hole. Policy seeking to equalize individual welfare is not leading to equilibrium. Free markets are.




You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.


Re-balancing ? Can you prove that the situation is out of equilibrium ? The world doesn't have to be a big communist kibbutz to be in "balance".


Morality is about an equilibrium of behavior. Globalization does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.


Morality is descriptive.

Yes, I am benefiting after what is happening to others. And they are already benefiting from the contact with the western civilization, and those who work for us already have a better life than those who choose they don't. And btw, you don't get to tell anyone who is "your own".

[alt]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

Permaculture does not just lie in our future. I lies in our present and near and distant past.

But it certainly is no answer for any burgeoning world population.

Permaculture isn't the answer .. the green revolution is seeing it's own limitations ..

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.

[alt]

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I recieved for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

To what end ?

[ptalar]

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.


Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

[nismaratwork]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

I was thinking more along the lines of vertical farming and permaculture for less dense regions. In addition, if you repurpose some farmland used for cattle by fast food... you'd also free up fairly useful land for more efficient crops and livestock.

(note: I couldn't post this last night, sorry!)

[nismaratwork]

Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

Should have just said that, I agree and have made that very case to the cornucopian elements here myself in other threads. That's not the same as running out of room however, just running into natural limitations as people crowd together, and what we consider to be high quality of life is highly restricted by region.

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

[DanP]

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?


One of the more interesting points made at the Edge conference is that “people who behave morally don’t generally do it because they have greater knowledge; they do it because they have a greater sensitivity to other people’s points of view,” otherwise known as empathy. Marc Hauser of Harvard reported that bullies—people clearly not acting morally-- are surprisingly sophisticated in the ways of interpersonal commerce, particularly in reading others’ intentions, but they are not able to "feel their pain." Which makes them good manipulators and strategic operators for their own benefit without the drag on their trajectory of caring about the impact of their actions on others.

Empathy is one of the traits that lawyers often score low on--all the better to not deter us from surging onward on behalf of our clients, certainly some would say. But firms might consider steps to counter that tendency by adopting compensation and other encouragements to "feel each others' pain."


http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

Note that for me empathy is just another emotion. A modulator of behavior. Not a intrinsic component of morality, should you choose to define it in a non-descriptive way. Just saying.

[nismaratwork]

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?

Well, you've got me there... I was definitely thinking of the latter, but the former present a danger too. Generally unless you get a Genghis Kahn, Attila The Hun, or Alexander The Great... you end up with just-plain-crooks. Still, that's going to be one hell of a strain on a more limited and (presumably) devastated society dealing with billions of dead.





http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

That's a very good point, and here I should probably stop speaking casually.

You have AS-PD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) aka Sociopathy/Psychopathy/Moral Imbecility... and so forth. That is a complete diagnoses based on the presence of "Conduct Disorder" that continues into adulthood, when it becomes AS-PD. MOST people who match that diagnosis just are not competent to lead their lives, never mind hold office.

HOWEVER... traits... you can have Narcissistic traits, psychopathic traits, etc... which may not add up to a diagnosis of AS-PD, or PD:NT, but which for the rest of us is pretty damned close. It's not enough to be AS-PD, but the ultimate hallmark of AS-PD is a lack of empathy... not poor empathy, but a complete lack.

Sociopaths aren't trying to be evil, they don't feel your pain at all so they live in a world of their immediate wants. Often you find that some such people transient/indigent, and many more are career criminals or prisoners.

OTHER traits however, such as a high arousal threshold (not sex), can be fantastic if you're saaaaay, a firefighter. On the other hand you have daredevils, and a subset of addicts for the same reason. Why one person walks into burning buildings to save people, and others just shoot heroin is a topic of ongoing research. I'd add, not all firefighters have these traits, but you can see how any given sociopathic trait can lead to obvious career choices.

Lack empathy, and are willing to take crazy risks with yourself and others? Politician! Lack empathy, but you're smart and capable, and you want the 'best' things in life...maybe being a lawyer is a good match.

The trick here is this: if you genuinely, clinically, lack empathy... you can't be induced to experience it, although people who rise to that level often are able to mimic some of the range of appropriate responses and pretend. This is in contrast to the Bernie Madoff sociopath, who doesn't seem to experience any anguish at all, except where it's his life, and who literally is unable to see how others didn't "do this to [him]." Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here. :bugeye:

I'm still posting it. :rofl:

[nismaratwork]

Oh, and re: NOTE: It's not an emotion, or a guarantor of morality... it's the basis however for it, along with insight. You take away someone's ability to imagine the emotions of others, and you end with something profoundly amoral. Empathy informs us of the state of others, or possible state of others, but alone it's no sure-bet that you'll react positively to it. Some people relish the pain of others, and some understand, but they're too self-involed (clinically or not) to bother.

Empathy is not Morality, but without empathy you have at LEAST an amoral person, who is not much of a person at all.

[DanP]

Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here. :bugeye:

I'm still posting it. :rofl:

You cant say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

[nismaratwork]

You cant say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime. Drive... well... that's complex... he did in fact take the cheap way, the easy (at first) way, without appreciation for the snowball he was rolling. Absurd given his knowledge of what he was doing, right?... not if you truly lack that capacity, and for you it's better to steal a candy bar than buy it with the money in your pocket.

[DanP]

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime.

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ? The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

[nismaratwork]

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

There's nothing written in stone that says sociopaths can't be intelligent... in fact they run the gamut. As with any personality disorder, it's not a monolith, and simply throwing out diagnositic criteria is of limited use. Do I KNOW that Madoff is a sociopath? Hell no... I've never met him for one, and that's a deal-breaker already. Do I suspect, based on his conduct? Yep. His scamming has been long term, but from what I read he made tons of mistakes, but had the charm and connections to smooth them over. That's not insight, that's manipulative behaviour, which is another major diagnostic critera for both CD, and AS-PD.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ?

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy. John Wayne Gacy is a fine example of someone who had no empathy, no remorse, and no insight and minimal planning. He was very good at being a predator, but he sucked at hiding it... he was caught wtih 30+ bodies AROUND him. That's very typical of sociopaths and serial killers (who are sometimes sociopathic, and sometimes not).

This is the basis of the quasi-myth of "Superficial Charm"... it's not empathy however, anymore than a crocodile empathizes with a gazelle... it just knows to wait until they take a drink.

The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

For one thing, people in such powerful positions are often surrounded and supported by family members and colleeagues; they are after all, master manipulators. Having no compunctions about hurting others in any way makes you BETTER at manipulation. Remember however, that MOST sociopaths end:
1.) In prison
2.) Indigint
3.) Dead

The exceptions are not the rule, they're the really smart sharks, and ones who get lucky. If you look at a guy like Ted Bundy, he could have been caught earlier, but circumstanes conspired FOR him... eventually they have to for someone. That's not the norm however...

Another side of the lack of empathy, is the lack of regret and remorse, even when the harm is done to one's self, and the projection of blame. It's not just the usual, it's a genuine inability to appreciate personal responsiblity.

Hence the old, "Moral Imbicile"... or the translated from french, "Mania without Delirium"

It's long been held that sociopaths are not generally salvagable, and that while it's a mental illness, it's not an excuse. A sociopath knows they're doing the wrong thing, they just don't care.

[DanP]

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy.



empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

[nismaratwork]

empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

I'm not an expert in AS-PD, but you'll often notice innapropriate reactions in such people, and fankly they ARE good mimics. You can be a fine mimic, and manipulator based on cues given, and experience through trial and error.

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

[DanP]

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

Just saying, is not easy at all to conn somebody of billions, and doit on Wall Street where everybody and their mother is a financial expert.

As much as the deed itself is socially repugnant, it takes skills which frankly, too few ppl possess IMO. You don't make billions by luck.

[octelcogopod]

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?



What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.



Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..



Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I recieved for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?



To what end ?
To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does. Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it? I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work. By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves. The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics. The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence, and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

[DanP]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

Its not whatever they are happy or not, the question is whatever there exist an ESS. Happiness and unhappiness doesn't have anything to do with it.

[alt]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack.

No personal attack assumed - thanks for your comments. The world is in perfect, omnifarious balance. There are a huge variety of people, from the most wealthy to the most poor. That, I would say, is humanities lot. It has always been so - go back in history as far as you care, and tell me where or when it hasn't been so !

But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

But seriously, what would happen if they got those riches ? Have you thought this through ?

Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it?

Probably a combination of both, an also, probably because they don't measure happiness by the standards which you assume, i.e., material assets, money, Western lifestyle, etc. I maintain that some people in poor third world nations, may in fact be healthier, happier, have greater longevity, etc, than many of your fellow citizens.

I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work.

Answer me this - a question I have put many times here, but which no one endeavoured to answer; What will you do with those now fed millions, their subsequent aspirations towards a wealthy (and probably profligate) lifestyle, and their multitudinous offspring for which such aforementioned aspirations would be even more compelling ?

By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves.

I agree. Even in the poorest societies, exists a hierarchy of workers and owners / bosses. Anyway, I work to support myself. Most folk here would be working to support themselves. What are you saying here ? That everybody in the world should have the same, or similar roles ?

The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ? That no one should have more than, say, one million dollars in net assets, and that anyone who has an excess, should have it seized and redistributed to the poorest ? What are you going to do then, when those poorest prosper ? Nobody here ever develops this argument to the extent of replying to this and other such questions that I pose.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics.

I agree that the West is overconsuming. I don't believe the answer is to enable millions, billions more, to head in the same direction. Giving them the basics sounds kind, and humanitarian and all, and I agree it IS. But you, other similar thinkers, contributors here, NEVER seem to want to take this part of the discussion one or two steps further.


The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence,

Not necessarily a good thing IMO

and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

And then what ?

[chiro]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

[nismaratwork]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

As contrasted with India, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, England, Russia, Italy, (enter African Nation Here)... or any other country save for a few largely homogeneous (and successful) wealthy Scandinavian countries?

[apeiron]

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ?

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

[nismaratwork]

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

Now that I'll buy.

[chiro]

As contrasted with India, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, England, Russia, Italy, (enter African Nation Here)... or any other country save for a few largely homogeneous (and successful) wealthy Scandinavian countries?

I know its hard to generalize anything, but specifically I am thinking about how say for example manufacturing goes to the lowest bidder, and the exploitation involved allows people to live a comfortable lifestyle where they have decent purchasing power compared to say the country that pays its citizens scrap to produce the crap for the wealthier nations.

I will say however that such a process is not likely to go on indefinitely.

But as a result of so called "free trade", someone is going to be exploited to provide cheap crap to someone. Everything comes at a cost.

[nismaratwork]

I know its hard to generalize anything, but specifically I am thinking about how say for example manufacturing goes to the lowest bidder, and the exploitation involved allows people to live a comfortable lifestyle where they have decent purchasing power compared to say the country that pays its citizens scrap to produce the crap for the wealthier nations.

I will say however that such a process is not likely to go on indefinitely.

But as a result of so called "free trade", someone is going to be exploited to provide cheap crap to someone. Everything comes at a cost.

I would say the process is going to continue, but the focus will keep changing to different countries and regions, until we either follow the cornucopian view, somehow come to our senses, or die IMO.

[alt]

Now that I'll buy.

You'll need a micro loan ..

[alt]

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

I believe this concept too is unsound. Assume that everyone suddenly gets equal opportunity. Such a state is only going to be ephemeral - at best. The recipients, being an omnifarious lot, will handle such opportunity with a wide variety of results. On the one extreme, some will make great progress with the opportunity. Others will squander it. What then ? Do we wave the magic wand again ? And again ? And of course, we haven’t even touched upon the vastly UNEQUAL opportunity that the planet itself can dish out at a moments notice, way beyond ANY human control. New Zealand ? Japan ? The best laid plans of mice and men ..

BUT, even if every recipient of this new found equality of opportunity used it similarly well and derived optimum benefit, it would still be of no ultimate benefit to anyone. You would simply be transferring them to a status somewhat higher than what they might be on at the moment, but still in similar competition relative to each other - and closing in on YOU. In fact, you would ultimately exacerbate their problems, by facilitating their populations to increase more than they would have otherwise done, had you not interfered.

Where is it written that we must take the third world and increase it’s comfort level by an amount of our choosing, whereas evolution, natural forces, (or God / the Great Pumpkin, or whatever be your predilection) decrees that it should be where it is at this moment ?

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation)

I’m not sure of the point you are making here. Life is to be set up ? By who ? Who elevated you or I to the status of being setters up of life for other peoples ? Life sets itself up - and in an infinite variety of ways. If you came across an undiscovered island or country whose aboriginals lived in poverty and squalor (by our measure) but lived nonetheless, would you feel compelled to rush in and better their lot according to Western standards ?

then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

And there it is. They will enter some race if given the chance. What race ? The race sustainability ? The race to treading lightly upon the earth ? Nah ! That’s what they must be doing already - and for millennia past, in order to have survived until now . More likely, the race they will enter will be that of personal gain by the stronger among them, at the expense of the weaker. The race to enter the glittering benefits and riches and consumerism of the West. The race to propagation of their race and proliferation of their culture and religion, into an already burgeoning global population, not without it’s share of existing conflicts.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

Giving everyone the same opportunity is akin to giving no one opportunity. Think this through a few steps.

In an earlier post you said something about micro loans being part of the answer. A cute, feely goody concept - but have you or it’s proponents ever really thought this through ?

Take a million destitute, third world people. You want to help them. Micro loans - how many are you going to give them to ? A thousand ? Ten thousand ? What about the rest ? You have given a huge economic advantage to them by way of monetary leverage (look up monetarism) over the rest of them. Why did you discriminate against the other 990k ? You have disturbed the balance in their society, and you will soon have avarice, jealousy, revolt on your hands.

Oh, you didn’t ? You’re going to give equal opportunity to everyone ? A micro loan to each of the entire million ? I won’t even bother to continue with this part .. Surely you can see the absurdity of it.

Micro loans, my friend, become macro loans .. are a mere device to get a whole country addicted to the most toxic, addictive, enslaving substance on this earth - it’s called DEBT. We are swimming in vast oceans of it. To create multiple millions more debt junkies ..

Nah ! .. I don’t think so !

[apeiron]

I believe this concept too is unsound. Assume that everyone suddenly gets equal opportunity. Such a state is only going to be ephemeral - at best. The recipients, being an omnifarious lot, will handle such opportunity with a wide variety of results. On the one extreme, some will make great progress with the opportunity. Others will squander it. What then ? Do we wave the magic wand again ? And again ?


But it is not logical to suggest that a social system that could create that level playing field, that prevailing state of opportunity, would not continue to do so. If it has arisen in the first instance, you have to explain why it does not continue to remain in place.

I started to reply in more detail to the rest of your post, but it is such a sad rant that I just erased any further comment.....

[nismaratwork]

You'll need a micro loan ..

:rofl:

(P.S. Will respond to your email soon, requires thought.)

@apeiron: I could see such a situation degrading due to birth-rate, or the formation of sects... not likely, but not beyond imagination.

[alt]

But it is not logical to suggest that a social system that could create that level playing field, that prevailing state of opportunity, would not continue to do so. If it has arisen in the first instance, you have to explain why it does not continue to remain in place.

I started to reply in more detail to the rest of your post, but it is such a sad rant that I just erased any further comment.....

Sad rant ? I'll get you some tissues.

Or maybe that's not quite the reason you erased further comment.

[alt]

:rofl:
(P.S. Will respond to your email soon, requires thought.)


Cool. BTW, I like your new pic .. but .. what is it ???

[apeiron]

Sad rant ? I'll get you some tissues.

Thanks.

Or maybe that's not quite the reason you erased further comment.

It really was.

[nismaratwork]

Cool. BTW, I like your new pic .. but .. what is it ???

Alucard from an anime called 'Hellsing'. Very good music in that one...


The name is not creative, alas... spell it backwards. *shrug*

@ap/alt: Guys... come on, you could verbally spar all day and night, which means you could probably communicate too.

[alt]

Alucard from an anime called 'Hellsing'. Very good music in that one...


The name is not creative, alas... spell it backwards. *shrug*

@ap/alt: Guys... come on, you could verbally spar all day and night, which means you could probably communicate too.

Thanks. I'll check the music out. I asked what it was before I realised it was a face. Then, what intrigued was the hand gesture (for some oblique reason that I won't go into here). So I clicked onto it but only got your profile, with no higher resolution. Oh well - not to worry.

[alt]

Thanks.



It really was.

The pretty cowbells on 'em, (the tissues) should hopefully alleviate the 'sad' I caused you.

So, 'sad rant' really was the one and only reason you did not respond to the issues I raised. OK, I'll be briefer. Earlier you said;

what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

You start of with equality and give them a chance to enter the race. They race. Some come first, some come last - high success to dismal failure.

Then what ? Do you start the race again, and again ?

Let's start with that one - we'll do 'em one at a time.

[nismaratwork]

Thanks. I'll check the music out. I asked what it was before I realised it was a face. Then, what intrigued was the hand gesture (for some oblique reason that I won't go into here). So I clicked onto it but only got your profile, with no higher resolution. Oh well - not to worry.

I cropped it from this picture:

http://img299.imageshack.us/i/hellsingwallpaper01pu8.jpg/

[apeiron]

You start of with equality and give them a chance to enter the race. They race. Some come first, some come last - high success to dismal failure..

So what political system do you favour if not liberal free market democracy?

[alt]

So what political system do you favour if not liberal free market democracy?

I like liberal, although the term has different meanings depending on country. In Aus, the liberals are the conservative party. In USA, I suspect the liberals are not the conservative party, and liberals there has quite a different meaning.

I like free market - a great deal.

I like democracy, though I think one has never really existed .. for long.

But what's that got to do with the OP and the recent issues discussed here ?

[turbo]

Here is my cousin's Kiva page. The program directs his money to needy people in the form of micro-loans, and as the money gets paid back, it gets loaned out again and again.

http://www.kiva.org/lender/robert5226

[apeiron]

But what's that got to do with the OP and the recent issues discussed here ?

Err, a belief in equal opportunities for all concerned? Everyone can enter the race, some are dismal failures. Yet somehow the race goes on.

[alt]

Here is my cousin's Kiva page. The program directs his money to needy people in the form of micro-loans, and as the money gets paid back, it gets loaned out again and again.

http://www.kiva.org/lender/robert5226

... and is there a better definition than being sucked into debt slavery than that ?

After WWII for example, Britain provided small amounts to their ex servicemen, for starting a home, a verture, etc (as would have many other countries, I'm sure).

Here's the natural, inevitable conclusion ..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/uk-home-buyers-offered-cash-splash-to-enter-market-20110317-1bxuf.html

[alt]

Err, a belief in equal opportunities for all concerned? Everyone can enter the race, some are dismal failures. Yet somehow the race goes on.

It does. and without any need for nobbling by the umpire.

[apeiron]

It does. and without any need for nobbling by the umpire.

Oh, so you believe an umpire or some such mechanism is required to ensure fair play? Good, we can agree then.

[turbo]

... and is there a better definition than being sucked into debt slavery than that ?

After WWII for example, Britain provided small amounts to their ex servicemen, for starting a home, a verture, etc (as would have many other countries, I'm sure).

Here's the natural, inevitable conclusion ..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/uk-home-buyers-offered-cash-splash-to-enter-market-20110317-1bxuf.htmlDebt slavery? Have you scrolled through Jeff's pages to see how many people have paid him back in full? He supplied them with enough credit to buy a few pigs, a cow or two, a bit of equipment, or maybe a cheap vehicle to establish a taxi service.

Talk to the people who live in the US, and who get nothing for interest on our savings, while poor people here have to pay exorbitant interest rates on small short-term loans (credit cards).

[alt]

Debt slavery? Have you scrolled through Jeff's pages to see how many people have paid him back in full?

Here is what you said earlier;

The program directs his money to needy people in the form of micro-loans, and as the money gets paid back, it gets loaned out again and again.

This is proof that people have come to rely on debt. Debt slavery. Whereas before, they survived, indeed flourished, made it this far - without debt, they now have to keep coming back again and again for it. Debt slavery.

He supplied them with enough credit to buy a few pigs, a cow or two, a bit of equipment, or maybe a cheap vehicle to establish a taxi service.

Those pigs, cows, equipment, taxi service, etc, would have been in existance, and used to maximum advantage in someone else’s hands. All your cousin did was afford a few people in a group of (say) a million people, an unfair advantage over all the others. Where is the equal opportunity for all others in that (and in the process, contributed to upward price pressure of said goods and services) ?

Talk to the people who live in the US, and who get nothing for interest on our savings, while poor people here have to pay exorbitant interest rates on small short-term loans (credit cards).

Good point. And I recall, many decades ago, when credit cards were first concieved by the banks, we got them in the mail, unrequested, and at a tiny interest rate ... was it about .25% .. nice micro loan, that !

Now, I need to make an important point here. This is a philosophy forum. I am merely following up the philosophical angles of folk who have well meaning intentions about helping millions, billions of people, and .. to what avail ?

I think that most folk, as a result of their own good nature, refuse point blank to follow these arguments to their conclusions that I've tried to stimulate discussion of here, believing that such concluions couldn't possibly be the case. But I believe they are.


A man should look for what is, not what he thinks should be; Albert Einstein.


PS - I am in no way opposed to capitalism. I would describe myself as a capitalist without any qualms.

[nismaratwork]

I would say that debt in the form of microloans is more akin to a proxy for earlier societies in which skills and labor were the subject of trade. The rapid-repay nature means that debt is transient, which is the very opposite of debt-slavery.

Now, take in contrast to that, a "wage-slave", where there is no loaning for lack of a need. I think the case of these micro-loans generally would only put one person in debt: the lender. That said, evidence indicates that within specific economic spheres, even that doesn't happen, but that's in the case of short-term very small loans in the private sector.

You could argue that they have been given an unfair advantage, but the criteria for the loan seem to be in favor of giving tools to those already in an advantageous position. These are people with the skill and work ethic to turn the product of those small loans into something self-sustaining... that is not a universal ethic it seems. In addition, you materially aid the community by not having some of its members dependant on some form or another of public and private welfare.

[alt]

I would say that debt in the form of microloans is more akin to a proxy for earlier societies in which skills and labor were the subject of trade.

Trade (payment in due course) of skills and labor is just that - trade. Not moneylending.

The rapid-repay nature means that debt is transient, which is the very opposite of debt-slavery.

The Kiva website however, lauds it's own growth. 21,300 lenders made a loan this week. 12 seconds between loans. $1.6M lent this week, etc. The rapid repay nature is (timewise) not much different to the repay nature of credit cards. The point is, if people keep coming back for it, and if it is in growth, which it obviously is, there is dependency on it.

Now, take in contrast to that, a "wage-slave", where there is no loaning for lack of a need. I think the case of these micro-loans generally would only put one person in debt: the lender. That said, evidence indicates that within specific economic spheres, even that doesn't happen, but that's in the case of short-term very small loans in the private sector.[/

The lender is the creditor. The borrower is the debtor. I'm not sure how you see the lender as being the one in debt. Or, I could have jut missed your point here.

You could argue that they have been given an unfair advantage, but the criteria for the loan seem to be in favor of giving tools to those already in an advantageous position.

Yes. My point is, however, that this is anathema to the 'level palying feild for all' which seems to be the concept in vogue here.

These are people with the skill and work ethic to turn the product of those small loans into something self-sustaining... that is not a universal ethic it seems.

Agree - and those with the skills and the work ethic will prosper - those without, will not - in fact, they may end up in a position worse than what they otherwise would have, had such loans NOT been made to the more capable. I'm not arguing against this at all - capitalism - free market, etc.

I AM however, remarking that it seems to be as I said above, anathema to the concepts in vogue here.

In addition, you materially aid the community by not having some of its members dependant on some form or another of public and private welfare.

But you do have them dependant on micro loans, and, according to the Kiva site, an ever increasing debt burden. Kind of reminds me of modern day banking in it's infancy.

PS - did you have a look at the link I posted in post #368 in this thread ? $110,000 in grants to get people to buy a house in Britain. The system has gone mad !

Edit - added to 2nd last paragraph

[alt]

Just looking through the Kiva website

http://www.kiva.org/about/microfinance

I find ..

To break even on the $500 loan, the MFI would need to collect interest of $50 + 5 + $25 = $80, which represents an annual interest rate of 16%. To break even on the $100 loan, the MFI would need to collect interest of $10 + 1 + $25 = $36, which is an interest rate of 36%. At first glance, a rate this high looks abusive to many people, especially when the clients are poor. But in fact, this interest rate simply reflects the basic reality that when loan sizes get very small, transaction costs loom larger because these costs can't be cut below certain minimums."

Now, everything said above is IMO correct .. still, 36% .. damn expensive in any case - not just for poor people. Reminds me of pawn prokers / short term payday loans, etc .. heck, there was even an uproar about this on a current affairs program recently, where pawn brokers were being accused of usury, rip offs, in such short term loans.

Also, check out Kiva's board of directors at;

http://www.kiva.org/about/team/advisors

Great people - entrepreneurs mostly - some ex PayPal, eBay, etc. Also active in many internet bussinesses, banking in some cases, etc. A huge variety of talents.

Interesting.

[nismaratwork]

Hmmmm... I'll research this some more...

I did note the link you posted, and in that situation I'd have to agree that something is terribly amiss. The nature of a microloan however, is that you're dealing with people who have poor credit, and without the attempt to essentially extort through stringing out payments.

I should probably come clean and be clear: I think the concept of a level playing field has only ever existed in the human imagination; no better example is the "horror" expressed at doping in sports. I don't think most people appreciate that a level playing field is practically absurd, and one can try for a measure of equality without pretending that everyone has a fair break.

[alt]

Hmmmm... I'll research this some more...

I did note the link you posted, and in that situation I'd have to agree that something is terribly amiss.

This (British $110k home owners grant) is but one of the perverse manifestations of what happens when an economy or an asset class comes to rely on ever increasing cycles of debt to support growth and progress (note, I said ‘ever increasing cycles of debt’ not ‘debt’).


The nature of a microloan however, is that you're dealing with people who have poor credit, and without the attempt to essentially extort through stringing out payments.

Yes, but ultimately the same effects develop - see following.

I should probably come clean and be clear: I think the concept of a level playing field has only ever existed in the human imagination; no better example is the "horror" expressed at doping in sports. I don't think most people appreciate that a level playing field is practically absurd, and one can try for a measure of equality without pretending that everyone has a fair break.

It isn’t really that hard (though it’s uncomfortable) to push our thinking one or two steps beyond what we believe and see if there’s an altogether different truth. Consensus reality dictates that the more we (the West) give to third world nations, the better off they well be. I think the opposite is the case. I can’t think ill of well meaning people who want to stretch out an arm in the run of generosity to others, but before they go to far with it, they should think these things through a few steps, and very deeply;

- Just how did that population that you are trying to aid, get to where it is now, over the last couple millennia ? Obviously, without your charity, without your micro loans, etc, and in the face of all adversity that nature has thrown at them.

- Injecting money (be it in the form of charity or loans or whatever) into any society or economy, does two things primarily; it creates an increase in economic activity (very quickly) and it drives prices up (eventually). Increased economic activity generally brings about increased consumption, consumerism, etc. Increase in prices brings about a necessity for increasing amounts of money creation / debt (witness the ‘more, more, more’ prescription in the Kiva website).

- It also creates disparity, and eventual jealousy and greed. Example - whereas anyone could have bought a cow for, say, 10,000 rupiah, suddenly, out of a million third world people, a few of them - the most capable, entrepreneurial and creditworthy, have been blessed with magic money of say, $500. Now they can buy TWO cows outright ! Their poor, ‘backward‘, non entrepreneurial neighbours who have over the last 10 years saved 8,000 rupiah still cannot buy ONE. And worse, because of the injection of more money into their system chasing the same number of cows, the value of THEIR 8,000 rupiah is diluted !!!

As the poet Wordsworth would say, ‘a sordid boon’.

[nismaratwork]

This (British $110k home owners grant) is but one of the perverse manifestations of what happens when an economy or an asset class comes to rely on ever increasing cycles of debt to support growth and progress (note, I said ‘ever increasing cycles of debt’ not ‘debt’).

Agreed


Yes, but ultimately the same effects develop - see following.

I think there are constraints in place to keep any given person or family from falling into that cyclical trap. As a society, no, but on the individual level it seems to work

It isn’t really that hard (though it’s uncomfortable) to push our thinking one or two steps beyond what we believe and see if there’s an altogether different truth. Consensus reality dictates that the more we (the West) give to third world nations, the better off they well be. I think the opposite is the case. I can’t think ill of well meaning people who want to stretch out an arm in the run of generosity to others, but before they go to far with it, they should think these things through a few steps, and very deeply;

- Just how did that population that you are trying to aid, get to where it is now, over the last couple millennia ? Obviously, without your charity, without your micro loans, etc, and in the face of all adversity that nature has thrown at them.

- Injecting money (be it in the form of charity or loans or whatever) into any society or economy, does two things primarily; it creates an increase in economic activity (very quickly) and it drives prices up (eventually). Increased economic activity generally brings about increased consumption, consumerism, etc. Increase in prices brings about a necessity for increasing amounts of money creation / debt (witness the ‘more, more, more’ prescription in the Kiva website).

- It also creates disparity, and eventual jealousy and greed. Example - whereas anyone could have bought a cow for, say, 10,000 rupiah, suddenly, out of a million third world people, a few of them - the most capable, entrepreneurial and creditworthy, have been blessed with magic money of say, $500. Now they can buy TWO cows outright ! Their poor, ‘backward‘, non entrepreneurial neighbours who have over the last 10 years saved 8,000 rupiah still cannot buy ONE. And worse, because of the injection of more money into their system chasing the same number of cows, the value of THEIR 8,000 rupiah is diluted !!!

As the poet Wordsworth would say, ‘a sordid boon’.

I'm a little too Darwinian in my approach to see anything, but a benefit from the brighter and more entrepreneurial folks getting a leg (or a cow) up on the neighbors. This is also, I should add, most effective in countries which have failed their populace, so a personal investment in the overall wellbeing of a dying currency is unlikely to be a major factor.

On the level of the overall system, it's corrosive, a sordid boon as you and Wordsworth say, but for the people who live a better (or at all) life as a result, it's hard to tell them to be more concerned about the Rupiah than their families or lives. There is also the matter of reducing poverty, which may well have a positive effect on currency as you build a consumer class for more cow-feed or pasture land, etc.

[Clel Lee II]

Hummmmm.
So let me give you a thought.
I have have always wanted an expensive home , the fast cars. etc I work hard , I take , I work harder, I get more and more , I now have that house and those cars, everything everyone seems to think man you made it. I have, I walk in the house and look and man I am now happy!!!!!
Ok Now I walking and I see childern with no shoes or cloths, food, hummmmm
I sell that house and cars, and things , buy smaller things.
I put shoes on their feet and clothes on them, feed them. What is going to make me feel better? Or anyone for that matter. Social mentality dictates our minds but not our hearts.

[mugaliens]

This (British $110k home owners grant)...

I'm DEFINATELY living in the wrong country.

[alt]

Agreed




I think there are constraints in place to keep any given person or family from falling into that cyclical trap. As a society, no, but on the individual level it seems to work



I'm a little too Darwinian in my approach to see anything, but a benefit from the brighter and more entrepreneurial folks getting a leg (or a cow) up on the neighbors. This is also, I should add, most effective in countries which have failed their populace, so a personal investment in the overall wellbeing of a dying currency is unlikely to be a major factor.

On the level of the overall system, it's corrosive, a sordid boon as you and Wordsworth say, but for the people who live a better (or at all) life as a result, it's hard to tell them to be more concerned about the Rupiah than their families or lives. There is also the matter of reducing poverty, which may well have a positive effect on currency as you build a consumer class for more cow-feed or pasture land, etc.

The sum of it then, and I think we are saying the same thing, is that money in the form charity or loans, results in capitalism, competition, consumerism, consumption, etc. This is quite a different thing to that of level playing field, equality for all, etc, which had been the theme of some posters here.

[alt]

I'm DEFINATELY living in the wrong country.

Nah !

The problem with free money is that it quickly loses it's potency, and as the economy it services gets more and more reliant on it, the quantum has to continually increase - you gotta run faster and faster just to stand still.

The truth of this is self evident, in the absurd amount referenced .. $110,000 !

[nismaratwork]

The sum of it then, and I think we are saying the same thing, is that money in the form charity or loans, results in capitalism, competition, consumerism, consumption, etc. This is quite a different thing to that of level playing field, equality for all, etc, which had been the theme of some posters here.

Yep, that works for me, although you said it far more eloquently than my stumbling attempts. A Philosopher I am not, but I'm learning quite a bit from the group here.

[alt]

Yep, that works for me, although you said it far more eloquently than my stumbling attempts. A Philosopher I am not, but I'm learning quite a bit from the group here.

That's the wonderful thing about this place.

[octelcogopod]

But seriously, what would happen if they got those riches ? Have you thought this through ?

Probably a combination of both, an also, probably because they don't measure happiness by the standards which you assume, i.e., material assets, money, Western lifestyle, etc. I maintain that some people in poor third world nations, may in fact be healthier, happier, have greater longevity, etc, than many of your fellow citizens.

Answer me this - a question I have put many times here, but which no one endeavoured to answer; What will you do with those now fed millions, their subsequent aspirations towards a wealthy (and probably profligate) lifestyle, and their multitudinous offspring for which such aforementioned aspirations would be even more compelling ?



I agree. Even in the poorest societies, exists a hierarchy of workers and owners / bosses. Anyway, I work to support myself. Most folk here would be working to support themselves. What are you saying here ? That everybody in the world should have the same, or similar roles ?

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ? That no one should have more than, say, one million dollars in net assets, and that anyone who has an excess, should have it seized and redistributed to the poorest ? What are you going to do then, when those poorest prosper ? Nobody here ever develops this argument to the extent of replying to this and other such questions that I pose.

I think that first we would not be able to keep up the creation of millions of products and goods wasting natural resources of which people with money buy only to throw away later, and much of it isn't even recycled. Second I would think as apeiron said that having a fair opportunity for all is the only way to reach a fair inequality. I think a lot of different factors are at play but the biggest ones are the limited resources and the limited space. Globalization is not good because it makes it harder for isolated countries or groups of people to set up their own equilibrium of goods and jobs. When we have such a limited amount of different kinds of fuels and soil we can use, actual land that is usable and not disturbed by neighboring states and a global system that spans both politically, socially and economically we automatically are going to have a lot of inequality that spans the entire globe. I think since we are on this planet we are going to have to limit consumption tremendously, and then everyone can be rich but in a moderated manner. Enough for more essential stuff and not a bunch of useless plastic toys and 2 cell phones every year per person.

If everyone was rich now of course the ecosystem would fail both in terms of labor but also resources, so right now the wealth of some are riding on the inequality of others and spending both their labor and a lot of resources which if the whole world would use at the same time would result in a collapse of sorts very soon. Of course I don't think this is a moral objection to changing things.

[alt]

.. and then there's always the issue of corruption

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/millions-lost-in-foreign-aid-scam/story-e6freuzr-1226027016991

AUSTRALIA'S $4.5 billion foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and overseas agencies.
AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation - stretching across 27 countries and totalling millions of dollars.

Documents released under Freedom of Information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with widespread theft of money and forging of receipts.

They also show how food and other supplies are being diverted from dirt-poor communities and sold on the black market at inflated prices.

While AusAID insists it is improving fraud control, the documents also reveal police are often reluctant to intervene and charge local criminals - frustrating the agency's attempts to recover missing aid money.

(@ octelcogopod; will respond to your post later)

[alt]

I think that first we would not be able to keep up the creation of millions of products and goods wasting natural resources of which people with money buy only to throw away later, and much of it isn't even recycled.

I agree, though people with newly developed spending power will be difficult to convince of this.

Second I would think as apeiron said that having a fair opportunity for all is the only way to reach a fair inequality.

A fair inequality ? I don't understand.

I think a lot of different factors are at play but the biggest ones are the limited resources and the limited space.

Which is a powerful arguement AGAINST aiding third world into new found consumerism.

Globalization is not good because it makes it harder for isolated countries or groups of people to set up their own equilibrium of goods and jobs. When we have such a limited amount of different kinds of fuels and soil we can use, actual land that is usable and not disturbed by neighboring states and a global system that spans both politically, socially and economically we automatically are going to have a lot of inequality that spans the entire globe. I think since we are on this planet we are going to have to limit consumption tremendously, and then everyone can be rich but in a moderated manner.

Who will do the moderating ? Rich people consume more than poor people. Try telling a very rich person what they can do with their money and see where that gets you.

Enough for more essential stuff and not a bunch of useless plastic toys and 2 cell phones every year per person.

To tell a rich person that he or she can only spend their money on essential stuff is a bit weird. He / she won't feel very rich. The very essence of being (financially) rich is to have money to buy all the stuff you like.

If everyone was rich now of course the ecosystem would fail both in terms of labor but also resources, so right now the wealth of some are riding on the inequality of others and spending both their labor and a lot of resources which if the whole world would use at the same time would result in a collapse of sorts very soon.

Yes - that's why some are rich and others are poor. Though I'm sure that if those poor became rich, they would behave the same as the rich do now.

Of course I don't think this is a moral objection to changing things.

So it's best not to interfere much, and let evolution / natural forces take it's course. I agree.

PS; did you read the Australian article I linked above ? Powerful evidence of what I've been saying all along. Even those poorest people for whom aid is intended, are abusing it whenever and wherever they can, and seeking their own enrichment at the expense of their neigbours. GREED ! One of the two primary human motivators, IMO - the other being fear.

[alt]

.. and then there's always the issue of corruption

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/millions-lost-in-foreign-aid-scam/story-e6freuzr-1226027016991

AUSTRALIA'S $4.5 billion foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and overseas agencies.
AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation - stretching across 27 countries and totalling millions of dollars.

Documents released under Freedom of Information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with widespread theft of money and forging of receipts.

They also show how food and other supplies are being diverted from dirt-poor communities and sold on the black market at inflated prices.

While AusAID insists it is improving fraud control, the documents also reveal police are often reluctant to intervene and charge local criminals - frustrating the agency's attempts to recover missing aid money.

(@ octelcogopod; will respond to your post later)

This is a further report following the one above;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/diplomat-anger-at-wasted-png-aid/story-e6freuzr-1226027712458

[Roysun]

all and all no matter how we see it, humanity needs to focus their money on development and the production of inventions to make life and easier and the our world a better place. scientific development is the only cure from sickness to fuels. America, instead of spending 500 billion dollars annually, should spend it on free college education and scientific development. im sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldnt need to focus on planet killing material.

[chiro]

all and all no matter how we see it, humanity needs to focus their money on development and the production of inventions to make life and easier and the our world a better place. scientific development is the only cure from sickness to fuels. America, instead of spending 500 billion dollars annually, should spend it on free college education and scientific development. im sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldnt need to focus on planet killing material.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, however if you want that to become a reality you have to remove conflicts of interest from everyone involved, and I think that is pretty much impossible. I know its not optimistic, but I think that statement has a big dose of reality.

[Vespa71]

It is human instinct to help those needing, and also to mind one's own business. Television has presented graphically many needs for help.

It is natural that a wild animal starves to death somewhere in the mountain during winter. Is it still OK if we know it is about to happen? A cameracrew is filming a documentary about a child with AIDS in an african country: The crew can help, but choose to document natural course of life. It is good journalism, but is it immoral?

What I ask as a counterquestion to the thread-start: If we choose to not hear about disasters and famines on the news, are we then in the clear? Is it receiving the information that incriminate us?

If we choose to live scarcely, and make less money than we can: Are we then acting imorally, since we then are less able to help the needing?

"It is not my problem" is a useful statement when we need to stress down about other people's issues. I think it applies here.

[Consophist]

I didn't read through the entire thread, only the first few pages.

Point being though, it isn't about a single kid in a pond, drowning. This is about millions of people in the pond drowning.

The real question, is it more moral to save "Kid A", or "Kid B"?

So, spending money on that snickers bar, sure, is less moral than saving someone. But along the way, the line begins to blur and you wonder why the kid to the right got the vaccine over the kid to the left, but yet you don't have enough money to save them all.

Does that constitute not saving anyone? No. But is sure does help with wrapping your head around the reality of the situation.

[mathal]

Yes every disaster needs immediate responce but to make any seminal change in this planet people as a whole in developed countries have to accept that their 'high life' is on the backs of the 'low lives' of the third world. The only way I can see that is workable is to encourage contributions to viable-AKA 'real' non profit organizations in wills. We in developed countries -the majority of the people reading this fall into this category - are well aware that any offspring we have will do better than the majority of this planet will do in the best of circumstances.

mathal

p.s. the perjorative 'low life' inference was deliberate- a kick in the pants to 'us'.

[brushman]

What's wrong with helping increase the productivity in places like Africa? Surely helping to "jump start" Africa's economy would be of benefit to everyone?

It does make sense that everyone being rich is not sustainable. However, it also seems that we are far below this point, and that through strategic charity we can reach a higher net global wealth that maximizes happiness in the world.

[Willowz]

Throw at them money and make the problem go away? I don't think so.

[mheslep]

I have no time for theoretical arguments from the likes of Singer, who as far as I can tell does not share my understanding of the word moral.

If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth?
That's not tongue in cheek, he's serious.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/

http://books.google.com/books?id=3iclwz6EcbAC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Peter+Singer+adult+chimps+versus+infant+humans&source=bl&ots=fAHTKmpagg&sig=sinWiLfEZgjvh87ItYxXXIs2xiY&hl=en&ei=e5k0TbDqI4T78Abwi832CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false



1995, London Spectator, "Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong"

Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, might have also had some interestingly crafted arguments. At least he was not given a Chair at Princeton.

[chiro]

I have no time for theoretical arguments from the likes of Singer, who as far as I can tell does not share my understanding of the word moral.

That's not tongue in cheek, he's serious.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/

http://books.google.com/books?id=3iclwz6EcbAC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Peter+Singer+adult+chimps+versus+infant+humans&source=bl&ots=fAHTKmpagg&sig=sinWiLfEZgjvh87ItYxXXIs2xiY&hl=en&ei=e5k0TbDqI4T78Abwi832CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

1995, London Spectator, "Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong"

Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, might have also had some interestingly crafted arguments. At least he was not given a Chair at Princeton.

The only thing I want to add to your comment is that if you and your partner/wife/whatever decide to have kids, then you should really be responsible and take this responsibility seriously for not only being responsible for raising the kids but also to teach the kids how to be personally responsible themselves.

But the above does not support this guys argument: I think the guy is nuts personally.

If people do their absolute best to raise people of the world in the manner above (not only these but in a way that at least includes them), then they can hold their head up high and say that they did the best they could and that it ends up being the person themselves who makes their own decisions and knows that they need to be responsible for themselves.

For these people that advocate population reduction in any shape or form, they should be the first to line up and take their oath seriously: I'm sick and tired of people like this.