News I'm sorry Sudanese citizens - the world is too whimpy to help you

[kyleb]

well it really goes wrong when you realize he is implying that since many people will eat a sandwich while letting others starve, droping bombs on inoncent people is peachy.

 

[Njorl]

well it really goes wrong when you realize he is implying that since many people will eat a sandwich while letting others starve, droping bombs on inoncent people is peachy.

Intentional ignorance is a strong defense. The problem is, you remain ignorant.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Yes and it's just your motivation of that principle that strikes us as unconvincing. You wave your hands and say that if I eat a sandwich, some poor person will starve, and there is no credible causal chain between the premise and the conclusion.

The causal chain has been laid out clearly. If you are more comfortable ignoring it, that is just fine. I ignore it most of the time too. Life is easier that way.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

Long term. A market that caters to luxury eating requires higher food prices. More land must be brought into cultivation. Rents on lands brought into production are higher than rents on lands necessary for subsistance. The higher rent price is not passed on solely to the overconsumer, it is shared equally by all consumers.

Can you demonstrate how a high priced piece of land cultivated to grow and sell a luxury food item to the wealthy affects, for example, the price of beans continuing to be grown on some other piece of land?

Since some people do starve for purely economic reasons, your assumption is obviously wrong.

You do not prove your position by misrepresenting mine; I never claimed people do not starve for purely economic reasons. There may be many reasons why an individual starves that can be traced to economics, but not all of them support your assertion. If you cannot demonstrate that your overeating necessarily causes the starvation death of another then your argument must necessarily fail, simple as that.

I realize that economic starvation is rare, but it does happen. By starvation, I do not mean death from lack of calories, I mean death from other causes due to vulnerability from lack of calories.

Do you mean death by malnutrition or a condition related to same? Ok, I won’t argue the expansion of the definition of starvation, I think I can accept your position here, but this could also complicate things for you because now another link must be shown to exist.

I agree that our individual actions play a role in an economy, but I do not think it is possible to define the consequences of a personal action with such precision as you appear to do. In fact, were I to argue anything, I would more than likely assert the impossibility of knowing all the long-term ramifications eating an additional sandwich might have on society.

While the luxury eater's demand creates some work, and hence some additional pay, it is necessarily less than enough to compensate for the rise in food prices.

You have not proven this assertion. For all we know, catering to a luxury eater might result in a technology breakthrough leading to more affordable consumer goods. Who can really say with certainty? Is there some greater percentage of people starving in countries where luxury food is available than in countries where it is not?

Most calories have a fungible nature. Land used for grain for human consumption can be used to grow cattle feed. Land used for legumes can be used to grow strawberries and asparagus. The dissimilarities of the diet are immaterial. Luxury food displaces subsistance food.

I think it is time for contrast with your earlier statement;

“More land must be brought into cultivation…”

As can be seen, the claim was first made that luxury eating must bring new lands into production. Subsequently, a claim is made that luxury food displaces subsistence food (taking over existing land?). Are you attempting to have your luxury food and eat it too?!
In any event, you have not shown either of these contradictory claims will result in someone being starved to death, and that would remain so even if I were to agree prices might possibly increase.

No, my argument is accurate. I am not guilty of the fallacy of presumption, provided any people in the world die either directly or indirectly due to the expense of food.

This is very much incorrect;
First, even allowing for direct/indirect deaths due to expense of food, overlooked are other factors unrelated to your claim which can and do affect the price of foodstuffs, and you cannot be held accountable for all of them by simple overeating.
Second, context is in fact an issue here; you cannot merely throw a blanket statement that so long as 'any people in the world die...', as you must show the relevance to your overeating. You appear to be attempting to lend credit to a specific claim by appeal to a broader observation having other causes.

In any event, you have already defeated what you now attempt to argue by admission;

Admittedly, I would need to eat more burgers than is humanly possible just make one other person starve, but McDonald's has "Billions served".

So, it can be concluded it is not humanly possible for you to starve one other person…case closed…your bold assertion I chose to dispute had no merit.
Now, if you wish to identify with the perceived collective guilt of overeating as something you are to be personally accountable for then feel free. I think it is largely a waste of guilt.

 

[russ_watters]

Dang, I forgot about this thread...

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

No, kyleb, this has nothing to do with moral relativism. I don't know where you get that idea from, but moral relativism simply means that morality is in the eye of the beholder.

What I was describing is Utilitarianism and its a form of moral absolutism.

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

The point is, that one can't be a perfectly moral being. For one thing, one can't know how, and if one did know how, one would fail anyway. One is always harming the innocent.

Well put. My critereon for morality is simply that a person make an honest effort to be moral - and I still am a moral absolutist.

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

But they do also teach in Econ101 (just as they teach in Materials Science 101) that there is no such thing as completely inelastic. That the demand for oil (for example) can be considered "inelastic" simply means that there is low elasticity. Prices could go up 50% (as they have since 9/11 and demand drops by very little - but still does drop.

 

[russ_watters]

If...

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

I'm sure you know that those if's, while accurate according to the equations of economics, are oversimplifications. There are other "ifs" that make a bigger difference:

-If the government would stop paying farmers to grow dirt, there would be more grain available for export.

-If more people would care enough to intervene in situations like the Sudan, famines and genocide could all but be eliminated in the world.

In any case, your point is well taken, though I think most people were too shocked by your content to see through to the point: Whether people like it or not, everyone uses a moral calculus in their daily lives.

So my question (again) is: Is that right (moral)?

 

[Njorl]

Can you demonstrate how a high priced piece of land cultivated to grow and sell a luxury food item to the wealthy affects, for example, the price of beans continuing to be grown on some other piece of land?

For one thing, assuming that beans would continue to be grown on existing plots is erroneous. If we assume the market changes by the addition of demand for luxury food items, we should assume that all aspects of the supply chain are affected by that addition. Each farmer will re-assess his financial situation and determine if he should plant beans or luxury items, and in which fields he should plant them.

Now, if we assume that some of the bean fields have been replanted with cattle feed, more fields must be brought into production. The reason those fields were not in production before is that the cost of operating those fields was too high to warrant planting in them - due to irrigation needs, low mineral content etc. (BTW, the costs associated with bringing land into production is what is meant by "rent" in agricultural economics.)

So we are faced with one of two situations. Either luxury food production displaces some bean production, or it moves some bean production to more expensive land, increasing production costs.

You do not prove your position by misrepresenting mine; I never claimed people do not starve for purely economic reasons. There may be many reasons why an individual starves that can be traced to economics, but not all of them support your assertion. If you cannot demonstrate that your overeating necessarily causes the starvation death of another then your argument must necessarily fail, simple as that.

I have very clearly demonstrated that unnecessary consumption does increase prices. You have accepted that there is economically based starvation. Can I prove that one leads to the other? I don't know what you would accept as proof. Logically, if there are people who are barely not starving, and there are people who are starving I would assume that lower food prices would move people from the latter category to the former.

You have not proven this assertion. For all we know, catering to a luxury eater might result in a technology breakthrough leading to more affordable consumer goods. Who can really say with certainty? Is there some greater percentage of people starving in countries where luxury food is available than in countries where it is not?

This is actually my larger point. Taken in isolation, overeating harms the innocent. A billion people overeating noticeably harms the innocent. A billion people living in free societies which are productive enough to allow widespread overeating and free enough to allow citizens to make a wide range of their own moral choices is beneficial. The good outweighs the bad.

I think it is time for contrast with your earlier statement;

“More land must be brought into cultivation…”

As can be seen, the claim was first made that luxury eating must bring new lands into production. Subsequently, a claim is made that luxury food displaces subsistence food (taking over existing land?). Are you attempting to have your luxury food and eat it too?!

I find your confusion ... confusing. I think I explained this above, but I will recap. Luxury food displaces subsistance food on some land, therefore more expensive land must be brought into production.

In any event, you have not shown either of these contradictory claims will result in someone being starved to death, and that would remain so even if I were to agree prices might possibly increase.

For your view to hold, you must assume that while there are people who are starving due to economic factors, no one in the world is on the borderline - nobody is just getting by, or failing to just get by. This would be a coincidence of staggering proportions.

This is very much incorrect;
First, even allowing for direct/indirect deaths due to expense of food, overlooked are other factors unrelated to your claim which can and do affect the price of foodstuffs, and you cannot be held accountable for all of them by simple overeating.

All this means is that you are moving different people from not-starving to starving than you would have otherwise.

In any event, you have already defeated what you now attempt to argue by admission;

That admission was, in part, to show that I understood the absurd aspects of my own arguement. I know I'm not killing anybody.

So, it can be concluded it is not humanly possible for you to starve one other person…case closed…your bold assertion I chose to dispute had no merit.

I never thought I could starve another person. I'm sure a thousand of me probably couldn't. A million of me might not. A billion of me surely would. How many people have to share guilt before it vanishes? My point is, there is some finite level where I really shouldn't let it bother me. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. I have at least a billionth of a death on my hands. I don't feel guilt about it.

Now, if you wish to identify with the perceived collective guilt of overeating as something you are to be personally accountable for then feel free. I think it is largely a waste of guilt.

I was never trying to make anyone feel guilty. My goal was exactly the opposite. Besides ... guilt leads to overeating.

Njorl

 

[honestrosewater]

Allay your guilt! Donate Now!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3793577.stm
http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=4

 

[kyleb]

Dang, I forgot about this thread...
No, kyleb, this has nothing to do with moral relativism. I don't know where you get that idea from, but moral relativism simply means that morality is in the eye of the beholder.

What I was describing is Utilitarianism and its a form of moral absolutism.

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

you have a overly simplistic concept of moral reltivism which leads to your difficuly in understanding my comments. perhaps this link will help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

i am sorry, i am at a loss as to how i might explain such things to a moral reltivist.

 

[russ_watters]

you have a overly simplistic concept of moral reltivism which leads to your difficuly in understanding my comments. perhaps this link will help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I may have put it simply, but I'm quite comfortable with the concept.

i am sorry, i am at a loss as to how i might explain such things to a moral reltivist.

That's a cop out - especially considering that I'm a moral absolutist. Its not an easy question and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about. Can you answer it or not?

Let me help with a common case-study: Suppose you and a group of your friends are kidnapped. The hostage taker says if one of you volunteers to be executed, the rest will be freed. Otherwise, all will be killed. What do you do and why? Now suppose he selects you to make the choice alone. What do you do and why? Now suppose he selects you to execute one of your friends. What do you do and why?

Tough, aren't they?

I studied this in great detail in college. What was fascinating is that in the beginning, I'd say 90% of the people in my class were relativists - I was one of a small handful of absolutists. By the end, virtually everyone was an absolutist.

A little more on my views - as I have said before, I'm a scientific absolutist: I believe moral absolutes can be arrived at via study like theories. I believe that religious-based moral absolutism is a cop-out that allows people to follow a moral code without ever having to think about it: following the rules because they are the rules (or worse, for fear of retrobution) is not moral.

 

[Nec]

Is Ying and Yang a symbol of relativism or absolutism ?
Is it what is mostly mentioned in Eastern culture classes ? Chinese people sure know this more than anyone else, I guess.

 

[kyleb]

well figure i should point out that i am not Chinese or of Asian decent by any means, in case your last comment was a sarcastic attempt to imply otherwise based on my avitar; i simply made the animation one day when i was feeling artistic and a bit disspointed at the lack of harmony in the world at that time. also, i am not sure where you are going with your questions, but i suppose i will answer anyway. in context i would have to say that the Yin-Yang symbolizes the relativity that manifests within the absolute. as to what is mentioned in eastern culture classes, i have no clue as i have never taken such courses.

Russ, i cannot accept your position as absolute since your "return-on-investment calculus" requires speculation based on subjective reasoning. unless you have a good argument for omnipresence then you are in no position to be arguing over the lesser of two evils. as for your hypothetical situation, it is simply and example of how it is important to understand that there are some situations were one should not play the hand he is dealt, but rather look for alternate solutions.

 

[kat]

Yes, yes, I have to agree with Kyleb one should not try to save lives if it in fact takes lives to save lives because...well, if we just keep looking long enough for alternative solutions the problem of genocide will, of course, eventually even take care of itself. Then, you know, we can all have a clear conscious because...we did try to find a solution.

 

[kyleb]

i am finding great humor in the fact that if we had been following kat's logic for the last few thousand years we would sill be sacrificing our children in order to insure a plentiful harvest. :D

 

[member 5645]

i am finding great humor in the fact that if we had been following kat's logic for the last few thousand years we would sill be sacrificing our children in order to insure a plentiful harvest. :D

I fail to see this.

 

[kyleb]

are you not aware of the fact that many primitive cultures belived they had to offer blood sacifices to appease the will of the gods to insure their well being? or do you just not want to accept the fact that, if we had not found alternative solutions, we would still be following those same tradtions today?

 

[member 5645]

are you not aware of the fact that many primitive cultures belived they had to offer blood sacifices to appease the will of the gods to insure their well being? or do you just not want to accept the fact that, if we had not found alternative solutions, we would still be following those same tradtions today?

I am aware of that. It still doesn't show how kat's reasoning would lead to that.
No where did she rule out alternative solutions, simply she DIDN'T exclude killing some to save many as one of those solutions - like you are.

 

[kyleb]

i'm sorry phatmonky, where does she leave any room for alternitives in this comment?:

if we just keep looking long enough for alternative solutions the problem of genocide will, of course, eventually even take care of itself.

best i can tell, that shows absolutely no respect for any alternitives. she presents two options, sit on your hands or kill people; hence, my analogy.

 

[Njorl]

Just to allay Kyleb's apprehension somewhat -

I do not generally advocate the killing of innocents to save other innocents. There is more to utilitarianism than just numbers of lives. If an otherwise just system kills nine innocent people in order to save 10 other innocent people, we create a situation in which the innocent come to fear the otherwise just system. Is creating that fear worth one additional saved life? The killing of innocents in any beneficial cause must recognize this.

There is an old dilemma used in philosphy classes. Terrorists say they will kill ten hostages. They hand someone a gun and tell them that if they kill one hostage, they will let the other nine go. On its face, this seems easy. In one case we have ten dead, in the other we have one dead. But that is not the true end result. In the case of just one dead, we also have one more murderer in the world. That is a harder equation to balance.

Njorl

 

[kat]

Best I can tell, that is exactly what your route ends up being in many cases. No matter that it's filled with good intentions of finding alternative solutions. In the meantime, people are being slaughtered and nobody is doing anything but trying to find alternative solutions. By the time they get around to finding alternative solutions, there won't be anyone left to slaughter and so..of course, problem solved.

But, you keep hating moral relativism if it makes you feel goooooood.

 

[Nereid]

So, remind me again; what have we (collectively) decided to *do* to help the Sudanese refugees?

 

[Dissident Dan]

There is an old dilemma used in philosphy classes. Terrorists say they will kill ten hostages. They hand someone a gun and tell them that if they kill one hostage, they will let the other nine go. On its face, this seems easy. In one case we have ten dead, in the other we have one dead. But that is not the true end result. In the case of just one dead, we also have one more murderer in the world. That is a harder equation to balance.

Njorl

I don't know how this thread got on this topic, but...What difference does it make if there's another killer in the world? I don't see how that affects anything. The the loss of the victims is what's important in a murder, not the creation of a killer (except for any emotinal scarring or likelihood to kill again--the condition of being a killer is not necessarily significant).

 

[kat]

So, remind me again; what have we (collectively) decided to *do* to help the Sudanese refugees?

I think what we have decided to do is, ignore that genocide is ongoing and continueing. Donate 20 bucks to help buy food, and then argue whether Russ is a moral relativist or absolutist.
Later in life, each will say...back in the early 2000's I was very involved in solving the sudan crisis.

 

[kyleb]

actually, in my option, we should send in a massive military force capable of overwhelming the militias and restoring peace to the land. granted, we are stretched a bit thin for such action at the moment as we have our hands rather full with Iraq; which is exactly why i felt the need to respond to Russ's comments in relation to Chompsky's position as introduced by revelator.

the problem is that the people of the countries we choose to; assist, liberate, invade or what have you, have their own cost-benefit analysis of the situation. in Iraq, issues are expounded by the fact that the people generally didn't even want us involved in the first place. what we tally up (or more recently not even bother to tally up) as collateral damage, builds resentment and hostility towards us which further escalates the turmoil. we wind up in a predicament were we are loosing solders on a regular basis to RPG attacks and such on our sons and daughters who innocently went over because they wanted to help others; and, we have greatly diminished the resources that would have otherwise been available to assist people who are actually asking for our help, like those in Sudan.

 

[Loren Booda]

By the way kyleb, you have one of the most beautiful avatars I've yet seen.

 

[Nereid]

Collectively, I rather doubt that we (the posters, and perhaps readers, of this thread) could do anything; we seem to have difficulty agreeing on even how to discuss what we could do!

Individually, we could donate $$ (or €, €, etc) to an effective relief organisation active in the area, e.g. ICRC; some of us may wish to offer time and other resources.

Then we could work to raise awareness of the plight of those unfortunate people, and of the urgency of doing something. Most effectively - people's lives saved, for example - this could perhaps be done by getting advice from an entity which is technically proficient and whose staff have a deep understanding of the both the issues and limits and opportunities in the countries where we each live, work, or are citizens of (esp if they're not all the same).

To take an analogy, if it were political prisoners, we may see what Amnesty International advises.

In the case of the Sudanese refugees, I would guess that looking to the ICRC for advice wouldn't work; their charter probably prohibits them from such.

Maybe kat or phat can make a suggestion or two?

 

[Adam]

The only way to really have an effect is to become a political leader or an assassin.

 

[Nereid]

Let's vote for Adam as the supreme political leader of Nauru, and demand that he stop the slaughter of innocents everywhere!

 

[Adam]

Woohoo! El Presidente Adam!

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, i cannot accept your position as absolute since your "return-on-investment calculus" requires speculation based on subjective reasoning.

First off, I don't know where you would get the idea that "calculus" implies subjective reasoning, but setting that aside, a moral absolute can be based on anything, it just has to be universal. Maybe we're operating on different definitions of moral absolutism and relativism: did you read the link you posted? Neither relativism nor absolutism say anything about the content the moral laws themselves - just that in one case they apply to everyone and in the other they don't. If I can write a law about it, it can be either an absolute or a relative law.

as for your hypothetical situation, it is simply and example of how it is important to understand that there are some situations were one should not play the hand he is dealt, but rather look for alternate solutions.

And kat already responded, but I must reiterate that this is the worst sort of cop-out because its the root cause of the indecision that this thread is about. I'm sorry, kyleb, but unfortunately you don't always have control over your choices.

Whether I'm a moral relativist or absolutist - kyleb, you're sounding like a moral "avoidist."

actually, in my option, we should send in a massive military force capable of overwhelming the militias and restoring peace to the land.

Before going in, should we calculate how many militiamen, civilians, and American soldiers are likely to die in the effort or should we just hope that it works out ok?

 

[Nereid]

Woohoo! El Presidente Adam!

Er, Adam, Nauruan and English are the official languages of Nauru; I doubt that the Parliament would take too kindly to even as august a political leader as you suddenly declaring Spanish.

 

[russ_watters]

There is an old dilemma used in philosphy classes...

...which I posted several variations of on the previous page.

So far, it appears the answer is to do nothing and hope that another solution presents itself.

 

[kyleb]

First off, I don't know where you would get the idea that "calculus" implies subjective reasoning,

again, unless you have a good argument for omnipresence, then i must contest that your conditions are based on a subjective understanding of the situation.

but setting that aside, a moral absolute can be based on anything, it just has to be universal. Maybe we're operating on different definitions of moral absolutism and relativism: did you read the link you posted? Neither relativism nor absolutism say anything about the content the moral laws themselves - just that in one case they apply to everyone and in the other they don't. If I can write a law about it, it can be either an absolute or a relative law.

yes i read the link, i picked it as opposed to the first one that google brought up since the first one oversimplified the definition of moral relativism just as you originally did. granted, i do contest the wikipedia's definition of moral absolutism as one would have to know the absolute in order to attain such a state, and omnipresence out of the bounds of human nature.

And kat already responded, but I must reiterate that this is the worst sort of cop-out because its the root cause of the indecision that this thread is about.

ok, you want a more direct answer? then my choice is to gun on the hostage taker and get everyone the hell out. sure you can argue that hypothetically that wouldn't be an option, but that would the worst sort of cop-out argument as it purely fictitious and is not necessarily relevant to anything in reality.

I'm sorry, kyleb, but unfortunately you don't always have control over your choices.

that is what they claimed in the Nuremberg defense, and we all know how that turned out.

Whether I'm a moral relativist or absolutist - kyleb, you're sounding like a moral "avoidist."

actually it is immorality that i try to avoid. ;)

Before going in, should we calculate how many militiamen, civilians, and American soldiers are likely to die in the effort or should we just hope that it works out ok?

the militiamen would only die in the act of showing blatant disregard for human life; and, if the American solders are not willing to die in act of protecting human rights, then they don't belong on the battlefield anyway. as for civilians, if your plan calls for even one civilian casualty; then you don't have a good plan yet, you need to work on a better one.

i don't see why you keep coming back to this "sit on your hands or kill innocent people" argument. are you simply so close minded that you do not see that the world is full of options? or is it some sadistic need to kill people which you try to justify with whatever rhetorical argument you can dig up?

 

[BoulderHead]

I find your confusion ... confusing. I think I explained this above, but I will recap. Luxury food displaces subsistance food on some land, therefore more expensive land must be brought into production.

Well, what you are actually doing here is appealing to a flawed economic theory. Specifically, it is ‘class analysis’ (luxury vs subsistence, in this case) and it failed to account for relative prices and values for both goods and services. In short, by failing to analyze consumer actions it became impossible to determine the driving force for market prices, which is not as you have claimed a value linked to production cost, but rather the value consumer action assigns to a product. To claim the price of beans must increase because development costs are necessarily higher neglects to address several points;

First is the notion of ‘luxury food’ itself. What you consider a luxury might easily be a staple for another group. You would have to show better support than you have shown to make credible the distinction of classes being appealed to.

Second is that an economy is not static, where all the necessary land a community requires can be assumed to have already been developed and therefore luxury food must be a driving force behind the need for development of new lands. The truth is that new lands are continually under development, as they always have been, to satisfy not only expanding population growths but also; consumer demand, failure of soil to support a desired crop, etc. This fact alone would muddy your claim by making determination of price increases due to what you’re stating extremely difficult to pinpoint.

Third is that costs of development are always a factor requiring consideration when contemplating an undertaking. Growers may always be free to speculate, and hope, for increasing returns by projecting higher market prices in the future, but the more sensible approach is to consider what the market has shown a history of paying for a product, what it is currently paying, then determine what an investment of capital is likely to bring in return, how long until development costs have been paid back, an so forth. That is to say, it would be foolish to initiate a development scheme with the notion that consumers are going to be forced to pay you more for your beans than they will for someone else’s simply because it costs you more to produce. It is consumer action that is the real driving force at work, not production costs, and this is what economists such as Ricardo failed to realize.

Forth, and to ignore the economic theory you’re appealing to was in fact determined to have been false, your view can also be seen to ignore what the actual price received for selling subsistence farm land to some ‘elite’ grower might be (could substitute a sky rise developer in place of ‘elite’ grower, if one so desired). It does seem to be a view the selling price will be insufficient to cover the costs for developing new land. This looks more like mysticism than economics as we are not in a position to know that this will in fact be the case. The farmer might ‘make a killing’ whereby he is able to purchase a new piece of equipment enabling him to be more productive than ever before on new lands…

The reason those fields were not in production before is that the cost of operating those fields was too high to warrant planting in them - due to irrigation needs, low mineral content etc.

This is unsupported assertion. It assumes all the ‘good’ farm land has already been developed. Aside from the fact that undevelped good farm land exists, there are too many other considerations being overlooked as to why most land remains to be developed for agricultural purposes to assume only this can explain things.

For your view to hold, you must assume that while there are people who are starving due to economic factors, no one in the world is on the borderline - nobody is just getting by, or failing to just get by. This would be a coincidence of staggering proportions.

For your view to hold, a multitude of assumptions are made in conjunction with appeal to a failed economic theory of value. Your view overlooks many issues in order to run down a narrow string of possibilities such to arrive at an erroneous conclusion and is simply not a view worth entertaining. It does so while simultaneously ignoring more realistic and easier seen extrapolations that can be made, for example, such as considering the effect of inflation on purchasing power (which I attempted to engage you on earlier). Now, if you had stated; every time I vote Republican or Democrat I support a system that diminishes purchasing power of a poor starving man’s dollar, well, I probably wouldn’t have disagreed with you, haha.

 

[Njorl]

Well, what you are actually doing here is appealing to a flawed economic theory. Specifically, it is ‘class analysis’ (luxury vs subsistence, in this case) and it failed to account for relative prices and values for both goods and services. In short, by failing to analyze consumer actions it became impossible to determine the driving force for market prices, which is not as you have claimed a value linked to production cost, but rather the value consumer action assigns to a product. To claim the price of beans must increase because development costs are necessarily higher neglects to address several points;

First is the notion of ‘luxury food’ itself. What you consider a luxury might easily be a staple for another group. You would have to show better support than you have shown to make credible the distinction of classes being appealed to.
:

No, I used the term "luxury" to denote more than subsistance food intake. That was pretty clear. No distinction from one group to another is possible. There is no matter of perspective involved.

Second is that an economy is not static, where all the necessary land a community requires can be assumed to have already been developed and therefore luxury food must be a driving force behind the need for development of new lands. The truth is that new lands are continually under development, as they always have been, to satisfy not only expanding population growths but also; consumer demand, failure of soil to support a desired crop, etc. This fact alone would muddy your claim by making determination of price increases due to what you’re stating extremely difficult to pinpoint.
:

There is no muddying of my claim that more production requires more land. You have no point here. Are you trying to claim that expanding fields to increase the number of people fed at subsistance levels will produce some number of veal chops at no marginal cost?

Third is that costs of development are always a factor requiring consideration when contemplating an undertaking. Growers may always be free to speculate, and hope, for increasing returns by projecting higher market prices in the future, but the more sensible approach is to consider what the market has shown a history of paying for a product, what it is currently paying, then determine what an investment of capital is likely to bring in return, how long until development costs have been paid back, an so forth. That is to say, it would be foolish to initiate a development scheme with the notion that consumers are going to be forced to pay you more for your beans than they will for someone else’s simply because it costs you more to produce. It is consumer action that is the real driving force at work, not production costs, and this is what economists such as Ricardo failed to realize.
:

While production costs, in some markets, do not affect prices, they undoubtedly affect whether the production occurs. In this case, either the people can pay more, and those who can't starve, or the people can't pay more, and the farmer refuses to produce, and people starve. The usual is somewhere in between. The people's capacity to pay more induces the farmer to plant more.

Forth, and to ignore the economic theory you’re appealing to was in fact determined to have been false, your view can also be seen to ignore what the actual price received for selling subsistence farm land to some ‘elite’ grower might be (could substitute a sky rise developer in place of ‘elite’ grower, if one so desired). It does seem to be a view the selling price will be insufficient to cover the costs for developing new land. This looks more like mysticism than economics as we are not in a position to know that this will in fact be the case. The farmer might ‘make a killing’ whereby he is able to purchase a new piece of equipment enabling him to be more productive than ever before on new lands…
:

You are arguing that the farmer should engage in charity because he does well in other endeavors. That is not economics.

This is unsupported assertion. It assumes all the ‘good’ farm land has already been developed. Aside from the fact that undevelped good farm land exists, there are too many other considerations being overlooked as to why most land remains to be developed for agricultural purposes to assume only this can explain things.
:

It is standard in economics debate to assume resources are being optimized, and to perturb the market from that state. Your assumption is irrational. You are assuming that farmers are voluntarily not maximizing their profit. While there may be strange and artificial barriers increasing the cost of using land that is currently not used, those costs are real.

For your view to hold, a multitude of assumptions are made in conjunction with appeal to a failed economic theory of value.
:

On the contrary, I strip away all of the extraneous assumptions, and hold to a spare model. It is you who assume that some unseen details outside a coherent model will make everything be wonderful. You might as well say that I am wrong because angels will save the starving.

Your view overlooks many issues in order to run down a narrow string of possibilities such to arrive at an erroneous conclusion and is simply not a view worth entertaining.
:

This is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming.

It does so while simultaneously ignoring more realistic and easier seen extrapolations that can be made, for example, such as considering the effect of inflation on purchasing power (which I attempted to engage you on earlier). Now, if you had stated; every time I vote Republican or Democrat I support a system that diminishes purchasing power of a poor starving man’s dollar, well, I probably wouldn’t have disagreed with you, haha.

Mysterious extrapolations tha solve all problems are not scientific. Inflation is irrelevant to this discussion. You are grasping at straws.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

No, I used the term "luxury" to denote more than subsistance food intake. That was pretty clear. No distinction from one group to another is possible. There is no matter of perspective involved.

Ok, I may have been off mark here. I’d have to read over again to be certain as a few days have elapsed and recalled talk of cattle replacing other crops which got me thinking about Strawberries vs rice…

There is no muddying of my claim that more production requires more land. You have no point here. Are you trying to claim that expanding fields to increase the number of people fed at subsistance levels will produce some number of veal chops at no marginal cost?

No, I’m refuting your assertion that increasing the amount of land under production must necessarily result in increased food costs and I gave example.

While production costs, in some markets, do not affect prices, they undoubtedly affect whether the production occurs. In this case, either the people can pay more, and those who can't starve, or the people can't pay more, and the farmer refuses to produce, and people starve. The usual is somewhere in between.

If the foodstuff in question isn’t produced in the first place then people will turn elsewhere for consumables. To support your view of starvation you continue to assert that people must pay the man more or die, when in all but the most extreme circumstances they may just as easily turn to another foodstuff for consumption, grow their own, borrow from a friend, etc. To support your negative view of starving someone to death you must broaden the increase in price to all markets at the same time such that no alternatives remain even while ignoring other factors. You are simply stacking the deck, forcing people into a condition where alternatives no longer exist, requiring them to consume from your sources or die, then claiming that your view strips away all of the extraneous assumptions…

On the contrary, I strip away all of the extraneous assumptions, and hold to a spare model. It is you who assume that some unseen details outside a coherent model will make everything be wonderful. You might as well say that I am wrong because angels will save the starving.

See what I mean? Here you go rambling about Angels even while you are playing the most extreme form of Devil’s Advocate.
What you consider my assumptions are simply the things you choose to ignore because paying them any mind would give cause for a more balanced perspective. You make plenty of assumptions and ignore many factors in order to pursue a one-dimensional negative view.

The people's capacity to pay more induces the farmer to plant more.

Incorrect; the farmer plants more because he believes he can sell more. This need not require holding a belief that people can and/or will shoulder the burden of increased prices. The perception that people may have a capacity to pay more is not required at all.

You are arguing that the farmer should engage in charity because he does well in other endeavors. That is not economics.

Then you have missed my point. Read it over and understand I am merely exposing the holes in your lopsided view that seeks to ignore the monetary reward received by the seller of the land may be more than enough for continued development of new lands yielding food at competitive market prices.

It is standard in economics debate to assume resources are being optimized, and to perturb the market from that state. Your assumption is irrational. You are assuming that farmers are voluntarily not maximizing their profit. While there may be strange and artificial barriers increasing the cost of using land that is currently not used, those costs are real.

Is it standard in economics to ignore all the many factors affecting an economy in order to arrive at extreme examples of absurdity, and to label attempts to bring balance as divine intervention?

This is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming.

No it isn’t, I already agreed that my actions take place within the framework of an economy and of course therefore have some minor overall impact. I have stated that I have doubts about reaching a conclusion worded so strongly as yours and further I contend your view is based on the most negative extremes instead of being a balanced and taking as many factors as possible into account. If I am putting my fingers in my ears and humming, you are covering your eyes and singing aloud.

Mysterious extrapolations tha solve all problems are not scientific. Inflation is irrelevant to this discussion. You are grasping at straws.

Yes, inflation is indeed a strawman, but it is hardly a mysterious extrapolation. Especially so when contrasted to your extreme position where personal responsibility for that one-billionth of a part of a death following the eating of an additional sandwich is oh so real… interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

ok, you want a more direct answer? then my choice is to gun on the hostage taker and get everyone the hell out. sure you can argue that hypothetically that wouldn't be an option, but that would the worst sort of cop-out argument as it purely fictitious and is not necessarily relevant to anything in reality.

About the only way you can fail an ethics class is if you don't answer a question. Again, you validate this thread.

You'll get no more answers from me unless you answer the question in the manner in which it is framed.

...as for civilians, if your plan calls for even one civilian casualty; then you don't have a good plan yet, you need to work on a better one.

Wow, kyleb. You're quite simply not living in the real world. Life is far more complicated than you are willing to accept - and that's where our difference of opinion comes from here. Someday, you will be faced with a difficult decision with no clear right answer and you will be utterly unprepared for it - you'll freeze and make no decision at all. Ever listen to Rush? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

 

[kyleb]

lol Russ that is rich; you tell me that "life is far more complicated than you are willing to accept", yet you are the one who keeps comeing back to the highly oversimplified sit on your hands or kill innocent people arguemnt. it seems to me that you are the one who is failing to respect the complexity of life, and have yet to understand that the simple solution and the right one are often two very separate things.

 

[Adam]

Er, Adam, Nauruan and English are the official languages of Nauru; I doubt that the Parliament would take too kindly to even as august a political leader as you suddenly declaring Spanish.

[Homer Simpson Warning/Angry Voice]
I said "El Presidente...!"
[/Homer Simpson Warning/Angry Voice]

 

[studentx]

lol Russ that is rich; you tell me that "life is far more complicated than you are willing to accept", yet you are the one who keeps comeing back to the highly oversimplified sit on your hands or kill innocent people arguemnt. it seems to me that you are the one who is failing to respect the complexity of life, and have yet to understand that the simple solution and the right one are often two very separate things.

Kyleb, when the problem is war there is never ever a solution which guarantees zero innocent casualties. Which means you really do sit on your hands when you try to search for your perfect solution

 

[kyleb]

you are argueing a straw man there, studentx. in such situations there are no gaurenties at all; but, that does nothing to preclude us from makeing plans which exclude firbombing jungles full of natives with tons of napalm or fireing heavy ordenice into populated areas.

 

[russ_watters]

you are argueing a straw man there, studentx. in such situations there are no gaurenties at all; but, that does nothing to preclude us from makeing plans which exclude firbombing jungles full of natives with tons of napalm or fireing heavy ordenice into populated areas.

Can you name for me a war in which there were no civilian casualties? Conversely, has there ever been a war that has been just (from any side) despite civilian casualties?

lol Russ that is rich; you tell me that "life is far more complicated than you are willing to accept", yet you are the one who keeps comeing back to the highly oversimplified sit on your hands or kill innocent people arguemnt. it seems to me that you are the one who is failing to respect the complexity of life, and have yet to understand that the simple solution and the right one are often two very separate things.

That really makes no sense at all. Are you saying you consider war to be simple? Simpler even than your position of doing nothing? Or are you assuming that its a simple thing for war to be conducted with no civilian casualties? Its simple to make unrealistic assumptions rather than consider the complexities of the problem.

And again - what could be simpler than refusing to do anything at all (such as answer a question), as you continue to do.

you are argueing a straw man there, studentx. in such situations there are no gaurenties at all; but, that does nothing to preclude us from makeing plans which exclude firbombing jungles full of natives with tons of napalm or fireing heavy ordenice into populated areas.

Actually, now you're making a straw man of our own argument. Now you seem to admit that there are situations where you can't be guaranteed not to kill any civilians, whereas before you said one was unacceptable, and at the same time you are using as your example tactics that aren't used anymore or are so nebulous as to be meaningless.

 

[studentx]

you are argueing a straw man there, studentx. in such situations there are no gaurenties at all; but, that does nothing to preclude us from makeing plans which exclude firbombing jungles full of natives with tons of napalm or fireing heavy ordenice into populated areas.

Imagine you come up with the most brilliant plan to end a war Kyleb. A plan which has zero innocent casualties. Unfortunately the probability of the plan being realistic is also zero. Many many people are killed by accident. The perfect plan with zero innocent casualties is a plan which excludes accidents and human error

 

[kyleb]

you should maybe reread what i wrote as you don't seem to understand what i am saying. my comments are not directed at accidents.

 

[studentx]

I know you weren't talking about accidents and human error, that why i pointed you to the fact that they do indeed happen. Which points to the flaw in your perfect plan: it doesn't take accidents into account. Warcrimes are often accidents of human error. The killing of a hostage when trying to free them is not deliberate; the plan always is to kill zero hostages, but plans don't hold up to reality. Some plans predict the loss of innocent life(collateral damage). Other plans which don't predict the collateral damage (in other words they plan zero loss of innocent life, a seemingly perfect plan) will kill just as many, if not more, when executed.

So, once you have found the perfect solution for a problem and execute it, there is no guarantee it works. In war, waiting for this guarantee is sitting on your hands.

 

[kyleb]

I know you weren't talking about accidents and human error, that why i pointed you to the fact that they do indeed happen.

oh, golly jeepers wally, thanks for pointing that out.

man, i think i'd rather beat my head against a brick wall than bother trying any longer to have a rational conversation with you. fortunatly i don't have to do either.

 

[member 5645]

atleast there is SOME action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm