The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[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 ..

(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]

(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 realized 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 realized 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/worl...sh-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/worl...sh-splash-to-enter-market-20110317-1bxuf.html

Debt 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 existence, 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 field 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 got to 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 argument 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. I am sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldn't 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. I am sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldn't 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=3i...&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=3i...&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.