Its not. But people identify with those with similiar national, political, geographic, linguistic, cultural, religious, racial, etc boundaries and attributes as them, so until that stops those people will get the empathy of an ant. Asking people to help those who speak a different language under a different political system in a country most people can’t point out on a map isnt really going to work. In the US (i’m only using the US and not the EU or Canada or Australia since I am not familiar with their numbers) we spend $850 billion for education, $500 billion for social security and $800 billion for healthcare through taxes so we obviously are not evil and greedy people with ou tax money, we just save it for those with similiar geographic, political, nation, cultural, etc traits as us since about 90%+ of tax money goes to infrastructure and helping out the neighbors with healthcare or education. Just a fraction of that 2.2 trillion dollars would cure most of the worlds poverty problems. The UN said 0.7% of GDP in developed nations would make a huge dent and eliminate extreme poverty over the next 10 years for the 500 million who still suffer from it, but it probably wont happen.
I guess I’m honored. All of the responses and mine’s the one that struck a nerve.
Anyway, I don’t follow Ayn Rand or libertarianism or the trickle down theory. No problems with government spending if that’s what works. No problem with big corporations if that’s what works. And no problems with rugged individualism ITWW.
But, as I noted in my previous posts, the OP’s proposed plan doesn’t work. There’s not enough wealth in the world to solve poverty - you’ll run out of rich people before you’ll run out of poor people. The long term solution is to create more wealth. And the people who are best at creating wealth are people who are already wealthy.
Keep in mind that I’m talking on a global scale. 99% of the people in the US are wealthy by world standards. Most people in this country don’t realize how poor people in some places really are. There are entire nations that aren’t making minimum wage. If you give away everything you own and go live on the streets, you won’t have made all those people richer - divide the money up and everybody gets a penny. And now there’s one more poor person living on the streets.
The better solution is to use the wealth you have. Take your education, your good health, your house and car, your internet connection, your savings account, your tax dollars, and use them to make the world a better place.
I don’t believe that, we already have wealth redistribution in the US as I showed with the fact that much of our tax money goes to handouts for other people. You can say the same about the taxation system in any developed country, but people still have incentives to produce.
Plus that is based on the incorrect assumption that people only produce and work to make money. Many do not, I know alot of people in acadamia who produce out of love of the subject, or out of a desire for recognition or tenure. I know people in industry who produce just because they are workaholics or want the prestige of being higher up on the corporate ladder than their neighbor. Income is just one of many factors in why people choose to work, and the fact that the US, EU, canada, Japan, Australia and all the other developed nations continue to produce huge quantities of scientific and industrial accomplishments even though we all have a system that takes about 25-35% of our income and redistributes it proves that income incentives are not as important as you may think.
This depends on how you’re defining “solve poverty.” It is perfectly within our financial means to end both the tuberculosis and malaria epidemics as well as provide free diarrhea medication to anyone who needs. These changes alone would save millions of lives. Not to mention improve the quality of life of millions more.
Has the OP put forth a plan, or is it simply that any money that I have above what I **need **should be given (voluntarily) to others less fortunate.
Would this just be a voluntary version of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”?
In the US we raise about $241 billion for charity privately annually, we also spend about $2.2 trillion in tax money for wealth redistribution (probably more actually). Celebrities also give tons of money to charity but they still live luxurious lives and alot of americans still do too, so its possible.
Living like a tibetian monk isn’t necessary by any means. In the US of our 11.75 trillion GDP arguably about 25% goes to taxation charity and private charity, plus a good percentage of our private income goes to helping out family and/or friends, so its probably even higher than that if you consider that a form of charity. It wouldn’t take anywhere near 30% of GDP to help out the desprately poor, 1% is all that would be needed to do that.
All are worthy goals. But isn’t eliminating Dengue and Lassa Fever and Plague also worthy goals? And after them won’t there be more worthy goals? Eventually you’ll run out of money before you run out of worthy goals to spend it on. We do not yet have enough wealth to say “stop, we can fix all the world’s problems with the money we’ve got.” So part of our effort needs to be creating more money so that the progress can continue.
But if is IS voluntary, then it cannot be “unethical” to just not volunteer to do it, and instead spend your wealth on yourself.
To a degree you are right and this applies to several countries like North Korea, but India is rated ‘free’ by freedom house (an organization that rates political and civil rights) but they still have 300 million desperately poor people while China , which is considered one of the worst civil/human rights/political rights violaters on earth has gone from having 250 million to 30 million desperately poor people in the last 30 years due to redistribution of wealth. Both countries have economies growing at about 8-10% a year, but India used its economic growth to create a middle class of 300 million or so while China seems to have used it to eliminate an underclass of 300 million. So there is no 100% coorelation between freedom and poverty.
Sure it can. Its unethical to cheat on your significant other but your commitment to a monogamous relationship is voluntary.
Not necessarily. I focused on the medical professional code because you narrowed the case down to a doctor, NOT to just any citizen walking by – which looks like a blatant attempt to try to find an example in which someone is absolutely obligated to think about others first – so I conversely narrow my scope to the guild of physicians and what passes in that micro-society for the mores of “decency” and laws of the society at large
Had you not mentioned a “doctor” the argument would still be valid – most of our societies have constructed a social moral code in which giving such aid as (a) is within your scope to give safely, to someone in (b)imminent danger and © in your presence and immediate reach, is considered a duty
BUT…this rule of “basic human decency”, is as much of a social construct – not “instinct” – as is a code of professional ethics. Does not make it any less real or valid, it’s just not necessarily an absolute universal. I object to the reference to “moral instinct” earlier.
Y:confused: But you have indeed constructed an example in which party B IS sitting idly by while party A dies, and I tell you indeed he needs a “good reason” to do so, because society has imposed on him an obligation to do something IN THIS CASE: imminent danger, within his abilities, in his immediate presence, direct action.
However this is not the original question. The original question, as interpreted, was how “any” (your word) seeking of your own material comfort and pleasure, when there are needs in the world (wanting to be doctor-to-the-stars, in my example) could be ethical. And THAT is the part in which I cannot see how we could ever reach a consensus.
It has not been established, only claimed, that seeking financial rewards beyond your needs is a direct moral equivalent of “sitting idly by while people whom you could help are dying”. That the First World diverted some of its income it could cure malaria and TB? Very likely. That this would be a “good thing”? Sure That it’s un-ethical to drive Mercedeses while that is not made a priority? A conclusion to be reached, not the baseline from which to start. Convince them that it’s their obligation, and they’ll respond.
Different beasts – for one, you are providing an example of direct accord/contract between specific parties that CREATES obligations. If I DO volunteer to get married/enter a monogamous relationship, it is unethical to break faith AFTER the commitment is entered. But if I am not ethically obligated to ENTER SUCH ARRANGEMENT TO BEGIN WITH.
No one is questioning that argument that we still need to have an economy. The question is whether ending TB and Malaria (for example) through aid is more efficient than boosting the economy by purchasing a Mercedes. (This is assuming you’re not making the argument that since we can’t do everything we should do nothing).
And stepping back for a moment, are you really arguing that buying a Mercedes helps people dying of tuberculosis more than buying them antibiotics? Surely not. You’re argument must be that if everyone became an ascetic, the economy would collapse, and that would have a net detrimental effect on extreme poverty. This latter argument has been addressed in several ways already.
That is how we evaluate moral systems, based on our moral intuitions. Do you have a different way?
You concede that we have an obligation when the following is true:
How is the situation of saving someone dying of tuberculosis different?
Imminent danger? Check.
Within abilities? Check.
Direct action? Check.
Immediate presence? Well, temporaly. Are you really arguing that physical distance mitigates moral obligation?
He was simply pointing out that some things can be voluntary but still unethical if you do not do them. The argument he was rebutting was the universal statement that if something is voluntary it isn’t unethical not to do it.
BTW, I chose the doctor for my example because the doctor had the ability to help (just like someone who can buy luxuries has the ability to help). If you’d prefer, change it to someone trained in the heimlich (sp?) maneuver.
Why do you think this? Where does this notion come from that we have enough money and resources to do solve whatever problem we want? You think there is this enormous wealth we are all just sitting on that we could use to create a utopia and instead we are using it to make a world we actually like living in?
Yes, we probably could end tuberculosis or any problem we chose. Unfortunately we can’t solve EVERY problem. Economics is about choices. You don’t have enough resources to do everything so you need to decide what to spend your resources on.
I think you are trying to isolate the purchase of a single “luxury” item from the economy, and you can’t. Our economy, which you acknowledge is needed to produce the wealth and capital needed to fight poverty and disease, is not based on producing only staple goods. Without high end products, many low end products might never be produced. It’s the drive for luxury goods that makes people work long hours, scrimp and save, and invent new products.
Our economy is predicated on the range of products from plain to ostentatious. People work not only for their immediate needs but also their desires for the future and their childrens’ futures, a better life. In the short term you can pull any single object or purchase out of the picture, but in the long term that will actually undermine the economy.
While it would be lovely if people didn’t need to be motivated by those luxury items it’s not the case at the present. You can make your case on an individual basis, but in the aggregate it falls apart. Just my HO.
I think kanicbird got it right, and no one’s paying attention to him. (her?). Buying a 42 inch plasma TV does help others. It helps the workers at the plasma TV factory. If no one bought their TVs but gave money to sick people instead, they’d be out of work. Then you’d have a society in which you’d have an incentive to be sick, but not to work at a plant that made “luxury” goods. This seems perverse.
I find exposing other peoples children to violent video games and movies when they are over at our house to be ethically questionable, even if we allow our children to watch these things.
In my mind, being ethical involves upholding an implicit social contract as well as any explicit promises you make. The question is, do we have a personal voluntary ethical obligation to help the poor, and to what extent?
In a small scale society, people do tend to feel an ethical obligation to help. Churches provide food and hand me down clothes to members who have fallen on hard times. I send my sister a few checks after her husband leaves her to keep her on her feet and her bills paid. I pick up the check at dinner when we are out with people who don’t make as much money as we do. I volunteer time and money to my kids’ school - which may or may not ever benefit my own children.
On a bigger level, I choose to help people and causes I feel close to (or where helping gets me something). So I give money to the rape crisis center and the children’s hospital and a certain orphanage in Korea. On the second point, I box up my old crap and send it to “free stores” for the poor - which gets rid of my crap (we make too much money to get a tax deduction, ours are capped, so that incentive for donating to charity doesn’t apply to us).
However, what level of sacrafice meets my “ethical obligations” and what scope do I need to undertake to meet them. Is it my personal problem that children starve or die if easily cured diseases all over the world while I take expensive vacations? Is it OK to trade one life for pearl earrings? I’m not talking about solving all the worlds problems, but I could save one life by paying for vaccinations in the third world - and yet own pearl earrings. I think most people would agree that if the child was living next door to me and starving, I would be ethically obligated to make sure it didn’t starve. Yet, when that child is a thousand miles away, I’m content to live in my bubble.
This fact does not give us a license to simply hand-wave reality aside. If it did, there would be no point in thinking about (for example) the ethical constraints of “just war”. Pointing out that there would be no war in the first place if everyone behaved in a perfectly ethical manner is all well and good, but we have to deal with the world as we find it and (for example) make ethical distinctions between agression versus defense, combatants versus civilians, etc.
Which leads us to the conclusion that my responsibility to my fellow man is to load up on luxury goods so they can achieve full employment?
If we’re going to discuss what is truly a personal issue in macro-economic terms, let’s try this: don’t give money to sick people; that way they won’t have an “incentive to be sick”. Rather, give whatever is needed to solve the health issues so that chronic illness is no longer an economic drag on the world economy. Then tackle the distribution problems effecting hunger, so that all the starving people will have the strength to seek gainful employment.
Of course, the aggregate effect of all the individuals deciding to re-direct their resources toward solving actual problems will have an adverse effect on the luxury goods industry. By market forces, this industry will whither away, but there will be opportunities created in the, um, “Benevolence Industry”: someone will need to operate our new worldwide distribution system.
Once everyone in the world is healthy enough to work, and has the basic necessities to function, then the once-sick, once-starving masses can turn their energies toward productive employment making stuff. With the income they’ll earn, they’ll become self-sufficient, and the Benevolence Industry can whither in favor of a renewed Stuff Industry.
All of this must come about, of course, as the result of millions of micro-economic decisions made by rational consumers. As unlikely as this may be, it is still a lot more rational of a scenario than to posit that the sum total of good in the world will be increased by buying more plazma tv’s now.
If you want a plasma tv, fine, buy one; just don’t try to sell your purchase as an act of moral good.