Do we have a right to interfere with cultures we consider to be wrong?

[Pendaric]

Tony Blair was interviewed a week or two back, and he said something to the effect that invading Iraq was the right thing to do in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein and effect regime change, regardless of WMD.

The Western World, and the US in particular, seem to be on a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it, and quite often don't seem to want it.

Do we have a right to interfere with a culture just because we consider it to be morally wrong, if that culture is not interfering with us? Or, put another way, do we have an obligation to get involved if we see something we consider morally reprehensible going on?

In the real world, it's never so clear cut. Logistically and diplomatically we are never going to invade China to put an end to human rights abuses, for example. But presuming we could dictate how a culture acts or develops, is it something we should do or should we leave them to their own devices?

[Preno]

The Western World, and the US in particular, seem to be on a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it, and quite often don't seem to want it.Not really. The fact that it keeps getting framed this way is precisely what the people responsible for these sorts of wars want. The US has demonstrated time and again through its financial, military and political support of various right-wing military dictatorships in the Third World that it doesn't give a toss about democracy, so I don't really understand why it keeps getting framed that as "a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it". That's just ridiculous. The US isn't and never has been on any such mission (which, of course, is not to say that it won't use the medium of parliamentary democracy when it happens to be the most convenient means available).

[Pendaric]

Well, my perception is that it's a pretty key goal with regard to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan to introduce democratically elected government. I could well be wrong, but that's not the main point of the thread anyway.

[Preno]

Well, my perception is that it's a pretty key goal with regard to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan to introduce democratically elected government. I could well be wrong, but that's not the main point of the thread anyway.Which, however, in no way implies that the US is "on a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it". Given its demonstrable willingness to support military dictatorships whenever that turns out to be more expedient than a parliamentary democracy, there is no reason to believe that introducing democracy is a "key goal", rather than a necessary evil.

[Anne]

IMO, there is an obligation to get involved if there is something we consider ethically reprehensible going on.

In other words, a violation of human rights.

Morals are sticky. In that case, the Islamic world would have an obligation to enforce Sharia law on me.

[DMB]

The question in the title is one I have long pondered and I never come to a satisfactory conclusion. Rather than looking at it in a context of contemporary poltics, I'd like to go back a bit and take a number of specific examples:


Were the Spanish, who at that time were pretty brutal imperialists, right to wipe out the horrifically brutal Aztec religion?
Were the British in India right to wipe out thugee and suttee?
Were various colonial regimes right to wipe out headhunting and cannibalism?

[Anne]

DMB, can we first establish that these practices existed in any quantity to be considered 'cultural'?

[munnki]

Well, damn, I wish Western countries would start by introducing democracy to Western countries. Certainly there's a clear case for WMD's being present in the UK and US. But even if we pretended there weren't we could still use the Blair argument that it was 'worth it anyway'. Besides think of the money the US and the UK could save by invading themselves... troops would never be that far from home...
I mean, can't we at least make a start and have Blair/Bush whacked?

[Goodchild]

In regards to the question of 'introducing democracy' I imagine that is more of a public relations issue than any real moral issue. It's a lot more effective at home to tell the public that we're going to invade Iraq to bring democracy to an oppressed people than it is to tell them we're going to invade to ensure the flow of oil to the US. The only times we'll actually try to encourage democracy is when it's in the best interests of the US Government/corporations to do so, otherwise our government could give a flying fuck what kind of government is in place in any particular nation.

As to the actual question of the OP, I can't imagine how demonstrating your technologically superior barbarism is supposed to convince others to give up their more primitive barbarisms. I mean, how effective can "stop killing people or we'll kill you" really be as a moral statement?

[DMB]

The Aztecs were fairly localised, but they killed significant numbers of sacrificial victims. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

See also Sati (practice) and Thugee

Headhunting and cannibalism are less well documented in Wikipedia and since where I am it is now late at night I'm not going to do big searches right now. I have read various accounts written by some colonial adminstrators, so I know it was something that they struggled against in some areas.

[Matty]

Well, my perception is that it's a pretty key goal with regard to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan to introduce democratically elected government from a preselected panel of puppet candidates.

Maybe then.

I'm too cynical, i dont think that countries exhibit altruistic tendencies, if they did all our humanitarian efforts wouldnt be aimed exclusively at countries with desirable natural resources or strategic importance.

I mean, how effective can "stop killing people or we'll kill you" really be as a moral statement? As a moral statement not very, as a threat pretty good. I think the take of the US and Uk and teir buddies is that it doesnt matter how you reach that end point as long as our influence is extended and preferential trade agreements can be reached. I say our, i mean the US striding the world with the UK in its pocket like Paris Hiltons Chihuahua

[Anne]

The Aztecs were fairly localised, but they killed significant numbers of sacrificial victims. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

See also Sati (practice) and Thugee

Headhunting and cannibalism are less well documented in Wikipedia and since where I am it is now late at night I'm not going to do big searches right now. I have read various accounts written by some colonial adminstrators, so I know it was something that they struggled against in some areas.

And human sacrifice was rampant in Britain as well.

According to Roman military leaders in their letters home to get more troops.

Even your first link says: although the extent of the practice is debated by scholars.

[LoneWolf]

I think we have a right and an obligation to help those who are being oppressed or deprived of basic human rights. But merely living in something other than a democracy does not in itself rise to the level.

But I agree with Matty. Nations just don't act altruistically. They should. But they don't. Or very rarely. There are so many places in Africa that need our help so much more than Iraq did. But there just isn't anything "in it" for us.

[Celsus]

There's a few things to untangle in the question. Firstly, who is "we"? Are you talking about "we" as individuals, groups (e.g. NGOs, political movements, etc.), states, or interstate parties (e.g. the UN)?

The second point is "what we consider to be wrong" suggests that we are not talking about universal values here. We are talking about a shared set of values by one group imposing its values on another group who may or may not share those values (evidenced by the fact that it is participating in something the intervening group deems to be "wrong"). So the question is, how should that principle be applied universally, or if it isn't universal, then on what grounds is one set of values judged to be of more worth than the other?

Humanitarian agencies have had to come to terms with these moral quandaries for some years. For example, the decision to provide humanitarian "support" to refugee camps in DRC following the expulsion and slaughter of Hutu militias and civilians from Rwanda following the genocide (in revenge for murder of Tutsis) meant the Hutus were actually being provided a haven in which to potentially reorganise and go back into Rwanda fighting. Eventually MSF and other humanitarian agencies had to pull out for fear of fuelling the conflict. On the other hand, pulling out guaranteed that the weakest and poorest of the Hutus would die, typically women and children. The question was: what was wrong and what did their intervention mean, when both sides were in the wrong?

The humanitarian community now teeters on a divide between deontological and consequentialist ethics. Deontological positions suggest that intervention is always right morally or ethically (either from religious ethics or perhaps humanistic ones), regardless of the consequences. Consequentialist positions only accept "right" in terms of the consequences of those actions. The problem with the former is that it's often hopelessly naive (e.g. much of BandAid money actually ended up in the pockets of the corrupt Mengistu regime in Ethiopia); the problem with the latter is that often it seems nothing can be done because we never really know what the right thing to do will be within our moment in the present (e.g. supporting the most 'vulnerable' may often mean taking sides with one group in a conflict, losing the principle of impartiality).

In the 1990s, there was a brief period in time when some humanitarian agencies did actually call for Western military intervention in conflicts. Today, most of them would no longer do so and indeed reject this idea in principle. I don't think that there will be solutions to a lot of these problems any time soon.

[Free in Freeport]

Jeez, this is harder to answer than I thought.

My kneejerk response is "no, it's not our place to police the world...change must come from within...USA should not get involved in any foreign wars unless our own safety is CLEARLY at stake."

I didn't have to think very long before remembering that's the mentality that allowed the holocaust go on for so long, at the cost of millions of lives. How many times have I heard of horrid things happening in tiny countries which have little/nothing to offer the USA, and felt angry that we were doing nothing to help? Quite a few.

Wow. I need to consider this issue from several angles. That said, I still feel we were wrong to invade Iraq. As much of a bastard as Saddam Hussian was, was he really any worse than any other middle-eastern tyrant? As bad as he was, Iraq was relatively stable under his rule. And we did a hell of a lot of collatoral damage in the process, which has been grossly underplayed. Was it worth it to the average Iraqi citizen?
It really galled me that dubya manipulated the citizens of USA associating Iraq with 9/11, and that the majority STILL believes that!

[Hex]

The question in the title is one I have long pondered and I never come to a satisfactory conclusion. Rather than looking at it in a context of contemporary poltics, I'd like to go back a bit and take a number of specific examples:


Were the Spanish, who at that time were pretty brutal imperialists, right to wipe out the horrifically brutal Aztec religion?
Were the British in India right to wipe out thugee and suttee?
Were various colonial regimes right to wipe out headhunting and cannibalism?


(1) No. The Aztecs were brutal in their economic warfare (that they weren't scared of backing up with physical warfare) but were already in decline. Without the Spanish eradicating the political structure, within 100 years, there may very well have been a variant of the Toltec Confederacy that would have been much more stable ... (More on Aztec sacrifice below)

(2) From what I am to understand, before the British go there the Thugee were much more peaceful; when the British arrived, conquered and plundered, the Thugee were seen as semi-sanctioned actors (vigilantes) to right the cultural wrongs that were imposed and enforced by the British. Sati (from the sanskrit) wasn't often practiced, and them primarily only by the Brahman caste where it was idealized as the height of propriety - but ideals and actions are separate.

(3) Many of the cannibalistic societies were set up to the supernatural aspects of 'claim' or 'absorption' of positive aspects of the person who has died. I can't comment much on headhunters, but from what I know of Amazonian tribal aspects, many see the display of the 'shrunken heads' as a means to show how 'fierce' they are so others won't attack them. Think about putting the heads of evildoers on spikes outside a town/city in Mideval Europe as a warning to folks who might think of doing the same ...

The Aztecs were fairly localised, but they killed significant numbers of sacrificial victims. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

It's important to note that many of the accounts of Aztec sacrifice are based on evidence from the conquistadors at the siege of Tenochtitlan. At that point, the Aztecs, faced with steel-armored and armed humans, riding steel armored horses and using cannon, saw themselves as being potentially assaulted by gods that were not their own, and were pleading with (and offering gifts of sacrifice to) their gods, with more and more fervor (and thus more and more sacrifice) as the siege went worse and worse for them. The Spanish noted that the steps of the pyramids were red were blood and that bodies were piled deep at the bottom. This was an extreme situation rather than SOP ...

Also, it should be noted that under normal circumstances, elites were the ones to be sacrificed (either military or sports (ball game) elites) as they made the best sacrifices to the gods. Overall these represented a rather small percentage of the population ...

And human sacrifice was rampant in Britain as well.

According to Roman military leaders in their letters home to get more troops.

Even your first link says: although the extent of the practice is debated by scholars.

Julius Caesar, for example, is known to have plagiarized Posidenus and to have ... overstated his accomplishments and the evils of the local populace (like having souls that weren't tied to the physical bodies after death) in order to garner further and extended support for his Gaulic and British campaigns. Talk about political propaganda ...

Jeez, this is harder to answer than I thought.

My kneejerk response is "no, it's not our place to police the world...change must come from within...USA should not get involved in any foreign wars unless our own safety is CLEARLY at stake."

I didn't have to think very long before remembering that's the mentality that allowed the holocaust go on for so long, at the cost of millions of lives.

An important realization. Eddie Izzard brought it up talking about Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, saying that they got away with killing so many people because they killed their own people ... At some level, we can see that as okay, because that's their country and their people, so it's their business.

As an anthropologist, I would say that no, we don't have the right to interfere. Cultures are built with all these bits and pieces that work together to make something that's (relatively) stable. If you mess with any part of it, you destabilize the whole thing.


That said, there are many 'undesirable' traits in ALL cultures. From other cultures, your culture (whichever yours is) does stuff wrong. How can you be sure that yours is right and theirs is wrong?



Note: I wholeheartedly support human rights for all people on the planet. I feel I am right in that, but I certainly could be wrong ...

[DMB]

I don't see what practices in pre-Roman Britain have to do with consderations of interventions elsewhere many centuries later. Nor do I see what the extent of practices matters. What seems to me to matter is whether it was right to try to provent killing that had its roots in the cultures in question.

[Christina]

I was thinking about this from another angle yesterday and I think that Celsus makes a lot of sense. Situations in some of these countries are so complicated and as outsiders we don't have the ability to simply decide who and what is right and wrong and act accordingly. We often end up supporting more brutality because we don't know what we're doing or understand the nuances of what's going on.

For me a more interesting question is what can we do to help the citizens of war torn and impoverished nations get relief and a chance at a decent future without imposing our culture on them or raping them for their natural resources. I remember that there was a big push to support incubator businesses for women in Afghanistan but there was really no way to tell if the money would end up being used for that purpose. It was also very unclear as to whether women would be allowed to access it at all.

Celsus, do you think that the NGOs operating in those areas have enough knowledge to have a clear picture of how to help without exacerbating any other problems or unwittingly supporting tyrants?

I also agree with Preno that the idea that we do these things to spread democracy is ludicrous.

[Anne]

I don't see what practices in pre-Roman Britain have to do with consderations of interventions elsewhere many centuries later.

It was brought up as an example of how you can't trust propaganda against a people. You said: I have read various accounts written by some colonial adminstrators

as if those accounts were fact and not spin. It's been proven beyond a doubt that the Roman accounts were spin. Most likely, most of those accounts you read were as well.

Nor do I see what the extent of practices matters.

In that case, is the US cannibalistic? Because we have some here. Or is one child killed by abuse an excuse to remove all the children form an 'uncivilized society'? Of course the 'extent' of the practice matters. One or two widows killing themselves because their husbands died is completely different than all.

What seems to me to matter is whether it was right to try to provent killing that had its roots in the cultures in question.

That's general enough you must also be against medical euthanasia? Abortion? Both horrific, immoral practices that involve killing that are culture based.

[David B]

What can and/or should be done about such things as slavery, honour killings, FGM, arranged marriages between kiddies.....is difficult.

Less difficult, though, what should be done about them when people from cultures that support such things come to, say, Britain or America.

There is always a difficulty in drawing a line, as in the controversy in many countries concerning burkas, or Sikh daggers.

But honour killings and enforced infant marriages in the west need squashing, and cultural relativism be damned.

David

[DMB]

Anne, just to take the question of suttee. We shall never know the total numbers involved, just as we never shall for FGM or forced marriage, but it was certainly a lot more than "one or two widows killing themselves". And in some cases (again it's impossible to decide how many or what proportion) widows did not kill themselves but were forcibly immolated.

Suttee (more commonly known nowadays as sati) still occurs very occasionally in modern India. And it is against Indian law, as are FGM, forced marriage, child marriage and human sacrifice. Nevertheless, these practices still occur, with varying degrees of frequency. Much of the modern Indian legal system does stem from the colonial period, but most Indians do not appear to want anything too different. They have had over 60 years to change any colonial legal leftovers that they didn't like.

The problem with sati is that it is supposed to be voluntary, but sometimes is not at all, and at other times has been to result of various forms of coercion.
In principle, I have nothing against an adult freely choosing to commit suicide on the death of a spouse. But it's quite another thing to be pressurised into it.

The root of the problem we are discussing seems to be the unversality or otherwise of human rights. (I don't see that this affects the question of whether there was any justification for invading Iraq, since that wasn't anything to do with why that occurred). The UDHR was a brave attempt to formalise such a concept. The interesting thing about that is that almost all the countries of the world have signed up to it, however little they abide by it in practice. Together with the ICCPR and the ICESC, it forms the Universal Bill of Human Rights.

Now that the UDHR is over 60 years in the past, we see a lot of backtracking from countries that did originally sign up. The argument is always along the lines that it represents a western idea of human rights and therefore does not apply to other cultures. I would agree that many of the concepts have their root in the Enlightenment, but one thing we surely know by now is how ideas are passed from culture to culture. Although in the past geographic separation slowed the transmission of ideas, it still happened. If a mathematician comes up with a brilliant new idea, it doesn't just belong to his/her country or culture; it belongs to humankind. People living under repressive regimes all over the world comstantly appeal in the name of this "western" idea of human rights. They are indignant if we say to them, "Sorry, it's not part of your culture."

It's obviously best if we can support or pressurise governments in an attempt to stem HR abuses. But what should be done if the government cannot or will not take any effective action or if, much worse, it is the government that is sponsoring the abuse? At the moment we have this sort of problem in the Sudan and in Tibet. How about Saudi Arabia, which has never signed up to a single HR instrument, and where quite recently there was religious support for marrying 8yo girls to middle-aged men?

I don't begin to know the answer to questions of this sort. Clearly, any answers need to look at different levels -- the practical and the moral. In a way they are not totally distinct. If you look at the possile practical consequences of an action, that can affect your assessment of its morality. E.g. if we could imagine an invasion of Iraq that simply deposed the feared and hated dictator Saddam Hussein and did not cost a single life, would we still heap it with obloquy? The practical consideration tells us that such a scenario belongs in cloud cuckoo land. Such an invasion was bound to cause considerable suffering and loss of life.

[Celsus]

Celsus, do you think that the NGOs operating in those areas have enough knowledge to have a clear picture of how to help without exacerbating any other problems or unwittingly supporting tyrants
Some do, some don't is my weasely response. During the Sudanese civil war, a great number of NGOs clearly sided (or sympathised) with the South Sudanese and Norwegian People's Aid (funded by USAID) almost certainly provided food if not arms to the SPLA. If Khartoum these days is antagonistic of "humanitarian" interventions in Darfur, it's important to bear this in mind: NGOs, in supporting the "weakest" decided the strong central government was doing the oppressing and took the side of the rebels. Not to apologise for al-Bashir's diabolical regime, but many NGOs are not innocent parties in this conflict.

Conversely, in Uganda during the late 1990s, NGOs were very constrained by the government, and when the government forced Acholis into what amounted to concentration camps, some NGOs began to provide humanitarian aid in them. Because some camps were formed at gunpoint and others spontaneously (depending on who the people affected by the conflict were - Acholis were typically forced, non-Acholis typically formed camps spontaneously, until some Acholis began to do it as well, blurring the lines), it tied the NGO's hands. Don't provide aid and people will certainly die. Provide aid and you vindicate the government's totalitarian actions.

There's a reason complex emergencies are called "complex" - simply the naive people running in to save the poor starving people usually are the first ones to get caught up in the problem itself, being manipulated by various powers and interest groups on the ground. But it is possible to be aware of being manipulated, all you need to do is tread a little more carefully before you get involved, talking with as many people on the ground as you can (despite NGO myths and positive stereotypes about themselves, most don't actually interact very much with locals). The problem is NGOs so believing in the righteousness of their actions that they ignore all the signs around them. Church-related NGOs are typically the most notorious of these, and then following them are the briefcase NGOs who are more in it for themselves than anything else, and just need to seen to be doing something.

[Christina]

That makes perfect sense to me because I see it all the time at a much lower level when it comes to local nonprofits that address homeless issues. Some are right out in the trenches talking to hundreds of people day after day and have a much more sophisticated understanding of the complexity of the problem and others are sitting in cushy offices spouting off about how they're all innocent victims and getting paid lots of money for doing PR and spin control although they've never actually spoken to a homeless person. A low level example would be when one group of dealers snitches on another to get them thrown out of the shelter so that they can take over the territory and the dumb staff don't even suspect it or think to ask around a find out a bit more.

[Celsus]

Yeah its unsurprisingly similar. Too often the question that isn't asked is: Is my intervention the right thing? And that's a much more difficult question to answer, even if you've resolved the other ethical questions about the decision to intervene in the first place.

To use a simple example, say you're an adult and see two kids fighting. You can easily step in to stop the fight and it would probably be the right thing to do. But let's say they're fighting with knives. Now you have to consider the danger each poses to each other and yourself before you go in. And let's say they're fighting with knives over one boy who beat up the other boy's little brother. Now suddenly the decision to intervene is much more complicated. Maybe the boy who beat up the little brother did so because that kid stole something of his. There's always a long chain of cause-and-effect (and far more actors than you might initially imagine) that needs to be considered when you go in or take a side in a complex emergency, and this is too often overlooked.

For a consequentialist, these questions of whether to go in are always tied to whether you can effectively make it better, or at worst, not to harm anyone in the process. The deontologist has to explain why his moral set of values is superior, and how he's going to express that as if it isn't, his actions will be read in terms of the power relations they affect, and be seen to be carrying out the imperialist compulsion to interfere with other people's sovereignty.

[Christina]

Yeah its unsurprisingly similar. Too often the question that isn't asked is: Is my intervention the right thing? And that's a much more difficult question to answer, even if you've resolved the other ethical questions about the decision to intervene in the first place.
I struggled with that for years in terms of finding the line between helping and enabling a destructive lifestyle. Over time you get more savvy about evaluating people and situations that arise one at a time but no matter how good a nonprofit is they're going to blow it and get scammed sometimes. I eventually decided that I could live with it if the worst thing that I ever did was provide resources to someone that didn't need them or who was just going to turn around and sell them, or serve food to a person that could pay for their own.

For a consequentialist, these questions of whether to go in are always tied to whether you can effectively make it better, or at worst, not to harm anyone in the process. The deontologist has to explain why his moral set of values is superior, and how he's going to express that as if it isn't, his actions will be read in terms of the power relations they affect, and be seen to be carrying out the imperialist compulsion to interfere with other people's sovereignty.
It's obviously a simpler issue to address poverty amidst plenty than it is to address famine and war but there is always a battle going on about the 'deserving' homeless as compared to the 'bums' who don't want to change their lifestyle as if anyone can tell which is which without talking to them at length. Mentally ill people often see attempts to stabilize them and get them off the streets as overpowering them and compelling them to be like the rest of normal society and they have the right to tell us to get lost even when we think we know better. They rarely ask people for help that can order a welfare check and 72 hour hold.

[Celsus]

Actually, I don't think the problems facing say, a homeless shelter and a international NGO in a conflict zone are that substantially different, though perhaps the stakes are higher. For the people managing these issues, the questions are no easier or harder, they all involve vulnerable people whose lives will be affected in some way or other by the decisions taken. But it is a good point to raise - if we can't clean our own backyards, why do we think we can clean other people's?

[Christina]

But it is a good point to raise - if we can't clean our own backyards, why do we think we can clean other people's?

Believe me that thought crossed my mind frequently when I had to raise a lot of money every year and deal with problems every day that no one has a decent solution for. After years and years I still didn't have even a glimmer of one because we're trying to fix the symptoms instead of the problems and the problems are so systemic and entrenched in our society that they seem impossible to fix. Throwing money at it for emergency and supportive services after the fact is still better than doing nothing but as a society we continue to produce homeless people as least as fast as they get themselves off the streets. Maybe there are no solutions. All I can think of to do is focus on what's right in front of me that I can understand and try to do something about it. It may do nothing for the big picture but relieving a little suffering is better than standing by and trying to ignore it.

[Hex]

I don't see what practices in pre-Roman Britain have to do with consderations of interventions elsewhere many centuries later.

Well, how do you judge the 'wrongness' of a practice? Through accounts of it, no doubt. But how much do you trust your sources? As I noted before, Julius Caesar is known to have inflated the accounts of his campaigns in order to garner more support for further campaigns. It is from these same accounts that concepts of the ancient Britons sacrificing others in the 'Wicker Man' or in great tubs during Samhain celebrations. If you question one area of the account (like the military successes) mustn't you question others?

And, given the propensity to vilify one's enemies, given corroborating evidence, were the Romans 'right' in stopping the 'horrible practices' of the Britons?

Nor do I see what the extent of practices matters.

Well, the question becomes, is the practice a 'core' or an 'outlier' sort of practice? If most of the population is doing it, it's probably a 'core' practice, with most people within the culture feeling that it's 'right'. But if it's an 'outlier' practice, then most people in the culture don't think it's right, but might accept it as a valid choice for people within their culture who are different from themselves.

I see a big difference in the impacting of a handful of people from a whole society and from impacting the majority of the population of a culture.

What seems to me to matter is whether it was right to try to provent killing that had its roots in the cultures in question.

Huh? So it's right to step in on ANY culture where killings occur? No matter the consequences?

Take the case of senilicide and infanticide in hunter/gatherer societies, especially in extreme environments like the arctic regions. Infanticide, especially that of females, is seen to limit the growth of the population to keep it within the bounds of carrying capacities of the environment and technologies of the culture. Senilicide, often instituted at the behest of the 'victim', removes those too old and/or infirm to actually be productive to the group. Given the food-sharing nature of the cultures, long-term survival of non-productive members impacts the survival of the entire group.

In 'our' culture, killing off the elderly and infants is seen as a horrible thing, right? Especially dreadful is the selective elimination of female babies in favor of males (think of the perceptions of China's abortion gender bias with the one-couple - one-child policy). But eliminating either of these -cides would dramatically impact the survival of the entire group.

Which is better? 'Our' views on death, or theirs?

And even more important, which is better for who?

[muidiri]

Do we have a right to interfere with a culture just because we consider it to be morally wrong, if that culture is not interfering with us? Or, put another way, do we have an obligation to get involved if we see something we consider morally reprehensible going on?

Before having read anyone else's responses... No. Provided that culture is not interfering with us, and is not forcing their view on others outside of their borders, we have no right to interfere.

Even though I tend to believe that some basics of morality are objectively true and universal, I also think that a large chunk of the things that we assign a moral value to are entirely subjective. For example - I would say that it is objectively and universally true that murder, theft, and fraud are immoral. Don't lie, Don't steal, Don't kill are pretty universal. But the idea that two men having sex is immoral is a subjective thing. I think lots of humans apply moral labels to things that are actually amoral... which leads to conflict and confusion.

That said... even if we believe that the actions of a separate nation are immoral, we must consider that they do not believe their actions to be immoral. Unless you accept an outside arbiter of some sort, then there's no way for us to know absolutely who is correct and who is not.

We shouldn't interfere on our own initiative. But I have no problem with us lending assistance when it is asked for. The oppressed have to be willing to fight for their own freedom from injustice, or that freedom won't be achieved. You can't force democracy - they have to want it in the first place.

[Pendaric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

This would appear to be the common name for the concept. I actually was thinking about the Star Trek Prime Directive when I wrote the OP:


As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

[muidiri]

I agree with Star Trek.

I'm a nerd, so I guess it's not a big surprise there...

[Daynna]

They were always violating the Prime Directive to do something "right." :D

This topic reminds me of my cultural anthropology class and the lectures on ethnocentrism. I didn't always agree. There are too many factors. I mean, what if a person within that other culture is asking for help or protection from something that our country considers immoral (stoning to death for example)? There are just too many scenarios to take a completely hands-off, live and let live approach.

[muidiri]

They were always violating the Prime Directive to do something "right." :D

This topic reminds me of my cultural anthropology class and the lectures on ethnocentrism. I didn't always agree. There are too many factors. I mean, what if a person within that other culture is asking for help or protection from something that our country considers immoral (stoning to death for example)? There are just too many scenarios to take a completely hands-off, live and let live approach.

Good point. For the most part, I favor a hands-off unless asked for help sort of approach. If the people of a nation appeal to us for help, then I don't think it's wrong of us to intervene. Intervening unasked, however, isn't appropriate in my view.

[Celsus]

For the most part, I favor a hands-off unless asked for help sort of approach. If the people of a nation appeal to us for help, then I don't think it's wrong of us to intervene. Intervening unasked, however, isn't appropriate in my view.
The problem is it doesn't work like this in practice. Within a country, there's different people with different interests. Just because one or two groups asks you to intervene doesn't necessarily mean you should. Are they the majority? Are they opportunistically hoping to get you to upset the power balance in their favour? Are the actions against them "severe" enough? Would your intervention provoke a different country's intervention on the other side? Do you have an exit strategy? Etc.

At the end of the day, the Treaty of Westphalia mainly erected a convenient myth but in reality, it's always been about power: the powerful don't get intervened upon so to speak. And most interventions are pretexts for something else altogether, it is rarely ever "altruistic" though it is always portrayed as such. People are suckers for that kind of thing.

[Yahzi]

Do we have a right to interfere with a culture just because we consider it to be morally wrong,
Ability is the only moral maxim; if you are capable a moral act, then you are required to perform that act. Equally, if you are not capable, you are not required.

In that sense the question of whether or not we have a right to interfere reduces to whether or not we can, in such a way as to profit all parties involved.

And of course there is the slogan, "If you want peace, work for justice." Allowing injustice to fester eventually poisons us all, just as allowing disease to run unchecked through poor populations winds up with rich populations dying.

The second way this question is often framed is as suggesting that morality is relative, and that somehow an invisible line on the ground renders crimes we find objectionable to be merely different. As if child rape could be rendered morally decent simply because a culture has practiced it for a long time.

This position, however, is self-defeating. If morals are relative, then all I need do is assert that my morality requires me to intervene in others affairs, and thus who are you to tell me I am wrong? I grew up in a culture where bashing bad guys was the thing to do, regardless of their so-called national identity. The relativist wants to assert that I am wrong, but of course doing so would be committing exactly the kind of absolute moral judgment he's complaining about.

Edit: Star Trek's Prime Directive is essentially a religious claim: "There exists a predetermined and sacred destiny for each species, which man was not meant to tamper with." It is as vacuous and retarded as all other religious claims.

[Danhalen]

Do we have a right to interfere with a culture just because we consider it to be morally wrong, if that culture is not interfering with us? Or, put another way, do we have an obligation to get involved if we see something we consider morally reprehensible going on?I'm not sure rights exist in the absence of correlative obligations. You have a right to demand that I repay a loan if and only if I have an obligation to repay the loan. If I am correct, then we have a right to interfere with a culture by preventing it from continuing moral act X if and only if it has an obligation to discontinue moral act X. Conversely, we are obligated to get involved if and only if the culture has a right to demand our involvement.

During the Rwandan genocide, we did have an obligation to get involved because those slaughtered had the right to demand our help. I'm not so sure that we ever have a right to interfere because it seems to me that demonstrating an obligation on the part of another culture is too difficult. I suppose I am saying that moral action is motivated by obligation rather than right. It's my right to holler "I fucked your mother" when I walk down the street, but it seems that it would be morally wrong if there were young children that could hear me. If a child is being subjected to such language, and is incapable of escaping it, then the child has a right to expect someone else to make it stop. If the right can be demonstrated, then I am obliged to help. The hard part is demonstrating the right to demand the obligation of interference (especially when the right resides in those with no voice).

It's a tricky topic, and I obviously skirted a good answer. My answer to the question will be this: we never have a right to interfere, but we may have an obligation to interfere. That's the best I can do.

[munnki]

The problem here is in identifying which cultures are the backward and primitive ones. From the point of view of an environmentalist, say, the Native Americans or the Aboriginals might be considered a vastly superior culture. (That is before they started to run Casinos and honk Petrol respectively). Whereas from the point of view of a technologist that of the Japanese or the Americans might be considered superior. From the point of view of a Fundamentalist, a few villages in the bible belt might be the superior culture. From the point of view of a pacifist, perhaps Tibet and Switzerland or similar might be considered superior cultures.

And so on it goes, though my examples might be terrible or misplaced.... I mean there must be certain values we have in mind when we attack other cultures...but we always end up seeming guilty of the same sins.

[Danhalen]

The problem here is in identifying which cultures are the backward and primitive ones.I'm not sure that's the problem. I think the problem lies in identifying an obligation to interfere. Whether or not we feel a culture is backward and/or primitive is irrelevant. What matters is that under certain circumstances we have an obligation to interfere with the goings on of another culture. It is possible that a far advanced culture--by our own standards--is immoral, and we could have an obligation to interfere in its actions. It's in the determination of that obligation to interfere that the tricky part comes in.

[munnki]

It is possible that a far advanced culture--by our own standards--is immoral, and we could have an obligation to interfere in its actions. It's in the determination of that obligation to interfere that the tricky part comes in.

My only question is - what are those standards? The principle of universality doesn't seem to be applied when we go on these adventures. Almost any pretext we use for attacking seems to be one that applies to us.

[Danhalen]

It is possible that a far advanced culture--by our own standards--is immoral, and we could have an obligation to interfere in its actions. It's in the determination of that obligation to interfere that the tricky part comes in.

My only question is - what are those standards? The principle of universality doesn't seem to be applied when we go on these adventures. Almost any pretext we use for attacking seems to be one that applies to us.You seem to be asking a question that moves beyond the theoretical and into actuality. To me, it then looks like you criticize the western world's application of some deontological rule. I'm not sure that western culture generally claims to adhere to a categorical imperative. It seems, to me, that the west generally operates on some type of rule utilitarianism (on the surface, rule utilitarianism may appear to resemble the universalization principle). Yet whether or not the west's actions are hypocritical (based on an application of its first order ethics) is a moot point, and not entirely germane to the topic.

I agree that the west seems to act in accordance to principles that would apply equally to ourselves when we intervene in different cultures' affairs. I think our actions are generally justified--rightly or not--through satisficing.

For me, the interesting part of the question is whether or not a perceived obligation to interfere could ever possibly be justified (and I do not think satisficing is ever justification when cultures clash). I think the solution to the question will require a step into metaethical territory before even attempting first order ethics.

[Rie]

Who is 'we' ?? We should mind our own mess and leave others to theirs. All interference in the past has shown that it is an unwarranted and unnecessary exercise.
But 'we' never learn.'We' are so pompous and usually 'we' are white skinned. Hmmm?

[His Noodly Appendage]

I don't think we have the right, per se. But I'm not sure we don't have the duty.

[Nontoxic]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.

[Preno]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.

[Notta]

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." Proverbs 22:9

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich -- both come to poverty." Proverbs 22:16

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court." Proverbs 22:22

"A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." Proverbs 28:3

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses." Proverbs 28:27

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Luke 18:22

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

(Seemed like an appropriate place to submit these statements.)

[Nontoxic]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.

[Nontoxic]

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." Proverbs 22:9

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich -- both come to poverty." Proverbs 22:16

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court." Proverbs 22:22

"A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." Proverbs 28:3

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses." Proverbs 28:27

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Luke 18:22

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

(Seemed like an appropriate place to submit these statements.)

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
Abraham Lincoln

[Preno]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.

[Nontoxic]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.
I don't speak gobbldeygook :dunno:

[Notta]

<bunch of Bible verses about helping the poor>

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
Abraham Lincoln

First time I've ever seen someone try to use a Lincoln quote to trump the Bible. What trumps Lincoln, do you suppose? Einstein? Mother Teresa?

[muidiri]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.

I'd say that really depends on what you believe to be in your best interests. If you believe that acting compassionately is good for you as a person, and benefits your growth of spirit and understanding, then it is certainly in your long-term best interests to donate to charities. If you believe that your own interests include general provisions for your potential future need, by helping to create and nurture a strong and caring community that will be there when you need a shoulder to lean on... then donating to charities is in your own self-interest. If you derive person pleasure and joy from knowing that you have been able to help someone, and if you believe that joy is of interest to you, then donating to charities is in your own self-interest.

If however, you have an extremely shortsighted, self-absorbed, and immature view of "self interest", and somehow confuse the term with "selfish", then you probably wouldn't donate. :p

[muidiri]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.

Not obligated to X <> Obligated to not X

[Preno]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.

Not obligated to X <> Obligated to not XI understand that. He specifically said we have a duty (i.e. are obligated to) act in our own self-interest.
I'd say that really depends on what you believe to be in your best interests. If you believe that acting compassionately is good for you as a person, and benefits your growth of spirit and understanding, then it is certainly in your long-term best interests to donate to charities. If you believe that your own interests include general provisions for your potential future need, by helping to create and nurture a strong and caring community that will be there when you need a shoulder to lean on... then donating to charities is in your own self-interest. If you derive person pleasure and joy from knowing that you have been able to help someone, and if you believe that joy is of interest to you, then donating to charities is in your own self-interest.Of course, but then the whole distinction collapses into a huge meaningless tautology.

[muidiri]

I'd say that really depends on what you believe to be in your best interests. If you believe that acting compassionately is good for you as a person, and benefits your growth of spirit and understanding, then it is certainly in your long-term best interests to donate to charities. If you believe that your own interests include general provisions for your potential future need, by helping to create and nurture a strong and caring community that will be there when you need a shoulder to lean on... then donating to charities is in your own self-interest. If you derive person pleasure and joy from knowing that you have been able to help someone, and if you believe that joy is of interest to you, then donating to charities is in your own self-interest.Of course, but then the whole distinction collapses into a huge meaningless tautology.

Why would that be the case? Just because different people have differing opinions of what's best for them personally doesn't make it tautological.

Part of the point here is that it allows you to decide independently what is in your interest. If you're living paycheck to paycheck with no squish in your budget, then donating to a charity is probably not in your best interest - it might mean that you end up having to go without food.

You decide what is best. If you believe that charity is not in your best interests, then you are not obligated to donate. If you decide it is, in fact, in your best interests, then you may donate.

Why do you think it's tautological?

[halii]

I think we have the 'duty' to act in our own self-interest. As for humanitarian efforts, that what charities are for.What you said sort of implies that we have a duty not to donate to charities.
not at all, do whatever makes you happy.You just said we have the duty to act in our own self-interest. Donating to a charity is not in my own self-interest. Therefore, you must believe that I have a duty not to donate to charities.
well with some creative thinking and some conclusiosn and some scenarios i'm sure you can make the argument that donating to a charity is in your own self-interest.

[halii]

If you believe that charity is not in your best interests, then you are not obligated to donate. If you decide it is, in fact, in your best interests, then you may donate.

Why do you think it's tautological?actually if you believe charity is not in your best interests, then you are obligated to not donate. if you are imposing a duty to act in your own self interest, that is.

[halii]

as for the thread title, government interferes with cultures they consider to be wrong all the time - of the different cultures of its own people. we impose certain beliefs in legal rights given to people that other cultures do not believe have rights. we have certain restrictions on ability to consent where other cultures believe they can consent.

A lot of our laws conflict with religious beliefs and cultural norms of other countries. we don't have a "it's my culture" exception to most of these laws because we determine that it creates harm.

[Nontoxic]

<bunch of Bible verses about helping the poor>

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
Abraham Lincoln

First time I've ever seen someone try to use a Lincoln quote to trump the Bible. What trumps Lincoln, do you suppose? Einstein? Mother Teresa?
I don't quote biblical scripture, this was simply a quote of Lincoln's. Need I explain the meaning to you too?

[Notta]

Since I was using the 'argument from authority', I pulled out the ultimate authority for any Christian, the Bible. Your 'authority' is Lincoln. I still think a reference from the Bible about a moral absolute trumps a quote from Lincoln.

Of course, we could also teach all the Haitians to fish ("Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll never go hungry.") instead of giving them hand-outs of free food & water. That'll cure what ails them!

[Nontoxic]

Since I was using the 'argument from authority', I pulled out the ultimate authority for any Christian, the Bible. Your 'authority' is Lincoln. I still think a reference from the Bible about a moral absolute trumps a quote from Lincoln.

Of course, we could also teach all the Haitians to fish ("Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll never go hungry.") instead of giving them hand-outs of free food & water. That'll cure what ails them!
What ails them is their current government, or lack thereof. Fix that or make them your permenent dependents.
I'm not following you on Biblical quotes. Are you secular or not?
If I quote someone, that does not mean I am bowing to their authority, I'm simply agreeing with what they said.
Are there any growups here? WTF?

[muidiri]

If you believe that charity is not in your best interests, then you are not obligated to donate. If you decide it is, in fact, in your best interests, then you may donate.

Why do you think it's tautological?actually if you believe charity is not in your best interests, then you are obligated to not donate. if you are imposing a duty to act in your own self interest, that is.

I can see that. I suppose it depends on whether you view "not in your best interests" to mean A) Not the best option available to you, or not the optimal course of action versus B) harmful to you.

I tend to think it would usually fall under A, in which case I'd still argue that it's not obligatory to donate. If it falls under B, I could see a good argument for it being obligatory to not donate.

My personal view of life mas virtually no obligatory morality - only prohibited and permissible. So I will likely never say "obligatory to not". I'll likely always say "not obligatory to".

[muidiri]

Are there any growups here? WTF?
It's just a case of slight miscommunication in your various intents. There's no need to jump straight to insulting not just Notta but everyone else here as well... <scowl>.

[Nontoxic]

Are there any growups here? WTF?
It's just a case of slight miscommunication in your various intents. There's no need to jump straight to insulting not just Notta but everyone else here as well... <scowl>.
Alright, please interpret what he is saying for me. Why does he keep harping about biblical scripture on a secular forum? and why does it appear you are all communists?

[muidiri]

Are there any growups here? WTF?
It's just a case of slight miscommunication in your various intents. There's no need to jump straight to insulting not just Notta but everyone else here as well... <scowl>.
Alright, please interpret what he is saying for me. Why does he keep harping about biblical scripture on a secular forum? and why does it appear you are all communists?

Probably because you haven't been here long enough to get a feel for different people's styles. Personally, I'm very far from being communist. If you had observed some more, you could easily have determined that for yourself.

Notta was pretty much just screwing around. He (she?) was making fun of xians who resort to quoting the bible as an appeal to authority - because god is obviously the highest authority out there. It was meant in fun.

You quoted Lincoln, which Notta took to be you appeal to Lincoln as a higher authority - which was pretty humorous.

Then you had to go and ruin it by calling us all names :mad:.

[Preno]

My personal view of life mas virtually no obligatory morality - only prohibited and permissible. So I will likely never say "obligatory to not". I'll likely always say "not obligatory to".Uh, "obligatory to not ..." is sort of equivalent to "prohibited to ..."

[muidiri]

My personal view of life mas virtually no obligatory morality - only prohibited and permissible. So I will likely never say "obligatory to not". I'll likely always say "not obligatory to".Uh, "obligatory to not ..." is sort of equivalent to "prohibited to ..."

Good point in a semantic sense. I'm more concerned about action. I almost never agree with an outlook that insists we are morally compelled to act. That's what I view as "obligatory" - You must take action in order to be moral, and failure to act is viewed as immoral.

I generally tend to view most actions as permissible - you can certainly act if you choose to, but you are not obligated to. Some actions are prohibited. Thus I view it as a prohibited/permissible scale, with no obligatory involved.

In this case, however, I let myself be drawn into the semantic game ;).

[Notta]

FYI: I'm female, and there's no apparent contradiction in my mind about Christians posting on a board that calls itself "Secular Cafe".

secular = of the world, not 'atheist' IMO

[Jet Black]

whether we have the right depends on whether your mindset is one in which you think you have the right. All other rights are arbitrary, no matter how fundamental we like to pretend they may be, and so is this one.

[Yahzi]

I don't think we have the right, per se. But I'm not sure we don't have the duty.
This is exactly on target.

The sole moral imperative is ability: if you are capable of a moral act, then you are required to perform that moral act.

To the extent that we can create justice and reduce suffering, we are required to. Our obligation to our fellow man does not terminate at some imaginary line in the sand (although our practical ability to fulfill that obligation might be complicated by imaginary lines).

As for knowing what's right or wrong, that kind of nihilism is just an excuse for inaction. It's easy to tell if it's right. Simply ask yourself, "Would I find that kind of treatment acceptable?" If the answer is no, then why the f*** do you think anyone else would?

Mutilating children? Bad. Killing homosexuals? Bad. Rape? Bad. Eating tacos? Who the f*** cares?

See, it's not that hard.

[Christina]

Mutilating children? Bad. Killing homosexuals? Bad. Rape? Bad. Eating tacos? Who the f*** cares?

See, it's not that hard.

Sure it's not hard if you stick to obvious examples and theories instead of complex realities. Of course mutilating children is bad and of course any compassionate person would want to act to stop it. The hard part is figuring out how to do it in reality. Try it with the kind of scenarios that Celsus has dealt with in real life when both sides are committing atrocities, there's no solid infrastructure or food distribution system and no one knows their way around and who is who except the native residents who are killing each other. How do we intervene and improve the situation besides dropping pallets of food down for people to kill each other over? Should we bomb them until they stop it or ask nicely or something?

[Yahzi]

Sure it's not hard if you stick to obvious examples and theories instead of complex realities.
Not hard for you and I, perhaps, but I've met plenty of moral relativists who apparently find the problem unsolvable.

How do we intervene and improve the situation besides dropping pallets of food down for people to kill each other over?
This is an insightful question. And the answer is unpleasant. Remember when I said ability was the sole moral imperative? Sometimes you have to recognize you just can't help.

The Green Revolution is a case in point. We noticed hunger and starvation in third-world nations. We gave them magic seeds that doubled their food production. Hooray! Problem solved, so easily, aren't we wonderful?

Now, 40 years later, we have twice as many hungry and starving people.

It is true some societies have not progressed past the point of fratricide. How do you deal with them? The only way they understand. You pick a side, arm it, and help it take over. The liberals will whine - but ignore them; they're the same people that gave us the Green Revolution.

Then you start educating people, as fast as they'll let you. Once the people in the community start complaining about being ruled by armed thugs, then you can start pressuring your "allies" to institute democratic reforms. They'll whine, but ignore them; they're the kind of idiots that gave us Iran.

Eventually the people will start looking out for their own interests, passing democratic and even socialists laws. This will be bad for business in the short run, so the conservatives will whine - but ignore them, they're the same people who gave us United Fruit.

The point is, you have to deal with people in terms they understand, even if you don't like it. How do you know what terms to use? That's a judgment call. As you said, it's very difficult. It will produce mixed results. But it will always produce better results than a) ignoring the problem, or b) treating them as if they were exactly like us already.

[Preno]

Now, 40 years later, we have twice as many hungry and starving people.I'm fairly sure you just made that up. The proportion of people suffering from starvation has more than halved since 1970, but the population certainly hasn't quadrupled in the meantime.
The liberals will whine - but ignore them; they're the same people that gave us the Green Revolution.lol what

[Christina]

Remember when I said ability was the sole moral imperative? Sometimes you have to recognize you just can't help.
I agree but I think that the difficulty lies in knowing which situations that applies to. What help is can get pretty subjective once you move into the realm of politics or coercion when there's no clear single aggressor.

It is true some societies have not progressed past the point of fratricide. How do you deal with them? The only way they understand. You pick a side, arm it, and help it take over.
I think that there might be some innocent people on the other side that wouldn't find that all that helpful. On what basis do we pick a side?


Then you start educating people, as fast as they'll let you. Once the people in the community start complaining about being ruled by armed thugs, then you can start pressuring your "allies" to institute democratic reforms. They'll whine, but ignore them; they're the kind of idiots that gave us Iran.
How did you get the armed thugs to let you start educating people as fast as you can? Are these the same thugs that we armed? Why would they want to see people get educated and get rid of them? What allies are you referring to?

The point is, you have to deal with people in terms they understand, even if you don't like it. How do you know what terms to use? That's a judgment call. As you said, it's very difficult. It will produce mixed results. But it will always produce better results than a) ignoring the problem, or b) treating them as if they were exactly like us already.
Who gets to define what better is?

[munnki]

Are there any growups here? WTF?
It's just a case of slight miscommunication in your various intents. There's no need to jump straight to insulting not just Notta but everyone else here as well... <scowl>.
Alright, please interpret what he is saying for me. Why does he keep harping about biblical scripture on a secular forum? and why does it appear you are all communists?

Senator McCarthy, I presume...

[Nontoxic]

Are there any growups here? WTF?
It's just a case of slight miscommunication in your various intents. There's no need to jump straight to insulting not just Notta but everyone else here as well... <scowl>.
Alright, please interpret what he is saying for me. Why does he keep harping about biblical scripture on a secular forum? and why does it appear you are all communists?

Senator McCarthy, I presume... A fan :p

[Garnet]

OK, I'm calling Poe. Even though it's politics, the concept is still applicable.

[Nontoxic]

I say we do as little more as possible. We've got our paid military there, plenty of donations, and lots of people wanting to chip in free labor. We Americans already donate large sums to this country, before this disaster. There is a call to forgive their debt to all countries.
They are on a fault line, and it will happen again.
We prop them up, and they're on their own. I suggest they beg France to take them over again.
I just saw an ad from the U.N. seeking donations - that is the last group I would give money to.
There are more than enough charities that can take over, once we render medical aid. I can see them squabbling over who gets to feed who, and what kind of house they want to build for which family, first. They have never had running water, or dependable electricity.
I did donate to HSUS, who has finally gotten permission to go in.
The US of A is broke, and borrowing from China or printing money that doesn't exist. China is the big kid on the block now, put the pressure on them for a change. We aren't big brother anymore, even when we were, we just got stabbed in the back for it. :(

[Haswell]

Damn right we should. We are going to have a democracy even if we have to shoot a few people.

[muidiri]

The sole moral imperative is ability: if you are capable of a moral act, then you are required to perform that moral act.

I disagree with this premise.

If the moral act is obligatory because of ability... then why have you not sent every spare cent of your income to the starving children in Africa (and elsewhere)? Why have you not expended every possible effort to prevent deaths across the globe?

I don't accept that ability confers obligation. I doubt that you actually accept it 100% either. I suspect that you accept it some times, when it's reasonable for you to act, and not horribly inconvenient. I supect that what you actually live by (as do most people) is the idea that ability creates a situation in which moral action is both permissible and desirable - it should be encouraged... but is NOT actually obligatory. Failure to act does not necessarily make one immoral. I could be wrong... but that's my guess.

[Yahzi]

I agree but I think that the difficulty lies in...
Of course. Foreign policy is hard. Maybe even as hard as rocket science. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try: it just means we should be humble in what we hope to achieve and how we go about it.

And sometimes we just can't do anything. Sometimes people are going to kill each other and torture each other and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Basically, you just have to wait until they're tired of living like that.

I think that there might be some innocent people on the other side that wouldn't find that all that helpful. On what basis do we pick a side?
There are always innocents on both sides. That doesn't change reality. When we invent bombs that only kill bad people, then we can demand perfection. Until then we pick sides based on crass political considerations or even just randomly. The key here is to not be paralyzed into inaction by fear of harming an innocent, because your inaction is just going to harm people too.

How did you get the armed thugs to let you start educating people as fast as you can? Are these the same thugs that we armed? Why would they want to see people get educated and get rid of them? What allies are you referring to?
The answer to all of these questions depend on the circumstances. For a deeper understanding, refer to: WWII (for an example of how to do it right), and Vietnam (for an example of how to do it wrong).

Who gets to define what better is?
I knew the relativism was there, hiding under the surface. It never goes far.

Here's an idea: let's decide that rape, torture, and starvation are better. Now Africa is the best of all possible worlds! Boy, that was a good day's work. Pass the chianti, please.

Better, in case there is any point in explaining it, which I highly doubt, is what you would want. If you, personally, can't decide whether being sold into marriage at 12 is better than not being, then I guess this is always going to be an impossible task.

[Yahzi]

The sole moral imperative is ability: if you are capable of a moral act, then you are required to perform that moral act.

I disagree with this premise.

If the moral act is obligatory because of ability... then why have you not sent every spare cent of your income to the starving children in Africa (and elsewhere)? Why have you not expended every possible effort to prevent deaths across the globe?
It depends on what you mean by capable, doesn't it.

Personally, I've noticed that if I send every spare cent of my income to children in Africa, I wouldn't work as hard, and soon I wouldn't have any spare income. Turns out that I am an economic animal. It's a pity I wasn't born a self-sacrificing saint, but there you go. (Probably evolution has something to do with this.)

This is what got the Commies. They thought people should be able to ignore their human nature. Turns out the Commies were wrong. People can't. And that's not bad: we don't need to ignore human nature, we just need to deal with it.

I define capable as "able to do without materially damaging my own quality of life." This is a standard that ordinary human beings can live up to. It is a realistic standard. It is an adequate standard. We don't need saints, we just need people whose self-interest extends more than 3 days into the future.

(In fact your proposed standard is part of the problem, as it encourages people to not think further ahead than the immediate now.)

Note the research that shows that people who think they can resist temptation are, in fact, worse at resisting temptation, because they do things (like expose themselves to temptation) that make it harder to succeed. By realistically identifying what people should do (as opposed to pie-in-the-sky dreams of perfection), we have a much better chance of getting people to actually do it.

"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." - Barrack Obama

I don't accept that ability confers obligation.
Then what does? Where else does obligation come from?

I doubt that you actually accept it 100% either.
You will do me the favor of not questioning my integrity until you have reason to do so.

I suspect that you accept it some times, when it's reasonable for you to act, and not horribly inconvenient.
If something is unreasonable and horribly inconvenient, then it is not within my capability, any more than "the right to stop breathing" counts as a "freedom." Sure, I might be able to do it once, but so what? I can jump off the Empire State building without a parachute once. Does that mean it is within my capability? Only in one sense of the word. I meant the other sense.

[Yahzi]

The US of A is broke, and borrowing from China or printing money that doesn't exist. China is the big kid on the block now, put the pressure on them for a change. We aren't big brother anymore, even when we were, we just got stabbed in the back for it. :(
Are you aware that every single one of those statements are false?

Just asking.

[Yahzi]

Damn right we should. We are going to have a democracy even if we have to shoot a few people.
When, in the history of the world, has a democracy been established or maintained without shooting a few people?

I'm not making an argument for fascism here. I'm pointing out that the real world has real constraints. As unpleasant and undesirable as they may be, as much as we might strive to avoid them, it does us no good to ignore them.

[Rie]

To be sure , to be sure...BUT, when in the world has there been a Democracy?

[Christina]

See, it's not that hard.


Of course. Foreign policy is hard. Maybe even as hard as rocket science.


Better, in case there is any point in explaining it, which I highly doubt, is what you would want.

You seem a bit confused. That's an interesting sense of superiority that you've got going there, both toward individual people and other cultures. What have you done to earn it? You're right, I don't think that there is anything that you can explain to me when it comes to dealing with real things in the real world.

[muidiri]

The sole moral imperative is ability: if you are capable of a moral act, then you are required to perform that moral act.

I disagree with this premise.

If the moral act is obligatory because of ability... then why have you not sent every spare cent of your income to the starving children in Africa (and elsewhere)? Why have you not expended every possible effort to prevent deaths across the globe?
It depends on what you mean by capable, doesn't it.

Personally, I've noticed that if I send every spare cent of my income to children in Africa, I wouldn't work as hard, and soon I wouldn't have any spare income. Turns out that I am an economic animal. It's a pity I wasn't born a self-sacrificing saint, but there you go. (Probably evolution has something to do with this.)

This is what got the Commies. They thought people should be able to ignore their human nature. Turns out the Commies were wrong. People can't. And that's not bad: we don't need to ignore human nature, we just need to deal with it.

I define capable as "able to do without materially damaging my own quality of life." This is a standard that ordinary human beings can live up to. It is a realistic standard. It is an adequate standard. We don't need saints, we just need people whose self-interest extends more than 3 days into the future.
I can understand that definition to a degree, but I think it's so gray as to be virtually useless. It might be clear to you what is necessary for the quality of life that you desire... but it's not going to be clear to anyone else, and no other has any grounds for being able to judge such a sentiment. It becomes a slippery slope. Do you think that what constitutes an adequate quality of life for you is sufficient to be considered an adequate quality of life for everyone else?

If your viewpoint rests upon redefining a common term to mean something that it does not mean in ordinary discussion... then I question whether your viewpoint has a valid premise. None of the standard definitions of capable are even close to what you've defined it to mean. Your definition is closer to that for 'convenient".

Using your definition, wouldn't your initial statement reduce to "As long as it's not uncomfortable for you, then you have an obligation to xxx"?

(In fact your proposed standard is part of the problem, as it encourages people to not think further ahead than the immediate now.)
I don't see how you get that out of my standard. Please expand?

Note the research that shows that people who think they can resist temptation are, in fact, worse at resisting temptation, because they do things (like expose themselves to temptation) that make it harder to succeed. By realistically identifying what people should do (as opposed to pie-in-the-sky dreams of perfection), we have a much better chance of getting people to actually do it.
I don't know what temptation actually has to do with the topic... but I'll run with it. I don't see that avoiding all temptation is equivalent to resiting temptation. If you are tempted to overeat... avoiding food altogether (or even placing yourself in a position where you are only ever exposed to plain chicken breast and carrots) isn't exactly learning control, and it's not resisting temptation.

I don't accept that ability confers obligation.
Then what does? Where else does obligation come from?
Obligation mostly comes from other people trying to force you to do something you don't wish to do ;). Legitimate obligations are few and far between, and generally rest on an agreement - whether contractual or unspoken. I have an obligation to my father to help ensure that he doesn't become homeless - because I accept that his effort in raising me deserves some level of consideration and recompense. I have an obligation to be monogamous and honest with my spouse, because that is part of the expected terms of our relationship. I have an obligation to perform my job duties satisfactorily because that is part of the terms of my employment. I have an obligation to pay my bills because it is part of the terms for my use of the other party's services.

I have the ability to sew quilts. I don't think I have any obligation to do so. I have the ability to teach math to children. I don't think I have an obligation to do so. I have the ability to make a mean steak... but I have no obligation to cook on demand. I have the ability to make my husband go "woo-woo" in bed... but I have no obligation to do so. I have the ability to give all my excess income to starving people in Haiti... but there is no obligation for me to do so, regardless of how you might choose to define "excess".

I doubt that you actually accept it 100% either.
You will do me the favor of not questioning my integrity until you have reason to do so.
It wasn't intended as a questioning of your integrity. It was intended as a questioning of the repercussions and consequences of your premise. You've already agreed that you don't accept it 100% - by redefining "ability" as being dependent on your comfort and your desires, you've implicitly accepted that ability is not the driver of obligation.

I suspect that you accept it some times, when it's reasonable for you to act, and not horribly inconvenient.
If something is unreasonable and horribly inconvenient, then it is not within my capability, any more than "the right to stop breathing" counts as a "freedom." Sure, I might be able to do it once, but so what? I can jump off the Empire State building without a parachute once. Does that mean it is within my capability? Only in one sense of the word. I meant the other sense.
Which other sense would that be?
Capable:
1. having power and ability; efficient; competent.
2. capable of,
a. having the ability or capacity for.
b. open to the influence or effect of; susceptible of.
c. predisposed to; inclined to.

If you're trying to go for the last definition (predisposed to) then fine - as long as you understand that at that point you can only comment upon what you perceive as your own personal capability, and thus your own personal perceived obligation. You can not judge the obligation of any other person. It thus invalidates the intended message of your post :dunno:.

[muidiri]

Damn right we should. We are going to have a democracy even if we have to shoot a few people.
When, in the history of the world, has a democracy been established or maintained without shooting a few people?


:hmm: I'll give you that shooting people has been a part of democracies born of revolution... and my world history isn't adequate to try to identify the exceptions. I have no inclination to do that much research...

... but if democracy must be maintained for a given population by the application of force upon that population, then I don't see that it's democracy ;).

[Danhalen]

... but if democracy must be maintained for a given population by the application of force upon that population, then I don't see that it's democracy ;).Pretty much by definition, if I may make an addition.

[Yahzi]

I can understand that definition to a degree, but I think it's so gray as to be virtually useless.
I am starting from the presupposition that human beings can determine what they can or cannot do. As Plato said, all philosophy begins with: Know thyself.

but it's not going to be clear to anyone else, and no other has any grounds for being able to judge such a sentiment.
People judge what other people are capable of all the time. It's not really that hard, if you're willing to accept reasonable limitations on your accuracy.

Do you think that what constitutes an adequate quality of life for you is sufficient to be considered an adequate quality of life for everyone else?
Yes, I do. I am capable of making this determination because I am a human being. All human beings are, to reasonable level of accuracy, indistinguishable.

If you are tempted to overeat... avoiding food altogether (or even placing yourself in a position where you are only ever exposed to plain chicken breast and carrots) isn't exactly learning control, and it's not resisting temptation.
Actually, it is exactly that. This is what control means: not putting yourself in tempting situations. It does not mean subjecting yourself to temptation until you fail. This is the entire point of the research: that what we typically define as control is nigh-useless, a folk psychology understanding of human nature. Actual control - as exhibited by actually successful people - consists of making smart choices before the cupcakes hit the fan.


Legitimate obligations are few and far between, and generally rest on an agreement - whether contractual or unspoken.

I think you are coming from a Libertarian perspective. If so, there's a much more basic disagreement between our positions than what we're discussing here.

I have the ability to sew quilts. I don't think I have any obligation to do so.
There is no moral component to quilt-sewing. Unless people are going to die if you don't sew quilts. Then, I would argue, you do have an obligation.

I have the ability to give all my excess income to starving people in Haiti... but there is no obligation for me to do so, regardless of how you might choose to define "excess".
So you only feel an obligation when you get something in return - a deal, as you said.

What you are missing is that you have an unspoken obligation to Haitians because they are human beings. Your membership in the human race imposes these obligations on you from the start.


It wasn't intended as a questioning of your integrity. It was intended as a questioning of the repercussions and consequences of your premise. You've already agreed that you don't accept it 100% - by redefining "ability" as being dependent on your comfort and your desires, you've implicitly accepted that ability is not the driver of obligation.
Now instead of questioning my integrity, you are questioning my ability to know what I am and am not capable of.

Do you have an argument that does not depend on you knowing more about me than I do?

If you're trying to go for the last definition (predisposed to) then fine - as long as you understand that at that point you can only comment upon what you perceive as your own personal capability, and thus your own personal perceived obligation.
Which is why I don't expect other people to donate 100% of their excess income to anything.

However, I am perfectly capable of determining that people can donate 1% of their excess income to their own long-term self-interest. I am capable of determining that they can refrain from lying under oath. There is a long list of things I can judge other humans capable of, based on their status as a sane, competent adult. There is also a long list of things I cannot. The existence of gray or even unsolvable cases does not invalidate the existence of legitimate moral judgments.

[Yahzi]

... but if democracy must be maintained for a given population by the application of force upon a portion of that population, then I don't see that it's democracy
I've amended your statement so that its flawed premise is clear.

The sad fact is that some people will always require force, no matter what. Having to shoot a handful of people does not, in and of itself, invalidate democracy.

It is not lack of shooting that determines good government. Rather, it is how you go about determining which people get shot that determines if your government is just, fair, and free.

[Yahzi]

You seem a bit confused. That's an interesting sense of superiority that you've got going there, both toward individual people and other cultures.
I'm just so very, very tired of moral relativism. I am particularly tired of people who live in clean, safe, rich societies telling me how very hard it is to determine if disease, torture, and poverty are "worse" or "better."

But as long as you are committed to the idea that all cultures are equal, then consider this: my culture tells me that it is best to tell other people that their cultures are wrong. So where do you get off telling me my culture is wrong? :evil:

[muidiri]

... but if democracy must be maintained for a given population by the application of force upon a portion of that population, then I don't see that it's democracy
I've amended your statement so that its flawed premise is clear.

The sad fact is that some people will always require force, no matter what. Having to shoot a handful of people does not, in and of itself, invalidate democracy.

It is not lack of shooting that determines good government. Rather, it is how you go about determining which people get shot that determines if your government is just, fair, and free.

No, I don't think so. I think we have a very serious disagreement about what constitutes democracy. Forcing people to be democratic is fundamentally inconsistent.

[muidiri]

What you are missing is that you have an unspoken obligation to Haitians because they are human beings. Your membership in the human race imposes these obligations on you from the start.

This is the heart of where we disagree. I have no obligation to other humans except that which I willingly accept. I accept an obligation to my immediate family, and a very few close friends. But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.

And you telling me that I have an obligation doesn't make it true.

[dancer_rnb]

But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.



step 1 - Open mouth
step 2 - Insert foot.

[muidiri]

But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.



step 1 - Open mouth
step 2 - Insert foot.

How so? I accept no obligation for the well-being of strangers, regardless of who they are are what they do.

[Rie]

I think in simple twrms before I get into the mire of full on heated discussion so can I just say that (as I've always understood) that democracy is the right every citizen has to determine which 'Party' he wants to govern?
It is one man one vote , put simply.
Supposedly this leads to every individual having his say in what should be accepted as righteous in a nation's makeup

[Yahzi]

How so? I accept no obligation for the well-being of strangers, regardless of who they are are what they do.
If this is the case, then they have no obligation for your well-being.

Not only does this pave the way for China to drop a bomb on your house, it also eliminates any concern over global warming.

Why care if we are destroying the planet? It won't become unlivable in your lifetime, and what do you owe all those strangers of the future who aren't even alive yet?

Of course, you no doubt have uttered a complaint at some point in your life directed at those fools from the past who made your current existence difficult because of their short-sighted, simple-minded choices.


It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves.

[Rie]

You know it's really simple. Because we are white we think we are superior.
Yes this is a sweeping statement but history backs me up.

[BWE]

No. We have a moral obligation to try people for committing crimes within our jurisdiction and we have the moral obligation to declare much of religion criminal, and maybe refuse trade other than education related aid perhaps, definitely refuse to sell them arms at any rate....
A guy can dream can't he?

[Haswell]

Sure we do. If they are interfering with our culture and very lives.

[Rilx]

You know it's really simple. Because we are white we think we are superior.


Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

- Rudyard Kipling, The Poet of The British Empire

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

The Western World, and the US in particular, seem to be on a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it, and quite often don't seem to want it.Not really. The fact that it keeps getting framed this way is precisely what the people responsible for these sorts of wars want. The US has demonstrated time and again through its financial, military and political support of various right-wing military dictatorships in the Third World that it doesn't give a toss about democracy, so I don't really understand why it keeps getting framed that as "a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it". That's just ridiculous. The US isn't and never has been on any such mission (which, of course, is not to say that it won't use the medium of parliamentary democracy when it happens to be the most convenient means available).True. It's an excuse to exercise power over countries who defy the US/Britain. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is not a democracy, but the Anglo alliance does not have any interest in promoting democracy there, the royal family being its business partner. Cubans have more civil freedoms than the Arabians, but the US is Cuba's enemy as a result of the island's refusal to submit to US dominance.

[dancer_rnb]

But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.



step 1 - Open mouth
step 2 - Insert foot.

How so? I accept no obligation for the well-being of strangers, regardless of who they are are what they do.

Seems to me you were comparing Haitians to rapists and murderers. Make sure you say what you mean, something like "no more than I accept obligations for middle class taxpayers with kids and big mortgages.

[Rie]

Still think that white people tend to superiority complexes.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Still think that white people tend to superiority complexes.That is a correct observation.

[muidiri]

But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.



step 1 - Open mouth
step 2 - Insert foot.

How so? I accept no obligation for the well-being of strangers, regardless of who they are are what they do.

Seems to me you were comparing Haitians to rapists and murderers. Make sure you say what you mean, something like "no more than I accept obligations for middle class taxpayers with kids and big mortgages.

Not comparing them directly. Just saying that I don't accept obligations for strangers. The fact that they're Haitian gives them no special standing. If they were Zimbabwean or Vietnamese or New Yorkers, it wouldn't matter either. I'm often happily willing to help out voluntarily, but I don't accept that I'm obligated to do so.

It seems silly to try to press an obligation of this sort onto people, with the only justification being that the recipient of the forced compassion is human. Murderers are human also. People who club baby seals to death are human also. Racist asshats are human. Being human doesn't make one necessarily special or valuable. And it certainly doesn't impose an obligation for care on others.

I would never expect complete strangers halfway across the world to be concerned about my personal well being. If they are, out the kindness of their own hearts, then I would be grateful - but I would never assume they were obligated to care about me one way or another.

I have an obligation to my spouse - that's part of being married. I would have an obligation to my children, had I any. I accept obligation for the well being of my parents - I consider it repayment for them raising me. To a degree, I am willing to accept some obligation for the well being of other extended family members and friends, because I consider them part of my family, and that's what friends do.

But no - I don't accept an obligation for the middle class taxpayers with kids and big mortgages. Not as an entire class. I may very well decide to offer assistance on my own, because I think it's a good and beneficial thing to do... but not because I am somehow obligated to do so because of their status as humans.

[Jet Black]

I haven't actually read any of the thread, but it depends if your culture gives you that right or not.

[darjeeling]

Not comparing them directly. Just saying that I don't accept obligations for strangers.

...then why did you say "rapists and murderers" and not "strangers"?

[halii]

What you are missing is that you have an unspoken obligation to Haitians because they are human beings. Your membership in the human race imposes these obligations on you from the start.

This is the heart of where we disagree. I have no obligation to other humans except that which I willingly accept. I accept an obligation to my immediate family, and a very few close friends. But I accept no obligation for Haitians... no more than I accept obligation for the well being of a rapist or a murderer.

And you telling me that I have an obligation doesn't make it true.

:eek:

[muidiri]

Not comparing them directly. Just saying that I don't accept obligations for strangers.

...then why did you say "rapists and murderers" and not "strangers"?

Because it highlights the point. Yahzi is busy telling me that I have an "unspoken obligation to Haitians because they are human beings." Haitians, because of the earthquake, are a group of people that most of us are feeling lots of compassion toward right now. Using Haitians as the exemplary group strengths Yahzi's argument via an appeal to emotion. But the crux of the argument is that we have an obligation to all other human beings specifically and only becuase they are human. To me, this is a fallacious argument - I don't accept that I have an obligation to all other humans; I don't accept an obligation for strangers half a world away. In order to counter Yahzi's appeal to emotion, I chose one of the most emotionally laden categories of humans I could think of - emotionally laden in the opposite direction. I strongly suspect that most people would be taken aback if someone told them they had an obligation to see to the well being of all rapists, simply because they are humans. By specifying that group, I am highlighting the flaw in Yahzi's argument... or at least trying to ;).

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Not comparing them directly. Just saying that I don't accept obligations for strangers.

...then why did you say "rapists and murderers" and not "strangers"?

Because it highlights the point. Yahzi is busy telling me that I have an "unspoken obligation to Haitians because they are human beings." Haitians, because of the earthquake, are a group of people that most of us are feeling lots of compassion toward right now. Using Haitians as the exemplary group strengths Yahzi's argument via an appeal to emotion. But the crux of the argument is that we have an obligation to all other human beings specifically and only becuase they are human. To me, this is a fallacious argument - I don't accept that I have an obligation to all other humans; I don't accept an obligation for strangers half a world away. In order to counter Yahzi's appeal to emotion, I chose one of the most emotionally laden categories of humans I could think of - emotionally laden in the opposite direction. I strongly suspect that most people would be taken aback if someone told them they had an obligation to see to the well being of all rapists, simply because they are humans. By specifying that group, I am highlighting the flaw in Yahzi's argument... or at least trying to ;).I agree with the premise that we are not under obligation to other humans (that depends on personal levels of altruism). It is however simple to present a counter argument against your Haitian/rapist model, by claiming that the obligation is limited only to 'innocent' humans. That would be however a very weak emotional appeal, since it is completely dependent, again, on the level of altruism. There is no reason for humans to aid other humans, except as a method of guaranteeing aid for oneself. Thus the notion is political.

[Rie]

I don't agree. I would help a striped person if he/she was in need of help... I stress the word HELP.
Help for those in need of medical aid and aplace of shelter etc. doesn't give anyone on this planet the right to inflict their own religious views on them.
Religion is a very private and to be respected thing.
I love the full moon, dusk and dawn and if I called dusk,dawn andfull moon my spiritual heart and it gave me peace, then leave me alone.

[Alex]

An obligation is usually understood as the condition of being legally or morally bound to do something. There's obviously no legal obligation to help the Haitians. Whether you accept that it's your moral duty to help them should be independent of any consideration of reciprocity: it's a matter of conscience.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Whether you accept that it's your moral duty to help them should be independent of any consideration of reciprocity: it's a matter of conscience.Should?? Why? Do you operate under the premise that there is a universal type of 'conscience' (emotional/moral impulse)? I couldn't care less about the Haitians from an emotional perspective (I will not give even a cent), but I can see why it is politically beneficial for the various states, particularly its neighbors and historical relatives, to help them.

[Alex]

Should?? Why? Do you operate under the premise that there is a universal type of 'conscience' (emotional/moral impulse)? I couldn't care less about the Haitians from an emotional perspective (I will not give even a cent), but I can see why it is politically beneficial for the various states, particularly its neighbors and historical relatives, to help them.

When you perform any action on moral grounds do you calibrate your behaviour in accordance with a calculation of how you could (hypothetically) benefit when having a similar need for generosity or whatever?

I don't know whether there's a "universal type of conscience", but I suspect there are some human sympathies that are ubiquitous. I can act only on my own limited perceptions. And, from my point of view, the Haitians could use some disinterested help in addition to the charity they're getting from "emotional" benefactors.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

When you perform any action on moral grounds do you calibrate your behaviour in accordance with a calculation of how you could (hypothetically) benefit when having a similar need for generosity or whatever?Yes, if the person is in position to reciprocate. No, if performing the action would provide satisfaction.

I don't know whether there's a "universal type of conscience", but I suspect there are some human sympathies that are ubiquitous. I can act only on my own limited perceptions.You suspect incorrectly, to a certain extent, plus there would also be human antipathies that are ubiquitous (like that felt towards distant strangers).

And, from my point of view, the Haitians could use some disinterested help in addition to the charity they're getting from "emotional" benefactors.I am sure they can use it... as sure as I am I don't care for what they might find useful. Read again: I don't care.

[Alex]

Yes, if the person is in position to reciprocate. No, if performing the action would provide satisfaction.

Your position seems to be based on the supposition that human altruism isn't "disinterested compassion" but covertly benefits the altruist. That might be true. If you can demonstrate that it is true, then I'll listen.

You suspect incorrectly, to a certain extent, plus there would also be human antipathies that are ubiquitous (like that felt towards distant strangers).
How do you know that what I suspect is incorrect? And to what extent?
I am sure they can use it... as sure as I am I don't care for what they might find useful. Read again: I don't care.
Okay, I don't care that you don't care. I'm not trying to proselytize.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Yes, if the person is in position to reciprocate. No, if performing the action would provide satisfaction.

Your position seems to be based on the supposition that human altruism isn't "disinterested compassion" but covertly benefits the altruist. That might be true. If you can demonstrate that it is true, then I'll listen.It's both, which is why altruism many times backfires.

You suspect incorrectly, to a certain extent, plus there would also be human antipathies that are ubiquitous (like that felt towards distant strangers).
How do you know that what I suspect is incorrect? And to what extent?See below.
I am sure they can use it... as sure as I am I don't care for what they might find useful. Read again: I don't care.
Okay, I don't care that you don't care. I'm not trying to proselytize.Well, it illustrates why what you suspect is incorrect to a certain extent.

[Alex]

It's both, which is why altruism many times backfires.

So you say. Where's your argument?

Well, it illustrates why what you suspect is incorrect to a certain extent.

Only to the extent of my opinion - which is insignificantly small.

As a matter of fact I haven't given a penny to any of the aid organizations asking for money. But I'm not refraining from giving on principle, and I don't mind if the British government makes material contributions to Haiti that can only be paid for with taxpayer's money.

(I would prefer that the government gives aid in the form of goods and services and not in cash.)

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

It's both, which is why altruism many times backfires.

So you say. Where's your argument?Experience. Open your eyes. Observe human behaviour.

Well, it illustrates why what you suspect is incorrect to a certain extent.

Only to the extent of my opinion - which is insignificantly small.

As a matter of fact I haven't given a penny to any of the aid organizations asking for money. But I'm not refraining from giving on principle, and I don't mind if the British government makes material contributions to Haiti that can only be paid for with taxpayer's money.

(I would prefer that the government gives aid in the form of goods and services and not in cash.)The South American Union has promised 300 million dollars in aid, plus technical assistance. I approve, since it is a smart geopolitical move on their part, both for the institutional consolidation of the union and the advancement of its agenda, and because it will help (hopefully) to transform the only factually underdeveloped society remaining in the Americas.

[Alex]

Experience. Open your eyes. Observe human behaviour.
In order to arrive at any judgment about altruism we have to do more than merely observe human behaviour; we have to interpret it. That requires analysis.
The South American Union has promised 300 million dollars in aid, plus technical assistance. I approve, since it is a smart geopolitical move on their part, both for the institutional consolidation of the union and the advancement of its agenda, and because it will help (hopefully) to transform the only factually underdeveloped society remaining in the Americas.
So apart from the "smart geopolitical move" made by the South American Union, are you saying that you don't approve assistance from other sources - including the US?

In other words, you recognize only rational self interest as a motive for helping the people of Haiti?

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Experience. Open your eyes. Observe human behaviour.
In order to arrive at any judgment about altruism we have to do more than merely observe human behaviour; we have to interpret it. That requires analysis.That's obvious.
The South American Union has promised 300 million dollars in aid, plus technical assistance. I approve, since it is a smart geopolitical move on their part, both for the institutional consolidation of the union and the advancement of its agenda, and because it will help (hopefully) to transform the only factually underdeveloped society remaining in the Americas.
So apart from the "smart geopolitical move" made by the South American Union, are you saying that you don't approve assistance from other sources - including the US?That doesn't follow.

In other words, you recognize only rational self interest as a motive for helping the people of Haiti?I recognize that others have other interest (emotional). I spoke only of the interest I share.

[columbus]

Experience. Open your eyes. Observe human behaviour.
In order to arrive at any judgment about altruism we have to do more than merely observe human behaviour; we have to interpret it. That requires analysis....
In other words, you recognize only rational self interest as a motive for helping the people of Haiti? I don't recognize anything but rational self-interest as a proper motive for anything. I don't think altruism really exists. Altruism is just the word we use for unusually subtle forms of self-interest.

I do think it is in the best interests of the rich and strong and lucky to help the less fortunate. But the devil is in the details. Peoples, cultures and nations are huge, complex and conservative things. Trying to figure out what to do to help the whole human race is often quite beyond our capacity. There is no point in invading or sending tons of cash or anything unless you are sure you know the underlying causes and that the people you are trying to help actually want help to make the world a better place. Often they just want to be the ones with power so theu can do the oppressing. Or, as in Haiti, the government wants somebody else to do the clean up so they can keep all the money they have stolen in the past. Propping up the kleptocracy in Haiti doesn't seem like such a good thing to me. Planning to get the aid to the people has been done before, but where are the results? I don't see the hospitals and schools and roads that have been paid for before. I see a tiny sliver of wealthy Haitians with bigger off shore investments and the people no better off. It isn't possible to force the Haitian people to rebuild if they don't want to and I don't think they do. They wish it would happen, but that isn't the same thing. That is the kind of problem you run into when nations try to interfere with cultures.

I'd be more inclined to discuss massive aid or debt-forgiveness if somebody went after the folks who looted Haiti under the Duvaliers. There is a bunch of money out there in private accounts that belongs to the Haitian people and I am uninclined to throw good money after bad.

Tom

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I don't recognize anything but rational self-interest as a proper motive for anything.That's quite irrational. ;) By which I mean that motive is instinctual and rationality a tool to organize motives. Thus no motive can be 'rational' although motives can certainly be rationalized.

I don't think altruism really exists. Altruism is just the word we use for unusually subtle forms of self-interest.If you classify emotional satisfaction/emotional compulsion as self-interest then I agree.

Propping up the kleptocracy in Haiti doesn't seem like such a good thing to me. Planning to get the aid to the people has been done before, but where are the results? I don't see the hospitals and schools and roads that have been paid for before. I see a tiny sliver of wealthy Haitians with bigger off shore investments and the people no better off. It isn't possible to force the Haitian people to rebuild if they don't want to and I don't think they do. They wish it would happen, but that isn't the same thing. That is the kind of problem you run into when nations try to interfere with cultures. You seem to grasp the situation in Haiti rather well, particularly the bold. People seem to want to forget that Haiti is how it is because of an extremely self-degrading culture and an epigenetic "curse" (not of the type that Pat Robertson thinks, but...)

[David B]

That's quite irrational. By which I mean that motive is instinctual and rationality a tool to organize motives. Thus no motive can be 'rational' although motives can certainly be rationalized.

There is so much about this that I agree with. Motives, I think, are often rationalised, and the result of mainly subconscious processing which may be more or less in tune with the rationalisation.

I take issue with the 'instinctual', though. I'd take seriously the idea that evolution has given humanity a little bit of innate sense of fairness, and a something of a bit of a tendency to pick up the ambient morality of one's culture, but learning, and previously thinking, about moral issues to my mind influence the subconscious processing more an on the (at least largely) subconscious process of coming to moral decisions than anything instinctual.

David

[Daynna]

If you classify emotional satisfaction/emotional compulsion as self-interest then I agree.

I do consider it self-interest. People tend to get offended by that, but it's not a bad thing. I do good things for others if it is going to make me feel good. I may be empathetic to a bad situation and want to help, and helping makes me feel better.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I take issue with the 'instinctual', though. I'd take seriously the idea that evolution has given humanity a little bit of innate sense of fairness, and a something of a bit of a tendency to pick up the ambient morality of one's culture, but learning, and previously thinking, about moral issues to my mind influence the subconscious processing more an on the (at least largely) subconscious process of coming to moral decisions than anything instinctual.I don't see why you should take issue with instinctual, since the above can be reduced to: Instinctual impulses are modified in intensity and character by life experiences.

By instinctual I mean the ultimate, primal motive for action, not the manifestation as such, which in humans is the result of a process of evaluation/learning. Thus the motives for sex/eating/helping are instinctual (emotional), but having sex/dinning/giving to charity only occurs after these primal motives have been reasoned (found to correspond with the primal motive of survival/pleasantness based on knowledge of the consequences of those activities).

[David B]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

David

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

DavidI see. It does seem rigid.

[Alex]

That's obvious.
Yet you haven't provided the analysis that supports your claim. All you've made are unsupported assertions about the nature of altruism.

I recognize that others have other interest (emotional). I spoke only of the interest I share.

I haven't said that paying to rescue Haiti from its long standing problems of political corruption etc. should be on the agenda. I'm talking about helping people who are suffering because of a natural disaster. This help is a temporary expedient.

I would prefer to give material assistance: nobody in his senses wants to see international aid in cash that will probably end up in the pockets of another Papa Doc and his Tonton Macoute.

I don't agree that altruism is just a subtle form of self interest. It can be - but it ain't necessarily so.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

That's obvious.
Yet you haven't provided the analysis that supports your claim. All you've made are unsupported assertions about the nature of altruism.So have you... so...

I recognize that others have other interest (emotional). I spoke only of the interest I share.


I don't agree that altruism is just a subtle form of self interest. It can be - but it ain't necessarily so.Good for you.

[Yahzi]

I strongly suspect that most people would be taken aback if someone told them they had an obligation to see to the well being of all rapists, simply because they are humans. By specifying that group, I am highlighting the flaw in Yahzi's argument... or at least trying to ;).
It's no flaw. We do have an obligation to see to the well being of rapists because they are human beings.

Of course, we also have an obligation to their victims, and generally speaking that obligation winds up over-riding theirs.

But imagine the (admittedly impossible) case of a rapist with no victims. Is our obligation to him any different than our obligation to any other person? Of course not. Our obligations only change when the rapist causes (or will cause) harm, and the reason is because of the harms the rapist commits to other people whom we also owe obligations to.


On a side note: altruism is self-interest; we commit altruistic acts because as an individual we are better off living in a society in which altruistic acts are committed. The difference between selfishness and generosity is, generally speaking, the difference between short-term and long-term payoff.

[Yahzi]

Still think that white people tend to superiority complexes.
This is a remarkably ignorant, and dare I say it, racist point of view. For instance, you clearly have no experience with Japanese culture, where the absolute total dominance of yellow people is taken so much for granted that other people aren't even considered human enough to be able to speak the language.

All people tend to superiority complexes. The only reason we aren't exposed to black superiority complexes is because for a hundred years we shot any black person who acted superior.

You have mistaken local conditions for ultimate truths, which is a favorite tactic of racists themselves (who cite the current poverty rate of minorities as evidence of their genetic inferiority).

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Still think that white people tend to superiority complexes.
This is a remarkably ignorant, and dare I say it, racist point of view.It's a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where white people constitute the dominant class (and white people constitute the global dominant class). It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites: "White trash" is about social status, not race.


For instance, you clearly have no experience with Japanese culture, where the absolute total dominance of yellow people is taken so much for granted that other people aren't even considered human enough to be able to speak the language.

All people tend to superiority complexes. The only reason we aren't exposed to black superiority complexes is because for a hundred years we shot any black person who acted superior.Makes sense, except that people tend to inferiority complexes likewise. It's not uncommon for "yellow people" for instance to round their eyes to achieve a "white look". Hispanics in general have bought the notion that they are technically inefficient.

You have mistaken local conditions for ultimate truths, which is a favorite tactic of racists themselves.A bit exaggerated considering the generic nature of his statement, and that he wasn't particularly off the mark.

[Alex]

Two or three people in this thread have asserted that altruism is self interest as though, to use someone's phrase, they've just enunciated an "ultimate truth". It's not a fact, it's an opinion or a belief.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Two or three people in this thread have asserted that altruism is self interest as though, to use someone's phrase, they've just enunciated an "ultimate truth". It's not a fact, it's an opinion or a belief.:rolleyes: Is the bold above a fact, or an opinion/belief?

Seems to me altruism as an emotional impulse is not necessarily self-interest, since emotions can lead to self-damage, and yet satisfying that impulse in the first place can only be seen as a manifestation of self-interest, unless we separate self-interest from the notion of emotional satisfaction. Thus......

[Alex]

:rolleyes: Is the bold above a fact, or an opinion/belief?

Seems to me altruism as an emotional impulse is not necessarily self-interest, since emotions can lead to self-damage, and yet satisfying that impulse in the first place can only be seen as a manifestation of self-interest, unless we separate self-interest from the notion of emotional satisfaction. Thus......
Take another look at what was said in posts #126 and 132: I also qualified my observation with "as though" they just enunciated etc. :rolleyes:

Okay, so you don't believe that altruism is necessarily a mask for self interest provided we consider it as an emotional impulse. In other words altruism doesn't exist as the manifestation of some rational deliberation?

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

:rolleyes: Is the bold above a fact, or an opinion/belief?

Seems to me altruism as an emotional impulse is not necessarily self-interest, since emotions can lead to self-damage, and yet satisfying that impulse in the first place can only be seen as a manifestation of self-interest, unless we separate self-interest from the notion of emotional satisfaction. Thus......
Take another look at what was said in posts #126 and 132: I also qualified my observation with "as though" they just enunciated etc. :rolleyes:

Okay, so you don't believe that altruism is necessarily a mask for self interest provided we consider it as an emotional impulse. In other words altruism doesn't exist as the manifestation of some rational deliberation?Rational deliberation only operates in function of emotional impulses, but that doesn't exclude altruism as the result of some rational deliberation, since results/actions in humans are highly rationalized products.

[Alex]

Rational deliberation only operates in function of emotional impulses, but that doesn't exclude altruism as the result of some rational deliberation, since results/actions in humans are highly rationalized products.

Am I to understand what looks like a rather complicated premise or postulate, as a statement of fact? It seems to be written with the confidence of someone who thinks it is. And it might be true for all I know, but you're saying so doesn't necessarily compel my assent.

[muidiri]

I agree with the premise that we are not under obligation to other humans (that depends on personal levels of altruism). It is however simple to present a counter argument against your Haitian/rapist model, by claiming that the obligation is limited only to 'innocent' humans. That would be however a very weak emotional appeal, since it is completely dependent, again, on the level of altruism. There is no reason for humans to aid other humans, except as a method of guaranteeing aid for oneself. Thus the notion is political.

True. I've tried to be clear on this one - I LIKE to help, I enjoy it, it makes me feel good to know that I can help, and I think it's beneficial for the entire species to encourage helpful behaviors. But <good and nice> doesn't translate to <obligated>. I think a lot of the value in helping others lies in it being a voluntary action. Forcing people to help doesn't make it altruistic, and doesn't make it necessarily beneficial... it kind of makes it a contradiction in terms.

So to be clear - it's not the helping that I'm opposed to - only the idea of it being obligatory.

[muidiri]

An obligation is usually understood as the condition of being legally or morally bound to do something. There's obviously no legal obligation to help the Haitians. Whether you accept that it's your moral duty to help them should be independent of any consideration of reciprocity: it's a matter of conscience.

Is it a matter of conscience to help those in India who are starving? What about those in China who are struggling? What about the Vietnamese? Is it a matter of conscience to help illegal US immigrants living 4 to a house? What about an ex-con who's in poverty? What about a convicted murderer who has served his time and can't quite make ends meet? What about the rapist who evaded sentencing on a technicality?

Does this matter of conscience (implying a moral obligation) apply to all humans, or only to some?

[muidiri]

Your position seems to be based on the supposition that human altruism isn't "disinterested compassion" but covertly benefits the altruist.
I hold this position... except that I don't think it's all that covert.

I get great emotional pleasure from helping others. Not some twisted power-trip kind of "lording it over those less fortunate", but genuine, heart-filling, soul-stirring pleasure in the fact that I am able through my efforts to improve the life of another person. I can lift part of their burden. Having been without myself on occasion, and being quite able to imagine the stress involved, I can empathize with their situations. It fills me with great joy to be able to give them surcease. No small part of that joy is seeing their joy reflected back at me. The joy of a hand unlooked for, held out in offer. It makes me all full of love to think that I might, in some small way, be helping to change someone's view of humanity in general, I might be reminding them of the benevolence that the human spirit is capable of... and hopefully they will pass it on to another in their own time.

This is without even considering the subconscious reinforcement of the reciprocal expectation - that if I am generous and helpful now when I am not in need, then when I am in need, that generosity is more likely to be repaid.

So yeah - I certainly believe that altruism is NOT disinterested, and that it does benefit the actor.

[muidiri]

But I'm not refraining from giving on principle, and I don't mind if the British government makes material contributions to Haiti that can only be paid for with taxpayer's money.

See I REALLY don't support this. On the one hand, you're busy telling us how it's a "matter of conscience" to help the people of Haiti... but you can't be bothered to help yourself. But you're quite happy to let the government send aid with other people's money.

[muidiri]

I don't recognize anything but rational self-interest as a proper motive for anything.That's quite irrational. ;) By which I mean that motive is instinctual and rationality a tool to organize motives. Thus no motive can be 'rational' although motives can certainly be rationalized.

I question your assertion that motive is instinctual.

[muidiri]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

DavidI see. It does seem rigid.

The term instinctual implicitly includes the requirement of unlearned.

Instinct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct): an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species

[muidiri]

I strongly suspect that most people would be taken aback if someone told them they had an obligation to see to the well being of all rapists, simply because they are humans. By specifying that group, I am highlighting the flaw in Yahzi's argument... or at least trying to ;).
It's no flaw. We do have an obligation to see to the well being of rapists because they are human beings.

Of course, we also have an obligation to their victims, and generally speaking that obligation winds up over-riding theirs.

But imagine the (admittedly impossible) case of a rapist with no victims. Is our obligation to him any different than our obligation to any other person? Of course not. Our obligations only change when the rapist causes (or will cause) harm, and the reason is because of the harms the rapist commits to other people whom we also owe obligations to.


On a side note: altruism is self-interest; we commit altruistic acts because as an individual we are better off living in a society in which altruistic acts are committed. The difference between selfishness and generosity is, generally speaking, the difference between short-term and long-term payoff.
I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly. But I still disagree with your classification of altruism as morally obligatory.

If it is morally obligatory, then by definition, failure to be altruistic is morally forbidden - it is immoral. Thus, anyone who fails to aid everyone less fortunate than themselves is immoral. So if I have an extra $5 in my pocket, and I choose to spend it on a milkshake (which I certainly don't need) when there is a homeless person sitting on the corner asking for help... then I am immoral. If I have an extra $150 per month that I am putting in savings so I can take an Alaskan Cruise in a couple of years... but there are starving and suffering people in Darfour... then I am immoral. Essentially, it forces every human who is not actively in need to either give away every spare resource they have or be considered immoral. That's the implication of saying it is morally obligatory.

Morally preferred; morally laudable - definitely. Just not obligatory.

[muidiri]

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites
Bullshit.

Whitey
Honkey
Cracker
Guialo
Gringo
Haole

I'm sure there are more... but racial slurs of any sort make me blush, so I only know the few that I've been unable to avoid being exposed to :(.

[Alex]

But I'm not refraining from giving on principle, and I don't mind if the British government makes material contributions to Haiti that can only be paid for with taxpayer's money.

See I REALLY don't support this. On the one hand, you're busy telling us how it's a "matter of conscience" to help the people of Haiti... but you can't be bothered to help yourself. But you're quite happy to let the government send aid with other people's money.


I resent your term "you're busy telling us" - it implies that I'm trying to impose my definition of the situation on others. I'm indifferent to the information that you feel no obligation etc. I'll be guided by my own idea of what I "ought" to do, if anything.

I pay taxes: some of it is my money. I think the emergency in Haiti can only be addressed by government action which is why I've refrained from giving to the charities that are asking for money. And I've made clear that I do not think it's a good idea to give aid by transfers of cash. The help given should be in the form of prefabricated buildings, sanitation equipment and such like that "we" would put in place - perhaps using local labour

On your point that there's always poverty and distress everywhere, so why should we help X and not Y: Well, I don't think that's a good argument for refusing to help anyone at all.

I don't believe all altruistic endeavours are simply manifestations of self interest. What are the grounds for your opinion that my belief is false?

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

DavidI see. It does seem rigid.

The term instinctual implicitly includes the requirement of unlearned.

Instinct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct): an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological speciesYes. Primary emotional impulses are not learned. And primary emotional impulses are the basis of all human action, not 'reason'. Rationality (which is itself in basis, an instinct) is a tool to organize the primary emotional impulses, the instincts.

Tell me: Did you learn to feel hunger? Sexual desires? Friendship desires? Love? Desire to survive? Desire to be admired?

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites
Bullshit.

Whitey
Honkey
Cracker
Guialo
Gringo
Haole

I'm sure there are more... but racial slurs of any sort make me blush, so I only know the few that I've been unable to avoid being exposed to :(.I don't think those are particularly offensive. Gringo?? Whitey?? Please...

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I don't recognize anything but rational self-interest as a proper motive for anything.That's quite irrational. ;) By which I mean that motive is instinctual and rationality a tool to organize motives. Thus no motive can be 'rational' although motives can certainly be rationalized.

I question your assertion that motive is instinctual.I question your analysis. Are you saying that desires/emotions are not instinctual? Sex is not an instinct? Hunger? Love? Friendship? Status? Motherhood? Fatherhood? Jealousy? I don't see how you could justify such a claim. All motive can be reduced to a primary instinct.

[muidiri]

But I'm not refraining from giving on principle, and I don't mind if the British government makes material contributions to Haiti that can only be paid for with taxpayer's money.

See I REALLY don't support this. On the one hand, you're busy telling us how it's a "matter of conscience" to help the people of Haiti... but you can't be bothered to help yourself. But you're quite happy to let the government send aid with other people's money.


I resent your term "you're busy telling us" - it implies that I'm trying to impose my definition of the situation on others. I'm indifferent to the information that you feel no obligation etc. I'll be guided by my own idea of what I "ought" to do, if anything. My apologies if I got it wrong. That's how it read to me.

I pay taxes: some of it is my money. I think the emergency in Haiti can only be addressed by government action which is why I've refrained from giving to the charities that are asking for money. And I've made clear that I do not think it's a good idea to give aid by transfers of cash. The help given should be in the form of prefabricated buildings, sanitation equipment and such like that "we" would put in place - perhaps using local labour
I tend to oppose government charity on grounds of principle. I don't think it's appropriate for the government to use taxes, which were collected with the intention of them being used to run our government and address the needs of this country, being given to others. I also oppose it on the grounds that using government monopoly power to force charity is an inappropriate use of the power of that government.

But... the White House website having a direct link in to the Red Cross? That made me tear up with joy, and I wholeheartedly support that sort of an approach.

If I were 100% certain that every single tax contributor in the US would support the use of our taxes for humanitarian efforts, I might not complain. But as it is, I see it as an abuse of the power of government, however noble the intention might be.

It's like laying down a rule for your child whereby 10% of their allowance and birthday monies is required to go into a savings account for their college fund... and then taking money from that college account to give to a different child without the express permission of your own kid. Good intention, poorly executed.

On your point that there's always poverty and distress everywhere, so why should we help X and not Y: Well, I don't think that's a good argument for refusing to help anyone at all.
I didn't use it as an argument for refusing to help anyone. :dunno: If you've been reading this thread, I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion. I've used it to argue that it is not morally obligatory. But I've clearly said it is both morally laudable and preferable..

I don't believe all altruistic endeavours are simply manifestations of self interest. What are the grounds for your opinion that my belief is false?
:p My opinion. My opinion is that your opinion is false. I've actually already explained why I think it IS a manifestation of self-interest, here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=111523&#post111523). Granted it's anecdotal, and based on my own emotional reaction. But I have an incredibly hard time imagining any human NOT having a similar emotional reaction when engaging in those behaviors.

What evidence - even anecdotal and person experience - do you present that "altruism" can exist without some sort of emotional payoff and benefit to the actor?

[muidiri]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

DavidI see. It does seem rigid.

The term instinctual implicitly includes the requirement of unlearned.

Instinct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct): an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological speciesYes. Primary emotional impulses are not learned. And primary emotional impulses are the basis of all human action, not 'reason'. Rationality (which is itself in basis, an instinct) is a tool to organize the primary emotional impulses, the instincts.

Tell me: Did you learn to feel hunger? Sexual desires? Friendship desires? Love? Desire to survive? Desire to be admired?

But you said NO motive can be rational. That they are SOLELY instinctual. I'm just not seeing how you can justify that claim without having to invent your own definition of instinctual.

How is my motive to respond to you in this discussion (and hopefully change your view) "instinctual"?

[muidiri]

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites
Bullshit.

Whitey
Honkey
Cracker
Guialo
Gringo
Haole

I'm sure there are more... but racial slurs of any sort make me blush, so I only know the few that I've been unable to avoid being exposed to :(.I don't think those are particularly offensive. Gringo?? Whitey?? Please...

I find them offensive. They're intended as derogatory and hurtful race-based epithets. Whether you personally don't think they're offensive doesn't make them inoffensive.

At the risk of hopelessly derailing this thread... may I ask your racial background?

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I suppose it is a matter of definition. My definition of instinctual seems somewhat more tighter than yours - an instinct to suckle, to imprint on the nearest big moving thing in the case of geese, something not modified by learning.

DavidI see. It does seem rigid.

The term instinctual implicitly includes the requirement of unlearned.

Instinct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct): an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological speciesYes. Primary emotional impulses are not learned. And primary emotional impulses are the basis of all human action, not 'reason'. Rationality (which is itself in basis, an instinct) is a tool to organize the primary emotional impulses, the instincts.

Tell me: Did you learn to feel hunger? Sexual desires? Friendship desires? Love? Desire to survive? Desire to be admired?

But you said NO motive can be rational. That they are SOLELY instinctual. I'm just not seeing how you can justify that claim without having to invent your own definition of instinctual. I don't need to invent my own definition of instinctual. No motive is rational, but motives can be rationalized (measured as to consequences), and the most convenient motive acted upon/manifested. Rationality is thus an instinct evaluating/choosing between instincts machine.

How is my motive to respond to you in this discussion (and hopefully change your view) "instinctual"?:D How is it "rational"? Look at the bold: Trying to 'convert' others to your group is a primal impulse(s): Herding, leading, dominating

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

...may I ask your racial background?Hispanic (white). (I am not offended by "spic" for instance. Hispanics don't have a racial slur concept as such).

[columbus]

I don't recognize anything but rational self-interest as a proper motive for anything.That's quite irrational. ;) By which I mean that motive is instinctual and rationality a tool to organize motives. Thus no motive can be 'rational' although motives can certainly be rationalized.
I don't think all motives are instinctual, although far more than the rational ones. People are born with a batch of instincts which generally would serve to spread the genes in nature. Rational motivations are what I would call moral ones. Not that all instinctive behaviours are necessarily immoral. But choosing to do/not do something in opposition to instinctive drives is generally because we can think something through and predict that the outcome is likely to be what we want, ie. be rational. Immoral behaviour is generally when people do something out of instinct rather than rationality. People who want their marriage to last more than a piece of strange won't cheat on their spouse despite the instinct.
By and large, people do immoral things out of instinct and moral things out of rationality.

Tom

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I don't think all motives are instinctualBy motives I mean 'emotional impulses'.

Rational motivations are what I would call moral ones.I: Rationalized motivations.

Immoral behaviour is generally when people do something out of instinct rather than rationality.I: when people do something following pure rather than rationalized instinct.

People who want their marriage to last more than a piece of strange won't cheat on their spouse despite the instinct.That is because rationalization leads them to choose a set of instincts (wife loving, domestic stability) over another (sexual gratification).

By and large, people do immoral things out of instinct and moral things out of rationality.I: People do immoral things and moral things out of instincts, rationalization sometimes aiding morality, sometimes the contrary.

[Yahzi]

It's a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where white people constitute the dominant class
The point you seem to be missing is that it is a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where <insert any color here> people constitute the dominant class.

If the poster had said, "dominant people tend to superiority complexes," I would not have any objection. Instead, the poster singled out white people and attributed a specific behavior to that group based on the color of their skin. That is racism.

What part of that is not perfectly clear? :(

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites:
A number of examples have already been presented. Here's another one.

Gai-ko Refers to Whites; Pronounced "guy-ko". Derogatory way of saying gaijin which is 'foreigner' (literally outside person) in Japanese.
http://www.rsdb.org/

Makes sense, except that people tend to inferiority complexes likewise. It's not uncommon for "yellow people" for instance to round their eyes to achieve a "white look". Hispanics in general have bought the notion that they are technically inefficient.
Again you cite local, temporary truths. I assure you Ghengis Khan's Mongols did not round their eyes or desire a white look. Nor did the ancestors of the Hispanics consider themselves inferior while they ruled MesoAmerica.

A bit exaggerated considering the generic nature of his statement, and that he wasn't particularly off the mark.
No, I do not think it was exaggerated at all.

[Yahzi]

I don't think it's appropriate for the government to use taxes, which were collected with the intention of them being used to run our government and address the needs of this country, being given to others.
Has it occurred to you that the needs of your country might involve giving money to others?

You know, it is not unimaginable that someday your country might require help; and the amount of help you receive then might well be predicated on how much you send now.

Fortunately for you, your elected officials seem to have a better grasp of your country's long-term interests than you do.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

It's a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where white people constitute the dominant class
The point you seem to be missing is that it is a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where <insert any color here> people constitute the dominant classThe point you are missing is that we are arguing the current situation, where whites constitute the global dominant class. Not a genetic trait of whites, nor arguing that other races do not exhibit the same bahaviour.

If the poster had said, "dominant people tend to superiority complexes," I would not have any objection. Instead, the poster singled out white people and attributed a specific behavior to that group based on the color of their skin. That is racism.See above. No one is arguing that it is a specific genetic trait of whites.

What part of that is not perfectly clear?You are not getting that we are speaking of the current cultural attitudes, not of a genetic trait. That is the point you are missing and thus are making irrelevant arguments.

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites:
A number of examples have already been presented. Here's another one.

Gai-ko Refers to Whites; Pronounced "guy-ko". Derogatory way of saying gaijin which is 'foreigner' (literally outside person) in Japanese.
http://www.rsdb.org/And is any white person actually insulted by that? I am not. Who cares?

Makes sense, except that people tend to inferiority complexes likewise. It's not uncommon for "yellow people" for instance to round their eyes to achieve a "white look". Hispanics in general have bought the notion that they are technically inefficient.
Again you cite local, temporary truths. I assure you Ghengis Khan's Mongols did not round their eyes or desire a white look. Nor did the ancestors of the Hispanics consider themselves inferior while they ruled MesoAmerica. 1. I am referring to present day complexes, which are cultural, and temporal, not genetic, so the Ghengis Khan comment is absurd. Get it?

2. Hispanic refers to the Spaniards in Europe and their descendants in America (even the mixed), not to the natives (only 1/5 of the Hispanics live in MesoAmerica any how. I am Hispanic and I have nothing to do with the people you present as my "ancestors"). And the comment pertains present day cultural attitudes, not genetic traits, which includes the attitudes of the White Spanish in Europe, who do think of themselves as lacking in technical/scientific skills. So your comment makes no sense.
A bit exaggerated considering the generic nature of his statement, and that he wasn't particularly off the mark.
No, I do not think it was exaggerated at all.Yes it was, since you are not understanding that the point refers to current attitudes of racial groups, not to genetic traits, and are therefore arguing against non-existent positions.

[Alex]

My apologies if I got it wrong. That's how it read to me.
Because I'm prepared to admit a moral obligation does not mean that I expect anyone else to be bound by the reasons I give for it.

I tend to oppose government charity on grounds of principle. I don't think it's appropriate for the government to use taxes, which were collected with the intention of them being used to run our government and address the needs of this country, being given to others. I also oppose it on the grounds that using government monopoly power to force charity is an inappropriate use of the power of that government.

But... the White House website having a direct link in to the Red Cross? That made me tear up with joy, and I wholeheartedly support that sort of an approach.

If I were 100% certain that every single tax contributor in the US would support the use of our taxes for humanitarian efforts, I might not complain. But as it is, I see it as an abuse of the power of government, however noble the intention might be.

It's like laying down a rule for your child whereby 10% of their allowance and birthday monies is required to go into a savings account for their college fund... and then taking money from that college account to give to a different child without the express permission of your own kid. Good intention, poorly executed.

I didn't use it as an argument for refusing to help anyone. :dunno: If you've been reading this thread, I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion. I've used it to argue that it is not morally obligatory. But I've clearly said it is both morally laudable and preferable.
Okay, I retract on this one and accept that your resistance is against a moral obligation that "forces" you to give even indirect charity to the needy. (By indirect charity I mean money given on your behalf by the government etc.) I think "forced" is a bit of an exaggeration. The worst effect that your resistance would occasion, perhaps, is a feeling of guilt. I pass no judgment on your reasoning in this matter.

Moral choices are implicit in many forms of government expenditure, and the state spends/squanders our taxes in lots of ways that we do not endorse. Would you like an opt out clause in taxation law that allows you to reclaim that fraction of your taxes which is spent by the government in ways you don't approve?

Think this through and ask yourself whether any government would be possible if your objections were generalized. Very few people are content with all the different ways in which public money is spent.

:p My opinion. My opinion is that your opinion is false. I've actually already explained why I think it IS a manifestation of self-interest, here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=111523&#post111523). Granted it's anecdotal, and based on my own emotional reaction. But I have an incredibly hard time imagining any human NOT having a similar emotional reaction when engaging in those behaviors.

What evidence - even anecdotal and person experience - do you present that "altruism" can exist without some sort of emotional payoff and benefit to the actor?
I have read the post you linked (again). It speaks of your emotional pleasure in helping others and gives your opinion that the "subconscious reinforcement of the reciprocal expectation" is a factor in generosity. Whatever this means, I don't see it as an infallible basis from which to infer a generalization about altruism. Your personal feelings or your speculation about subconscious reinforcement don't provide grounds for claiming my belief is false.

My belief is that altruism can an expression of self interest and there can be "good deeds" performed disinterestedly or in the interests of others. Because motives are often mixed, it's a moot issue that doesn't matter much anyway you cut it.

Assuming that the most important self interest is survival, let's turn to an old favourite, the "Titanic". The ship is sinking, the sea is icy cold, and not everyone can be saved because there aren't enough lifeboats. Is it "better" that none is saved because everyone can't be? Of course not. The alternative is that some people are likely to "sacrifice" their lives so that others have a better chance of surviving.

Imagine myself in that situation: it would be in my interest to jump into a crowded lifeboat and throw someone else overboard if that was the only way I could survive. Suppose I do not: how is it in my interest to go down with the ship? At that point I shall have no interest in myself or anything else, permanently. :)

[muidiri]

I don't think it's appropriate for the government to use taxes, which were collected with the intention of them being used to run our government and address the needs of this country, being given to others.
Has it occurred to you that the needs of your country might involve giving money to others?

You know, it is not unimaginable that someday your country might require help; and the amount of help you receive then might well be predicated on how much you send now.

Fortunately for you, your elected officials seem to have a better grasp of your country's long-term interests than you do.

Again, this is a case of the means being problematic, not the ends. As I already said, the goal is noble and laudable - I just don't approve of using taxes for it. You fail to recognize that there are alternative methods that could accomplish the same goal.

I would rather see our government host a directed and focused fundraiser for relief efforts than use taxes that were already budgeted for other needs. With the gov running the fundraiser, I imagine we could get a pretty good, well-organized response with minimal waste. The funds would be specifically for relief efforts, and would be separate from general revenue. It would lead to better budgeting, and would be voluntary.

As a general rule, most people accept that the ends don't justify the means. I'd like us to apply that principle more broadly. Look for alternative means that are more just and are more in keeping with the role that the government is supposed to play in our country.

[muidiri]

It's a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where white people constitute the dominant class
The point you seem to be missing is that it is a realistic assessment of the situation prevalent where <insert any color here> people constitute the dominant classThe point you are missing is that we are arguing the current situation, where whites constitute the global dominant class. Not a genetic trait of whites, nor arguing that other races do not exhibit the same bahaviour.

If the poster had said, "dominant people tend to superiority complexes," I would not have any objection. Instead, the poster singled out white people and attributed a specific behavior to that group based on the color of their skin. That is racism.See above. No one is arguing that it is a specific genetic trait of whites.

What part of that is not perfectly clear?You are not getting that we are speaking of the current cultural attitudes, not of a genetic trait. That is the point you are missing and thus are making irrelevant arguments.
No - you are missing most of the point of racism itself. If we say Hispanics have dark hair; Asians are short, Black folks are fast runners - we're talking of genetic traits, and they aren't necessarily racist - they're observational. What makes racism so despicable is that it is NOT referencing genetic traits - it's referencing behavioral traits; specifically negative ones - classifying Hispanics as lazy, Blacks as thieves, Japanese as arrogant etc. That is racist. And you classifying all whites as having a superiority complex is also racist.

It is also to be noted that there is no such thing as a racial slur pertaining whites:
A number of examples have already been presented. Here's another one.

Gai-ko Refers to Whites; Pronounced "guy-ko". Derogatory way of saying gaijin which is 'foreigner' (literally outside person) in Japanese.
http://www.rsdb.org/And is any white person actually insulted by that? I am not. Who cares?
I am. Many white people would be insulted. And you ought to care - racism and racially based derogatory comments are unacceptable no matter who they're aimed at.

Makes sense, except that people tend to inferiority complexes likewise. It's not uncommon for "yellow people" for instance to round their eyes to achieve a "white look". Hispanics in general have bought the notion that they are technically inefficient.
Again you cite local, temporary truths. I assure you Ghengis Khan's Mongols did not round their eyes or desire a white look. Nor did the ancestors of the Hispanics consider themselves inferior while they ruled MesoAmerica. 1. I am referring to present day complexes, which are cultural, and temporal, not genetic, so the Ghengis Khan comment is absurd. Get it?
Japanese, in Japan, where they are the dominant group, certainly don't see themselves as inferior.

2. Hispanic refers to the Spaniards in Europe and their descendants in America (even the mixed), not to the natives (only 1/5 of the Hispanics live in MesoAmerica any how. I am Hispanic and I have nothing to do with the people you present as my "ancestors"). And the comment pertains present day cultural attitudes, not genetic traits, which includes the attitudes of the White Spanish in Europe, who do think of themselves as lacking in technical/scientific skills. So your comment makes no sense.
A bit exaggerated considering the generic nature of his statement, and that he wasn't particularly off the mark.
No, I do not think it was exaggerated at all.Yes it was, since you are not understanding that the point refers to current attitudes of racial groups, not to genetic traits, and are therefore arguing against non-existent positions.[/quote]
I think you're seriously fucked up on this one, FDB. Racism certainly doesn't apply only to genetic traits. Jews are often characterized as being greedy and untrustworthy when it comes to money - is that a genetic trait? No - it's an attitude and a behavior.

I won't allow myself to be insulted and degraded on the basis of the color of my skin, just becuase you've decided it's OK to be racist toward Caucasians... because we're talking about behaviors not genetic traits. Talk about rationalization.

[muidiri]

Trimming for size - If I mis something you think is important, let me know :)


Moral choices are implicit in many forms of government expenditure, and the state spends/squanders our taxes in lots of ways that we do not endorse. Would you like an opt out clause in taxation law that allows you to reclaim that fraction of your taxes which is spent by the government in ways you don't approve?

Think this through and ask yourself whether any government would be possible if your objections were generalized. Very few people are content with all the different ways in which public money is spent.
:p Well... see... here's the deal: I'm a libertarian, and I believe that the majority of what our government is busy spending money on is stuff they have no business getting their fingers into in the first place. So I'd be quite happy to have an opt out clause. Can you imagine the effect that would have had on some of their recent expenditures? Can you imagine the strength it would give to the people in actually effecting the behavior of our politicians? How many people do you know who would have opted out of the bank bailout - most people didn't approve of it, even knowing the potential negative effects. Most of us don't think that was a wise use of taxpayer monies. What about the Auto bailout? Most people I know would gladly have opted out of that, because it's not an appropriate use of taxpayer funds to prop up an industry that is already circling the drain pipe. Can you imagine the power it would give toward health reform? If they come up with another abysmal plan like the last one, that fixes nothing and makes everything worse... wouldn't it be handy to be able to deny financial support to such a bad idea? How many people don't approve of the various wars we have going on? How long do you think we'd be able to continue pressing those wars, if the general populace withdrew their taxes from supporting what they believe to be an unjust war?

Personally, I believe that the role of the government ought to be severely limited. So an opt out clause suits me just fine. I suspect that the government would find itself forced to focus on only those things that 'we the people" generally feel is the proper bailiwick of government.


Assuming that the most important self interest is survival, let's turn to an old favourite, the "Titanic". The ship is sinking, the sea is icy cold, and not everyone can be saved because there aren't enough lifeboats. Is it "better" that none is saved because everyone can't be? Of course not. The alternative is that some people are likely to "sacrifice" their lives so that others have a better chance of surviving.
I see where you're going. Maybe it could be argued that this is a disinterested act. But one might still argue that there's an emotional payoff. I'll chalk this up to maybe, and agree to disagree ;).

[columbus]

I don't think all motives are instinctualBy motives I mean 'emotional impulses'.
.We are using these words quite differently, apparently. While I agree that an emotional impulse might be a motive, it certainly isn't the only kind of motive. Or even a very good one.


Rational motivations are what I would call moral ones.I: Rationalized motivations.What? By a "rational motivation" I mean a decision to act based on a rational assessment of the likely outcome being a good one.
I usually use the term "rationalize" to indicate a poor decision made by mis-using reason, like rationalizing a purchase you can't afford by considering only a discounted price and not the long-term outcome of spending money foolishly.


Immoral behaviour is generally when people do something out of instinct rather than rationality.I: when people do something following pure rather than rationalized instinct.Instinct often causes people to rationalize their behaviour, but what you said doesn't make any sense to me.

People who want their marriage to last more than a piece of strange won't cheat on their spouse despite the instinct.That is because rationalization leads them to choose a set of instincts (wife loving, domestic stability) over another (sexual gratification). No, I don't think so. The instinct to have sex with lot's of women is pretty strong in most men, what they learn is how much better life can be in a mutually supportive relationship with one woman. That is rational, not instinctive.


By and large, people do immoral things out of instinct and moral things out of rationality.I: People do immoral things and moral things out of instincts, rationalization sometimes aiding morality, sometimes the contraryI don't see what instinct might cause someone to devote their life to humanitarian service or monogamy. I don't think honesty is instinctive. I don't think you know what the word rationalize usually means. You do realize that rational and reasonable are very similar, but rationalize and reason are very different, almost opposites. It doesn't look like it to me.
Tom

[Yahzi]

The point you are missing is that we are arguing the current situation, where whites constitute the global dominant class.
How many times have I brought up Japan? And yet you go on ignoring it. China? The other half of the world that could give a rat's ass about so-called white dominance?

What you really meant to say was that your white boss said something mean to you the other day. I'm terribly sorry about that, but your parochial concerns do not constitute a basis for philosophical discussion.

[Yahzi]

how is it in my interest to go down with the ship?
Because your continued existence depends on more than surviving the sinking ship. You have to live with yourself afterwards.

For example, if you did throw a child out of the boat to take its place, you would still wind up dead, due to the actions of your fellow men. Only this time after a lot of scorn and suffering.

And if you did it in secret - you would have to stifle your every impulse to tell the truth, hide your innermost thoughts from your fellow man, and in general suffer the agony of isolation.

Neither of those strategies are likely to help your relatives propagate in the gene pool. :p

[Alex]

how is it in my interest to go down with the ship?
Because your continued existence depends on more than surviving the sinking ship. You have to live with yourself afterwards.

For example, if you did throw a child out of the boat to take its place, you would still wind up dead, due to the actions of your fellow men. Only this time after a lot of scorn and suffering.

And if you did it in secret - you would have to stifle your every impulse to tell the truth, hide your innermost thoughts from your fellow man, and in general suffer the agony of isolation.

Neither of those strategies are likely to help your relatives propagate in the gene pool. :p
These conjectures about my self interest and psychological impulses are fanciful. It's quite possible that after jumping into a crowded lifeboat and throwing a child overboard, I might justify my conduct on the grounds that I have dependents who would be left destitute in the event of my death and the child doesn't. It would be a post hoc rationalization - but that isn't at all unusual when one's self interest is in conflict with some moral principle or other.

If I choose to go down with the ship despite my "instinct" for self preservation, then I can't see why that should not be described as a deed inspired by disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

[Yahzi]

These conjectures about my self interest and psychological impulses are fanciful.
They're not fanciful. They're based on my insight into our shared condition as human beings.

If I choose to go down with the ship despite my "instinct" for self preservation, then I can't see why that should not be described as a deed inspired by disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Because there is no such thing as disinterested and selfless concern. If there were, it would be the most horrifying thing imaginable.

To act without any reference to self is to act insanely; that is, in a way no human being can make sense of. It is basically the same as acting at random.

Now I realize that when you perform a selfless act, it feels selfless. But if you examine it closer, I think you will find that the "good" feeling you get comes, in part, from imagining that someone might do such a thing for you. This makes sense: the way we interpret and predict others' behavior is by imagining ourselves in their positions. So part of the way we can tell it is a good act is that it makes us feel good to imagine ourselves on the receiving end.

[Alex]

They're not fanciful. They're based on my insight into our shared condition as human beings.
This isn't meant to be sarcastic, but your personal insights are hardly sufficient grounds for theorizing about the psychology of altruism.

...... there is no such thing as disinterested and selfless concern. If there were, it would be the most horrifying thing imaginable.
So you keep insisting. Why would it be the "most horrifying thing imaginable"? Can you explain the nature of the horror and how it would affect the individual and society?

To act without any reference to self is to act insanely; that is, in a way no human being can make sense of. It is basically the same as acting at random.
This is a sweeping statement which you seem to present as an incontestable fact. I'm not even sure what "without any reference to self" means. Obviously my "self" is involved in any activity that I initiate, but I don't have any difficulty making sense of an act that appears to involve self sacrifice. It's not the same as acting at random. A random act would be arbitrary, haphazard, and undirected. Saving someone else's life at the cost of your own is none of those things.
Now I realize that when you perform a selfless act, it feels selfless. But if you examine it closer, I think you will find that the "good" feeling you get comes, in part, from imagining that someone might do such a thing for you. This makes sense: the way we interpret and predict others' behavior is by imagining ourselves in their positions. So part of the way we can tell it is a good act is that it makes us feel good to imagine ourselves on the receiving end.
I don't deny that the hope of reciprocity often is the principle on which acts of imaginative sympathy are "ultimately" based. But I don't believe that accounts for all cases of human altruism. The "feel good" factor is important but not, in my view, the only consideration we might pay attention to.

[Yahzi]

This isn't meant to be sarcastic, but your personal insights are hardly sufficient grounds for theorizing about the psychology of altruism.
On the contrary - can you think of any better grounds?

This is a sweeping statement which you seem to present as an incontestable fact. I'm not even sure what "without any reference to self" means. Obviously my "self" is involved in any activity that I initiate, but I don't have any difficulty making sense of an act that appears to involve self sacrifice. It's not the same as acting at random. A random act would be arbitrary, haphazard, and undirected.
It's not just the hope of reciprocity. It is the concept of reciprocity that makes good acts possible.

How do you guess that an act will make someone happy? On what basis do you deduce that they will appreciate such an act? By reciprocity; by imagining if they were to do such an act for you. Without this reciprocity you cannot even guess what an altruistic act would be. And I am sure you agree that to perform an act that you have no idea whether is good or bad is an act of random evil.

This concept of reciprocity is not just a handy guide to some behaviors: it is intimately bound up with our ability to interpret and understand other people and our interactions with them.

Now imagine someone that likes to harm themselves - say, a cutter or a drug addict. How do you feel about that person? Don't you find them kind of scary, dangerous, even mentally unsound?

So what's the difference? A truly altruistic act, by your definition, is one that generates cost (i.e. harm) for no benefit for the actor. This puts it in the same class as a self-abuser. And it's just as scary.

On the other hand, people who act out of a perception of good for all (including themselves) are nice, helpful, and morally inspiring.

[Alex]

This isn't meant to be sarcastic, but your personal insights are hardly sufficient grounds for theorizing about the psychology of altruism.
On the contrary - can you think of any better grounds?
My speculations about the motives for altruism aren't "better" than yours. What I'm questioning are your generalizations which are not based on knowledge.

It's not just the hope of reciprocity. It is the concept of reciprocity that makes good acts possible.

How do you guess that an act will make someone happy? On what basis do you deduce that they will appreciate such an act? By reciprocity; by imagining if they were to do such an act for you. Without this reciprocity you cannot even guess what an altruistic act would be. And I am sure you agree that to perform an act that you have no idea whether is good or bad is an act of random evil.

This concept of reciprocity is not just a handy guide to some behaviors: it is intimately bound up with our ability to interpret and understand other people and our interactions with them.

Now imagine someone that likes to harm themselves - say, a cutter or a drug addict. How do you feel about that person? Don't you find them kind of scary, dangerous, even mentally unsound?

We seem to have been down this route before, but how do you know that without hope of reciprocity (however subtle or indirect), no good act is possible? You seem to go further and suggest that if a "selfless decision" to inflict a good deed on somebody else existed, it would result in evil. How does that follow?

Any act we may perform from whatever motives can have unintended consequences. Good may come from evil. We can never know for certain how something done with the best intentions will work out in the long term. If I can be frivolous for a moment and cite the case of Deed-a-Day Danny in the comics: his daily good works invariably caused a disaster for their beneficiaries. In a rational world, Danny would be prevented from carrying on with his benevolent activities.

So what's the difference? A truly altruistic act, by your definition, is one that generates cost (i.e. harm) for no benefit for the actor. This puts it in the same class as a self-abuser. And it's just as scary.

On the other hand, people who act out of a perception of good for all (including themselves) are nice, helpful, and morally inspiring.

I haven't yet defined a "truly" altruistic act in the terms you allege - i.e. having costs but no benefits for the perpetrator. So far I've claimed that a self denying act is possible and gave an example. I also said that reciprocity could be an important factor in the calculation of costs/benefits when interacting with others. But it's teetering on the edge of absurdity to suggest that an act which generates no benefit for the actor is in the "same class as self abuse".

However, on second thoughts I shall refine my position. Altruism is usually defined as the practice of selfless concern for the well being of others. Without the element of "self denial", can any act be described as altruistic? Wouldn't helping someone in distress be simply a good deed performed for whatever motives you care to attribute or to admit?

An accusation of altruism would then be reserved for behaviour in which someone incurs or risks a cost without getting a benefit.

[Yahzi]

My speculations about the motives for altruism aren't "better" than yours. What I'm questioning are your generalizations which are not based on knowledge.
That's not what I meant.

We are discussing psychological motivations. The insights of beings with psychological motivations are the only source of data. I happen to be one of those beings; so do you.

You seem to go further and suggest that if a "selfless decision" to inflict a good deed on somebody else existed, it would result in evil. How does that follow?
The principle I am operating with is that acting at random invariably leads to more evil than good, and therefore the process of acting at random is an evil process.

In a rational world, Danny would be prevented from carrying on with his benevolent activities.
We are discussing a rational world. That's why Danny is perceived as comedy.

But it's teetering on the edge of absurdity to suggest that an act which generates no benefit for the actor is in the "same class as self abuse".
How is it absurd? Both acts produce harm to the actor without any reward. Both acts are essentially equivalent. Indeed, the altruistic self-abuse syndrome achieves its epitome in martyrdom.

(Actually, of course, even self-abusers perceive a reward in their behavior, but this just makes the case against altruism even stronger. It would be truly absurd to assert that self-abusers gain from their actions but Good Samaritans don't. How could you ever explain the actions of a Good Samaritan in that case?)

An accusation of altruism would then be reserved for behaviour in which someone incurs or risks a cost without getting a benefit.
If you change it to An accusation of altruism would then be reserved for behavior in which someone incurs a cost with a nigh-intangible risk of getting a benefit then we are in perfect agreement.

[Alex]

If you change it to An accusation of altruism would then be reserved for behavior in which someone incurs a cost with a nigh-intangible risk of getting a benefit then we are in perfect agreement.

Okay, Yahzi, I guess that's as close as you're going to come to my position. So I'll sum up in this post.

The definition of altruism is human behaviour inspired by an unselfish concern for the well being of others. I maintain altruism exists because I believe that an act of "supreme" self sacrifice is possible - i.e. when it's all cost and no benefit to the actor.

You argue that if we search intelligently, it will be discovered that all human conduct is infused with self interest - and that it must necessarily be so. From your perspective, altruism, as it's usually defined, doesn't exist.

I think that wraps it up for me and I'll leave the last word to you.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. :)

[Valheru]

There is no such thing as an unselfish concern for the well-being of others. Even helping an old lady across the street comes with a set of predefined self-interests, that the helper may not even be aware of.

[Yahzi]

You argue that if we search intelligently, it will be discovered that all human conduct is infused with self interest - and that it must necessarily be so. From your perspective, altruism, as it's usually defined, doesn't exist.
Well put. Of course in 99.9% of the cases we're both going to agree on whether or not an act is altruistic. The difference is negligible.

But I do think it is an important difference, because we must always remain inside the constraints of human nature.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

And you classifying all whites as having a superiority complex is also racist.Did I do that? ALL? No. Whites in general tend to have superiority complexes in regards to other groups based on historical processes which has lead to a particular dominant CULTURE. I am arguing culture, not genetics.

1. I am referring to present day complexes, which are cultural, and temporal, not genetic, so the Ghengis Khan comment is absurd. Get it?
Japanese, in Japan, where they are the dominant group, certainly don't see themselves as inferior. They might be the dominant group in Japan, but not globally. And if they are so psychologically superior, explain why they copy anything Anglo/Western? Why do they dress in non-Japanese fashion? Why do so many round their eyes?


I think you're seriously fucked up on this one, FDB. Racism certainly doesn't apply only to genetic traits. Jews are often characterized as being greedy and untrustworthy when it comes to money - is that a genetic trait? No - it's an attitude and a behavior.

I won't allow myself to be insulted and degraded on the basis of the color of my skin, just becuase you've decided it's OK to be racist toward Caucasians... because we're talking about behaviors not genetic traits. Talk about rationalization.You are not responding to my points, but evading them with unrelated answers, which indicates you are the one that seriously fucked up. I have never claimed it is OK to be racist towards whiteys, so I don't understand why you chose to make that up. I pointed out that most whites are not offended by derrogatory comments pertaining their racial characteristics. I am certainly not offended if someone tries to insult me because of my Euro ancestry. Euro ancestry is an aristocratic positioning in the current global culture, period.

[Yahzi]

Did I do that? ALL? No. Whites in general tend to have superiority complexes in regards to other groups based on historical processes which has lead to a particular dominant CULTURE. I am arguing culture, not genetics.
Dude.

When you say "whites," you are referring to a genetic identity, not a cultural one. This utterly invalidates your claim that you are not talking about genetics.

Secondly, you seem utterly impervious to the simple fact that every single culture that has ever been dominant considers itself superior - and even many non-dominant cultures do. Google the Pirahã, a culture so convinced of its own superiority it refuses to change even so much as to learn how to manufacture canoes, even though their livelihood depends on them. Trust me when I say they are not White.

They might be the dominant group in Japan, but not globally.
White people are not the dominant group globally. Americans are the globally dominant group, and in case you hadn't noticed, America is not white.

And if they are so psychologically superior, explain why they copy anything Anglo/Western? Why do they dress in non-Japanese fashion? Why do so many round their eyes?
:bang:

By your logic, White Americans would never copy anything Eastern, like meditation or karate or sushi or Hello Kitty.

Have you ever actually interacted with a native Japanese person? I have. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

You are not responding to my points, but evading them with unrelated answers, which indicates you are the one that seriously fucked up.
You are not responding to facts. I leave it to you to draw the appropriate conclusion.

I pointed out that most whites are not offended by derrogatory comments pertaining their racial characteristics.
This is manifestly untrue. Would you like to test it? Walk into any bar in the South and call everyone inside a "cracker."

You can post your test results from the hospital.

I am certainly not offended if someone tries to insult me because of my Euro ancestry.
But then, you are unaffected by repeated demonstrations of your racism. So really, maybe you're not the best example of how people respond to things.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Did I do that? ALL? No. Whites in general tend to have superiority complexes in regards to other groups based on historical processes which has lead to a particular dominant CULTURE. I am arguing culture, not genetics.
Dude.

When you say "whites," you are referring to a genetic identity, not a cultural one. This utterly invalidates your claim that you are not talking about genetics.Nonsense: I am referring to the present cultural habits associated with a particular phenotypic group, not to any inherited biological trait. I am not claiming that whites are genetically predisposed to feelings of superiority more than any other group phenotypic group, just that the present global culture associates whiteness/Euro ancestry, with superiority.

Secondly, you seem utterly impervious to the simple fact that every single culture that has ever been dominant considers itself superior Nonsense, I have never claimed that wasn't the case. I have only pointed out that PRESENTLY the dominance mostly coincides with whiteness.


Trust me when I say they are not White.Trust me when I say you evidence lack of reading comprehension if you see it fit to present such an example that has nothing to do with my position. I have never claimed non-white groups are incapable of feeling superior to others. I am referring to observable behaviours in global culture (to which those aborigenes do not belong as such).

They might be the dominant group in Japan, but not globally.
White people are not the dominant group globally. Americans are the globally dominant group, and in case you hadn't noticed, America is not white.:rolleyes: That's incredibly ridiculous: Addressing the particular nonsensical statement above, the U.S. is most powerful country, but is people are not the dominant group globally. Europeans/Russians participate in global dominance. The whites of Latin America participate in the dominance (social and economic) in their respective countries. The Chinese might be rising, but they are still overwhelmingly paupers, and Japan is a factory more than an autonomous power. Plus, now addressing my point, I am referring to psychological attitudes of global groups, not to absolute exercise of power. And to consider that blacks from the U.S. would be considered emotionally as equals or superior by most Europeans is ridiculous. You not only lack reading comprehension but even the most elementary analytical capacity.

Whites, almost every place where globalist culture (which is Euro-Amerocentric) has penetrated, are considered as some sort of aristocracy, even if that implies assassination.



By your logic, White Americans would never copy anything Eastern, like meditation or karate or sushi or Hello Kitty.They do, it is products they like, doesn't mean they operate their eyes to look squinty.

Have you ever actually interacted with a native Japanese person? I have. You simply don't know what you are talking about.Of course not, you lack reading comprehension.

You are not responding to my points, but evading them with unrelated answers, which indicates you are the one that seriously fucked up.
You are not responding to facts. I leave it to you to draw the appropriate conclusion.I have: You lack reading comprehension.

I pointed out that most whites are not offended by derrogatory comments pertaining their racial characteristics.
This is manifestly untrue. Would you like to test it? Walk into any bar in the South and call everyone inside a "cracker."Seems such refers to POOR whites, not to whites as such. It is not racial, but social.



I am certainly not offended if someone tries to insult me because of my Euro ancestry.
But then, you are unaffected by repeated demonstrations of your racism. So really, maybe you're not the best example of how people respond to things.Nonsense. I have not exhibited racism but observations pertaining human behaviour.

[Yahzi]

I have only pointed out that PRESENTLY the dominance mostly coincides with whiteness.
In other news: water is wet.

What you've presented here is a tautology. That is, a statement so obviously true that it contains no information whatsoever.

If you have nothing more to offer the conversation, then there isn't anything to talk about.

I have not exhibited racism but observations pertaining human behaviour.
I concede that you have not exhibited racism, but only because you have exhibited nothing at all.

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

I have only pointed out that PRESENTLY the dominance mostly coincides with whiteness.
In other news: water is wet.

What you've presented here is a tautology. That is, a statement so obviously true that it contains no information whatsoever.Absurd... and quote mining is not a sign of intellectual caliber.

If you have nothing more to offer the conversation, then there isn't anything to talk about.Since you are unable to refute my points, as your position was ridiculous, then it is obvious you have nothing to write about.

I have not exhibited racism but observations pertaining human behaviour.
I concede that you have not exhibited racism, but only because you have exhibited nothing at all.I exhibited proof of my position, you of your lack of reading comprehension.

[Yahzi]

Since you are unable to refute my points, as your position was ridiculous, then it is obvious you have nothing to write about.
You do not seem to understand what a tautology is.

I cannot refute your one and only point because it is irrefutable, in exactly the same way the logical expression "A = A" is necessarily true. It is also uninformative, in exactly the same way "A = A" tells us nothing we did not already know.

In response to the assertion "all cultures express superiority when they are dominant," you stated "White culture is dominant and expresses superiority." While obviously true, this tells us nothing we did not already know when the first statement was made.

You introduced your claim as a complaint about White people's bad behavior. When challenged, you acknowledged that all people behave in exactly the same way you were complaining about. The obvious question then becomes, why are you complaining about White people doing the same thing that everyone else does?

And the answer that immediately suggests itself is "racism." However, you've made it clear that you prefer to be considered irrelevant, argumentative, and redundant rather than racist (a decision I wholeheartedly support), so that's the conclusion I have expressed.

[muidiri]

FDB: You have asserted that it is impossible to be racist toward white people. That any slurs that are specifically directed against white people aren't actually racial slurs. You've implied that it is fully acceptable to make derisive and derogatory comments against white people as a whole, solely on the basis of the color of their skin... because you don't think it's racist. Your justification: because they're the dominant group.

It boils down to you saying that since there's a lot of white folks, it's OK to be racist toward them.

You, dear sir, are a racist.

[Rie]

Isn't it simple really? It's so obvious to me that the people in cultures that we think we ought to help don't necessarily want that help!
I have a friend who was brought up in Kenya and the servants to her whiteman type household used to snigger and call white men 'peeled bananas'.

[Yahzi]

Isn't it simple really? It's so obvious to me that the people in cultures that we think we ought to help don't necessarily want that help!
People raised in abusive cult families don't necessarily want to be helped either. Mostly because they don't know that any better life is possible.

[HinduWoman]

If a whole culture is involved, then one should step back and consider if the custom the outsider finds abhorrent is actually beneficial to the society concerned in the sense of maximum number of individuals benfiting.
Also if a group within the culture asks for help, then it is ok to step in.

Sati for example is a clear cut case. It involves killing of women because their lives are worthless without men. But they should be allowed to live.

A lot of women was forced to become sati because of inheritance factor or family prestige; many chose to burn themselves because their lives as widows would be miserable; so society is not getting any benefits from their suicides. Also many more became satis willingly because they have been brainwashed into believing that they would become demigoddesses and have a seat in heaven. This group would ferociously resist any intervention, but that does not mean other women should not benefit.

Finally within Hinduism itself (even before Islam invaded India) there had always been a strong minority group that opposed sati and it is Hindus who asked the British to intervene.

so all in all it was culturally appropriate for the British to interfere.

But forcing nomadic tribes and herders to settle down as farmers and be 'productive'? Not so much.

[HinduWoman]

And it is not just 'foreigners' in the sense commonly understood.

India is a mosaic of very different cultures and the Indian govt is always trying to make smaller communites and tribes become more 'progressive'.
And sometimes NGOs are trying to keep the culture pristine while the culture concerned want to be globalised.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Tony Blair was interviewed a week or two back, and he said something to the effect that invading Iraq was the right thing to do in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein and effect regime change, regardless of WMD.

The Western World, and the US in particular, seem to be on a mission to introduce democracy to countries which have not traditionally had it, and quite often don't seem to want it.

Although as we're now witnessing - they so patently did and do want it, and always did (Arab Spring); it's just that their despot leaders always denied them it. And it's being achieved, largely (outside of Libya), without a shot being fired by the West, or a Western boot on the ground.

Do we have a right to interfere with a culture just because we consider it to be morally wrong, if that culture is not interfering with us? Or, put another way, do we have an obligation to get involved if we see something we consider morally reprehensible going on?

In the real world, it's never so clear cut. Logistically and diplomatically we are never going to invade China to put an end to human rights abuses, for example. But presuming we could dictate how a culture acts or develops, is it something we should do or should we leave them to their own devices?

It's never another country's 'culture' against which we go to war: it's their (or rather their leaders') ideas and ideology. Culturally, we had everything in common with Germany prior to both World Wars, as peoples - but their leaders' expansionism and fascistic tendencies were beyond the pale - added to which we were treaty-bound to defend Belgium (WWI) and then Poland (WWII) in the event they were invaded. Ditto during the Crimean War - Russians had much in common with us (albeit their monarchy was absolute and our was, thankfully, constitutional), but during 'The Great Game', their interests (and both countries desire to win over Afghanistan) and ours were set on a collision course. Russia's 'culture' wasn't altered one bit after they lost that war - they still weren't democratic but enjoyed much the same way of life as prior to it.

East Timor is another example - could we have stood idly by whilst ethnic cleansing was going on? Ditto the Balkans? Differences in culture didn't enter into it - rather a moral and humanitarian desire to stop the carnage in both cases ruled the day - after all, there was no oil in either place...

Alas, the same cannot be said for the Bush jnr lie which saw us wander into Iraq in 2003. But then again, Zimbabwe has no oil....