Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

B) If I feed them, they would jsut reproduce to the point where there would be more starvign children, since they wouldn't have access to birth control (which would cost a lot more money).

Since when did money only go to food? Aid can be used to help people in all ways such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, birth control, and all the other ways to bring them up to first world standards. All of these contribute to improving lives and stabilizing the country's population, making their success more sustainable.

"Feeding starving Africans" is a really incomplete way to look at it.

neat somewhat relevant video (I love TED)

edit: oh, metalslimehunt ninja'd me and my video

[Askot Bokbondeler]

actually, if you're rich and you're paying your taxes, you're already better than most of your peers, already a philanthropist of sorts
though, if you're the kind of person that feels morally obligated to pay your taxes and feed the poor, you'll never have the chance to be rich, sorry

[Mrhappyface]

I donated to my temple, homeless shelters, and various universities, but donating to Africa always seemed sort of iffy imho.

[Ancre]

But those nigerian princes really need your help putting to safety their $$$ONE MILLION swiss bank account !

[Mrhappyface]

Then again, when I saw the Joseph Kony film, I donated to the Red Cross in Africa rather than those silly hipster filmmakers.

[Eagle_eye]

...When exactly did I specify Africa, or food aid?

   Also, saying that you have no responsibility to help people who are dying is absurd. You are making a conscious choice to not help them, which you know will allow them to die. To use Singer's example: If you see a small child drowning, it's not your fault that they're drowning. They're not your dependent, and they're a complete stranger to you. Nonetheless, it would be completely reprehensible not to save them, regardless of the cost to you. Even if you're wearing a ten thousand dollar tailored suit that will be irrevocably damaged by the water, the only correct action is to dive in and save the child. How is foreign aid any different?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I won't speak on the legitimacy of donating to religious institutions as that would spark a flame war that would bring the whole thread crashing down, but my only problem with the Red Cross is that they try to enforce trademark on the symbol of a red equal cross as representative of health.

[Eagle_eye]

Well, there are some legitimate reasons to do that. It is well associated with them, and they do provide real medicines. Fake medicine sales are a big problem in the third world, especially antimalarial drugs. If people see a red cross, and think that it's the red cross, but it's actually a fake providing fake medicine, they could be more trusting than they would otherwise be. In north america and europe, not so much.

[Mrhappyface]

Yeah, and Games Workshop tried to make the words "Space Marine" copyright.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I mean using it video games and such. Red Cross actually takes offense to that.

[Mrhappyface]

Its connotation has transcended the original meaning.

[Frumple]

How is foreign aid any different?

General consensus I've seen seems to be distance, but that's honestly seems to be more of a (neuro)biological issue than a moral conundrum. We have tremendous difficulty empathizing with creatures outside our "monkeysphere," basically. Kind of an out of sight, out of mind thing. It's arguable that it's immoral -- should implies can, and all that, and it's pretty easily demonstrated on a statistical level that humans in aggregate have some trouble (understatement!) with extending moral coverage outside their in-group -- but it's certainly not moral, either.

S'kinda how we seem to put less moral emphasis on things with long term rather than short term consequences. We're just not really built to think that way. We can, but it takes extra effort and usually some sort of training (though not necessarily explicit training -- passive socialization can manage it, ferex) for it.

Mind you, all that really means is that we need to figure out how to counter those sort of prolectivities, but that's one if those "continuing projects" (parts of) our species has been working on since, like, before recorded history. Not there yet! Still working on it.

[Mrhappyface]

Hmm. If our neurochemistry becomes altered, either through tech or mutation to block out any sense of selfishness, would it be for the better?

[Osmosis Jones]

Better in the sense of more altruism being undertaken... possibly.


But better overall? We would be deliberately meddling with peoples neurochemistry to achieve a subjective improvement in behaviour. That strikes me as something straight out of A Brave New World, and that is a truly terrifying idea.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, as you'd sit around until you starved to death. Selfishness isn't a bad thing, but being single-mindlessly selfish causes our society to suffer because you start to degrade even if you try to prevent other people from degrading. Both survival and altruism are instinctual in mentally healthy humans, but upbringing can change that.