Philosophical Questions: Morals

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

Do people in wealthier countries have a moral obligation to help those in poorer countries?


If you want to hold all the money, you have to pay all the bills. If you don't want to pay all the bills, make sure other folks have enough money to pay their own.

Also, there is no Planet B.  Climate change affects everyone -- but the people in wealthy countries who are causing it have thus far suffered less than people in poor countries who haven't caused it.  If you don't make it feasible for them to stay in their own countries, they will leave so they don't die, and wash up in wealthy countries.  This is already happening some, but you have seen nothing yet.  It will be like the waves of the sea beating the shore, over and over again, until people think they would give anything to make it stop.  And then it will stop.  And then people will wish, just as desperately, to have that many people ever again as the losses pile up and there aren't enough hands  left to hold up civilization.

Comments

Not just countries

[dialecticdreamer]

There are people in our own "wealthiest country in the world" who cannot work, and survive on the very LEAST that the government can possibly manage to give them, and that amount is decreasing actively, not just due to inflation or rising food costs.

If the government, rather than individuals, sets a minimum wage, then that wage BETTER be enough to support one person, including housing.

Sure, that interferes with paying for military gear and soldiers to wield it, but it also cuts down the number of deaths from heat stroke because poor people can't afford to run an air conditioner, or deaths from hypothermia because they can't afford to run the heater.

There will always be a few caught by circumstance, like a deep sleeper who simply doesn't wake up when their body is starting a crisis. There should NOT be such indifference to those tragedies in the "wealthiest nation in the world."

We could halve our military spending, and shift all of that money to support--at home, and internationally. "We're not sending bombers to patrol the air around Israel, but we'll send medical supplies and a field hospital with staff" might, just MIGHT make certain bellicose politicians stop playing, "my big brother can beat up yours" on the world stage.

It isn't about HAVING all the money; it's about what our representatives choose to do with it.

Private assets are a whole different problem, and require a separate, more detailed answer, in part because so much of what used to be considered the responsibility of government has been fobbed off to private donations and charities.

Re: Not just countries

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>There are people in our own "wealthiest country in the world" who cannot work, and survive on the very LEAST that the government can possibly manage to give them, and that amount is decreasing actively, not just due to inflation or rising food costs.<<

That's true. The middle class is shrinking. I like the term "precariat" for America's workforce today.

>> If the government, rather than individuals, sets a minimum wage, then that wage BETTER be enough to support one person, including housing. <<

The minimum wage must provide for all the things that society requires citizens to have (e.g. a college degree, internet service) in addition to survival needs (e.g. food, shelter, health care) or it is nonsense. Current minimum wage covers maybe half to a third that, depending where you live. Nowhere is it enough to afford an apartment at the recommended 30% of income.

>>but it also cuts down the number of deaths from heat stroke because poor people can't afford to run an air conditioner, or deaths from hypothermia because they can't afford to run the heater.<<

Not to mention highrise apartment fires from someone trying to use the oven as a heater because the heat is broken.

>> We could halve our military spending, and shift all of that money to support--at home, and internationally. <<

If only. Even Terramagne-America has limits, though. They cut out all the cruft ... down to the point where America's military budget is slightly above the next-smaller. And that's Dead Man's Ditch. There is a complete refusal to cross that line.

>> It isn't about HAVING all the money; it's about what our representatives choose to do with it. <<

Well said.

>>Private assets are a whole different problem, and require a separate, more detailed answer, in part because so much of what used to be considered the responsibility of government has been fobbed off to private donations and charities.<<

I don't believe that any one individual should hold wealth greater than a whole country, or anywhere near that. Conversely, the more resources you hold or control, the more responsibility you have to use them for the common good instead of masturbating your ego.

Re: Not just countries

[dialecticdreamer]

So, you'd prefer the Swedish/Finnish tax rates, that go up significantly after a certain upper middle class lifestyle?

Re: Not just countries

[ysabetwordsmith]

It's better than nothing, or what we have now.

A better way would be to say that I favor socialized needs and privatized wants. Everyone should have a right to survival needs plus whatever society deems necessary. If you want to work harder for luxuries, that's up to you.

As opposed this shit.

Re: Not just countries

[dialecticdreamer]

Generational wealth makes the problem exponentially worse, with no chance for the vast majority to /really/ do more than tread water... for their lifetime. In a country which claims to be "the best in the world"? Methinks not.

[vaa]

well, the WEF since corona controls 99% of the world. and since they took over iran now, i guess its 99.3%. that leaves north korea, haiti and venezuela. but id be enough for 2 hands to hold up your world?

[siliconshaman]

This can be applied on an individual level. I learnt recently that just 8 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the global population. Just. Eight. People!! With more wealth, and resources, than half the world.

I'd say it's a ethical imperative for them to help out... but I suspect they don't have any, just a ledger where their moral compass should be.