NationStates Jolt Archive

A moral dilemma I thought up recently:

Is it acceptable for us to live lives of comfort and prosperity while others struggle in poverty and desperation? I ask this as a question of ethics: how much of our prosperity as (presumably) middle-to-upper-class citizens of major industrial nations is as a result of the inherent opportunities afforded us by the circumstances of our birth? Since any one of us who is even modestly successful owes much of it to living in a country where education, opportunity, aid, and well-paying employment are readily available, is it really "fair"? Someone from, say, Mozambique who works as hard to survive as someone from, say, Oregon, will nevertheless be much less well-off than his or her Oregonian counterpart, since the Oregonian is starting from a much higher level of inherited prosperity. Is this (typically) unearned, acquired advantage ethical? Should everyone start at a level playing field, with literally nothing to start with and equal opportunity strictly enforced for every citizen of the world? If not, how do we justify this discrepancy with such profound human consequences? In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?

Peter Singer says yes.

One could even go further than your question:
Fact 1. Many people on this planet are dying or suffering
Fact 2. Many of those deaths and much of that suffering could be stopped with sufficient monetary donations
Fact 3: If you use money to buy something, you cannot donate that same money to charity.

Conclusion: every time you buy a luxury article for yourself, you are choosing your own selfish needs over the lifes of other humans; essentially allowing them to die while you could have prevented it.

'Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.'

In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?

In a word - yes.

Unfair and abominable, and so much so that it is a grievous indictment of the system upon which it rests.

A moral dilemma I thought up recently:

Is it acceptable for us to live lives of comfort and prosperity while others struggle in poverty and desperation? yes, how we live our lives is up to us, how we use what we obtain through our efforts are for us to decide with.
I ask this as a question of ethics: how much of our prosperity as (presumably) middle-to-upper-class citizens of major industrial nations is as a result of the inherent opportunities afforded us by the circumstances of our birth?all of it. but remember, what we start with does not guarentee that we will end up above that level.
Since any one of us who is even modestly successful owes much of it to living in a country where education, opportunity, aid, and well-paying employment are readily available, is it really "fair"? Readily available? maybe. Education is readily available, but opportunities, aid and a well paying job are hit or miss. sometimes it's people one knows, other times, it's opportunities made.
Someone from, say, Mozambique who works as hard to survive as someone from, say, Oregon, will nevertheless be much less well-off than his or her Oregonian counterpart, since the Oregonian is starting from a much higher level of inherited prosperity.Again, it depends on one's point of view. supposing the fellow from Mozambique does work hard, but at the end of the day, can spend the night with his family, relaxing from the stress, enjoying the company of friends and family... while the Oregonian spends nights slaving at the office, then drives his car home but because of unfinished work at the office, can't relax. Projects due, deadlines looming... so he can't enjoy the company of friends and family... who's better off then?

Is this (typically) unearned, acquired advantage ethical? Should everyone start at a level playing field, with literally nothing to start with and equal opportunity strictly enforced for every citizen of the world? If not, how do we justify this discrepancy with such profound human consequences? In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?and how would you go about leveling the playing field without making it easy for freeloaders to take advantage of the situation?

Life is unfair. sure I wish I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I am happy and content with my life. I may not be rich in money matters, but the opportunities and chances I took in life were at my choosing.

and how would you go about leveling the playing field without making it easy for freeloaders to take advantage of the situation?

leveling would end the reign of the current freeloaders. we can worry about how to divide up our newfound free time when we get there.

Individualism is the worst concept ever to be loosed upon man, and the saddest fact is the belief that your life is yours to do what you will with it. As a member of the greater community and a human being, our greater responsibility is not to our anti-populace nihilistic desires, but to our fellow man.

A moral dilemma I thought up recently:

Is it acceptable for us to live lives of comfort and prosperity while others struggle in poverty and desperation? I ask this as a question of ethics: how much of our prosperity as (presumably) middle-to-upper-class citizens of major industrial nations is as a result of the inherent opportunities afforded us by the circumstances of our birth? Since any one of us who is even modestly successful owes much of it to living in a country where education, opportunity, aid, and well-paying employment are readily available, is it really "fair"? Someone from, say, Mozambique who works as hard to survive as someone from, say, Oregon, will nevertheless be much less well-off than his or her Oregonian counterpart, since the Oregonian is starting from a much higher level of inherited prosperity. Is this (typically) unearned, acquired advantage ethical? Should everyone start at a level playing field, with literally nothing to start with and equal opportunity strictly enforced for every citizen of the world? If not, how do we justify this discrepancy with such profound human consequences? In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?


Its more a question of "Should I be a Humanitarian Socialist, or a Fiscal Libertarian?" In essence.

It is obviously wrong. We should strive to correct it.

However, who's got the time and money to do that? Rich countries. What if all people and all nations had the exact same degree or proportionate degree of wealth? Then there would be no rich countries. Any solution to the problem becomes practically untenenable.

So spartan living and giving to charity/working for charity are the solution, not radical social reform on a global scale.

Individualism is the worst concept ever to be loosed upon man, and the saddest fact is the belief that your life is yours to do what you will with it. As a member of the greater community and a human being, our greater responsibility is not to our anti-populace nihilistic desires, but to our fellow man.

Our grand fellow man, even those who cheat on our welfare system and refuse too produce. Why should we eran for ourselves, spend what we earn on what we want as we please? How dispicable. Who wants too be valued based on how hard they are willing too work, too earn a wage based on skill. Who doesn't love a bloated goverment robbing income at huge rates, too "redistribute" the funds as it sees fit? A FLAWLESS ideal really... :rolleyes:

Its more a question of "Should I be a Humanitarian Socialist, or a Fiscal Libertarian?" In essence.

Or, more subtle: do you truly live your life according to your moral principles.
Someone believing that a human life is worth more than luxury or comfort (like most of the pro-life movement) should live in poverty to not be a hypocrite.

Or, more subtle: do you truly live your life according to your moral principles.
Someone believing that a human life is worth more than luxury or comfort (like most of the pro-life movement) should live in poverty to not be a hypocrite.

Exactly. I like my analogy better though. It illustrates polar idealoloigical opposites more drastically I think.

Or, more subtle: do you truly live your life according to your moral principles.
Someone believing that a human life is worth more than luxury or comfort (like most of the pro-life movement) should live in poverty to not be a hypocrite.

But it could be said that a socialist trying to live by their own ideals in a capitalist system is like trying to kick down a concrete wall, as their attempts will have no impact on distribution of wealth. But moreover the best way they could try and help would be to get involved politically in changing the system.

Our grand fellow man, even those who cheat on our welfare system and refuse too produce. Why should we eran for ourselves, spend what we earn on what we want as we please? How dispicable. Who wants too be valued based on how hard they are willing too work, too earn a wage based on skill. Who doesn't love a bloated goverment robbing income at huge rates, too "redistribute" the funds as it sees fit? A FLAWLESS ideal really... :rolleyes:

*cough*medicare*cough**cough cough*social security*cough*

oh, 'scuse me. I need a ricola.

I guess what I really meant was that it seems ethically dubious to inherit a certain "baseline" of advantages from our families, societies, and economies that we haven't "earned" by our own work. I'm interested to hear someone come up with an ethical justification for circumstantial advantage.

Of course, this is also based on the supposition that if someone works hard they deserve success and if they don't work hard they don't work success, and that success is measured by general comfort from economic well-being. Other definitions of success (social acceptance, self-actualization, etc.), as given by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, seem to generally be dependent upon having at least a certain degree of economic prosperity.

But it could be said that a socialist trying to live by their own ideals in a capitalist system is like trying to kick down a concrete wall, as their attempts will have no impact on distribution of wealth. But moreover the best way they could try and help would be to get involved politically in changing the system.

That is an intellectually bankrupt answer. A socialist could donate their income to charities dedicated to helping the poor, there is no reason why they should live as a capitalist if they disagree with the ideology.

*cough*medicare*cough**cough cough*social security*cough*

oh, 'scuse me. I need a ricola.

*cough* Doesnt take a bloated central goverment when respectable charities, churchies, and aid organizations are allowed....40% of per capita income inst necessity *cough* *cough* I never defeated the overall idea of goverment social aid, simply too see it in a fiscal view *cough* Riiiiiiicollla!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being born with any sort of an advantage over another individual be it genetic or financial or even if it's just being born in a better location. All that really matters is what one does with what they've got.

If somebody wants to use their advantage to help another individual out than good for them. And if somebody want to use their advantage to better propagate themselves then that's fine too. And then if you use your advantage to try shit on those less fortunate, than they better watch out. If they fuck with the wrong person and get messed up or worse, then I have no sympathy for them.

If somebody with a disadvantage works really hard and accomplishes something really good, than good for them. If they dont accomplish anything and die impoverished, than hey that's life. If they just go around asking for handouts than I wont give them anything. If I see a person asking for handouts and another person selling oranges and whatnot or providing a service, I would rather give my money to the person who's actually trying to earn it in exchange for their service...unless they're they kind of person who just walks up to my car and washes my windshield without even asking if I wanted them to do that.

.. WOW! DID U COME UP WITH THAT DILEMMA ALl BY YOURESELF???

CALL THE APAPERES< YOU GOIN ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES AS DOCOTOR OF GENIUSES!

It is morally acceptable because morality is indeterminate and therefore moral questions all fall down on personal opinion. However, as the actors in this make their own choices based upon their morality, then they can make whatever statement they want. They in fact already do, because we buy luxury instead of donate we are in fact claiming that our own personal preferences are higher in value than the welfare than these others. Because this is their actions that the average person considers it morally acceptable.

The problem is that the gap is becoming so large there simply is no common frame of reference any more. We live in a different reality than most of the world's population.

What is the energy crisis impacting the most people in the world? Lack of firewood.

What is the greatest environmental crisis in the world?
The desertification of cropland.

What would it cost to eliminate 98% of the pathogens in the water of the 80% of the world drinking polluted wated?
About $3 US per family.

What would it cost to totally erradicate malaria, tuberculocis and dengue fever from the face of the earth?
Less than one month of the cost of the Iraq war.

The "west" could easily radically improve the majority of the sources of misery in the rest of the world without impacting their own life styles but they simply do not care how many people die in misery as long as they get their 40" plasma tvs.

I ask this as a question of ethics: how much of our prosperity as (presumably) middle-to-upper-class citizens of major industrial nations is as a result of the inherent opportunities afforded us by the circumstances of our birth?

It is entirely afforded to us by the circumstances of our birth and the society in which we reside.

Is this (typically) unearned, acquired advantage ethical?

I do not consider the exploitation of good fortune to be ethical.

Should everyone start at a level playing field, with literally nothing to start with and equal opportunity strictly enforced for every citizen of the world?

Yes, but practicality severly limits the methods with which to bring this scenario about.

The proliferation of technology helps.

In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?

How can an "unfair advantage" be fair?

A moral dilemma I thought up recently:

Is it acceptable for us to live lives of comfort and prosperity while others struggle in poverty and desperation? I ask this as a question of ethics: how much of our prosperity as (presumably) middle-to-upper-class citizens of major industrial nations is as a result of the inherent opportunities afforded us by the circumstances of our birth? Since any one of us who is even modestly successful owes much of it to living in a country where education, opportunity, aid, and well-paying employment are readily available, is it really "fair"? Someone from, say, Mozambique who works as hard to survive as someone from, say, Oregon, will nevertheless be much less well-off than his or her Oregonian counterpart, since the Oregonian is starting from a much higher level of inherited prosperity. Is this (typically) unearned, acquired advantage ethical? Should everyone start at a level playing field, with literally nothing to start with and equal opportunity strictly enforced for every citizen of the world? If not, how do we justify this discrepancy with such profound human consequences? In short, what I'm asking is, is the "unfair advantage" truly unfair?

You, my friend, seem to have the mind of a socialist. Ever considered that economic idealogy?

We should use our wealth to invest in and develop those countries so that they can have the same standard of living that we do. One of the great things about the capitalist system is that it isn't zero sum, and by adjusting only a few initial conditions the market can improve things on its own (with healthy regulations where appropriate).