2 ms·

Well being called a Nazi on an internet board is a first for me, and is rather disappointing considering my general high regard of the level of discourse from p

Well being called a Nazi on an internet board is a first for me, and is rather disappointing considering my general high regard of the level of discourse from people who frequent this forum. Purporting that a person whose ethnic history includes wartime internment camps would wish to perpetuate our country's penchant for prejudice is an unusal claim. Perhaps you are taking aim at the fact that my ancestors were indeed allies of the Nazis, regarding which you would be correct. For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality. I believe that the decades long wave of software outsourcing to India has lifted the standard of living for many thousands of people there. I believe that the decades long wave of electronics outsourcing to China has created opportunities for rural residents there to attain upward economic mobility. I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality. I rather agree. What I'm wondering is: if you're not trolling, why swallow Singer's premises, swallow his extrapolations, and then call it all questionable? Because this is the position you're taking: that the United States has a moral obligation to invest its finite resources into immigration or outsourcing of jobs for skilled foreign workers over and above training and education for its native-born workers. >I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale. I don't think a clear-thinking individual can really be for such a blatant violation of basic democracy. If we want America to be accountable to the Indian and Chinese masses, we should give them passports and voting rights -- then see what they want for themselves. Likewise, if we're going to invest American resources in improving the well-being of India and China, why not demand an EU-style relationship of open borders, common standards for human well-being, and residency-based voting rights? I don't think one can really have humanitarianism without solidarity, coexistence, and shared community. To do well by someone just is to expand each-other's (legal, economic, etc) communities to include each-other. A charity/tithe of 10% or something is both traditional and good, but I think it's wrong to expand charity to the point where you give to outsiders at the cost of community ties (both within your existing community and between your community and outsiders).

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality. I rather agree. What I'm wondering is: if you're not trolling, why swallow Singer's premises, swallow his extrapolations, and then call it all questionable? Because this is the position you're taking: that the United States has a moral obligation to invest its finite resources into immigration or outsourcing of jobs for skilled foreign workers over and above training and education for its native-born workers. >I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale. I don't think a clear-thinking individual can really be for such a blatant violation of basic democracy. If we want America to be accountable to the Indian and Chinese masses, we should give them passports and voting rights -- then see what they want for themselves. Likewise, if we're going to invest American resources in improving the well-being of India and China, why not demand an EU-style relationship of open borders, common standards for human well-being, and residency-based voting rights? I don't think one can really have humanitarianism without solidarity, coexistence, and shared community. To do well by someone just is to expand each-other's (legal, economic, etc) communities to include each-other. A charity/tithe of 10% or something is both traditional and good, but I think it's wrong to expand charity to the point where you give to outsiders at the cost of community ties (both within your existing community and between your community and outsiders).