6 ms·

> One could rationally want the best for their country/society, but not for everybody outside of it Her moral philosophy seems predicated on the idea that ever

by whack 8y ago

> One could rationally want the best for their country/society, but not for everybody outside of it Her moral philosophy seems predicated on the idea that everyone is deserving of certain rights. If we're going to deny these rights to some people on the basis of birth-location, why not deny the same rights on the basis of other criteria such as race, gender, intelligence, physical health, etc > e.g. if giving that free-pass-for-all access can decline the prospects of one's society more than the free-pass-for-those-already-in can help it I agree completely with the above, but that's because the above is a utilitarian argument and I believe in utilitarianism. If you were to ask Anderson though, she would likely reject utilitarianism as a moral philosophy.

pytester 8y ago
>Her moral philosophy seems predicated Was that something she actually said or just something you inferred? It seems pretty clear that she thinks that each society has an obligation towards its members but I didn't her mention anything about obligations societies have towards non-members. I very much doubt that she's against, say, the right of asylum, but there's nothing there that I can see that implies that she believes France has an equal responsibility to provide for Chinese citizens as it does towards its own.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  As GP said, her philosophy makes exactly zero sense if she doesn't mean everybody, regarless of what she actually thinks.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    It makes total sense. It's perfectly rational to say: a) I want the best for my country and fellow citizens b) I think the best outcome for (a) comes if all citizens in my country are given X rigts etc. There's no need to "mean everybody" for this to be a perfectly rational philosophy. If anything, your extra requirement that she has to "mean everybody" seems to come from a moralistic or christian source, rather than rationality.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      I agree it's reasonable but she claims to want the best for all people, not citizens of her country. IMHO it's a very important distinction.
      - pytester 8y ago
        You're conflating wanting each society to provide the best for its citizens with wanting each society to provide for other society's citizens. Like her, I think China should do something about its wealth inequality. Like her, I don't the Czech republic really needs to get involved. It is, as you say, an "important distinction".
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Her argument is based on the fact that all humans are equal. A person from outside your country is equal to you and needs help, then. She doesn't say that all US citizens are equal.
        pytester 8y ago
        It absolutely was based on people being equal, yes, but all humans being equal does NOT imply an obligation on the Czech Republic to care for citizens in China's society. It implies that both China and the Czech Republic are obligated to level out arbitrarily enforced class divisions in their own societies. She used the word "society" a lot, not "world".
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Maybe that's the difference between our opinions. While there are obvious differences between Chinese and Czech people, I see humanity as it is today as a single society - since we're sharing this world and influence each other greatly. That of course wasn't always the case and might not be the case in the future (e.g. with people living in other star systems), but right now I see it like this.
  - pytester 8y ago
    It makes perfect sense. There's no logical requirement at all that she should want France to be obligated to provide for China's citizens just because she wants China to be obligated to provide for China's citizens.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Since she doesn't say a word about citizenship or nationality, but instead says that all humans are equal, then yes, the requirement is there.
      - pytester 8y ago
        No, but she mentions the word "society" a lot and discusses its obligations. France and China are self evidently distinct societies. So no, the requirement definitely is not there.
oh_sigh 8y ago
> Her moral philosophy seems predicated on the idea that everyone is deserving of certain rights. Everyone in a society. Does she feel that way about people not in a society?
deogeo 8y ago
> If we're going to deny these rights to some people on the basis of birth-location Is denying rights and denying entry the same? I find that belief self-centered - is <your country> the only one able to confer rights?
coldtea 8y ago
>If we're going to deny these rights to some people on the basis of birth-location, why not deny the same rights on the basis of other criteria such as race, gender, intelligence, physical health, etc We don't have to deny them to anybody. Just to ask that those other countries it give them to their citizens, not having us give them to them. Not to mention, those in those other countries might even value other things.
- whack 8y ago
  > We don't have to deny them to anybody. Just to ask that those other countries it give them to their citizens, not having us give them to them. Well clearly the girl in Congo is born into a country that is not able/willing to grant her all the freedoms that Anderson is championing. We can blame Congo for her predicament all we want, but that doesn't change the fact that she's being deprived of the freedoms that we have the ability to grant. So why should we not grant her those freedoms? The whole point of foundational moral philosophies is that they should be applied universally. I'm very suspicious of moral philosophies that are applicable only to your in-group, and not your out-group. If the philosophy is so sound, why shouldn't it be applied towards everyone? At which point you find yourself inventing a whole other moral philosophy, in order to explain why XYZ people should be in your in-group and ABC people should not. And yet another moral philosophy which determines what is right/wrong when interacting with those in your out-group. And then another moral philosophy which explains why you need 3 different disparate moral philosophies, instead of just applying one of them universally.

by whack 8y ago

pytester 8y ago

>Her moral philosophy seems predicated Was that something she actually said or just something you inferred? It seems pretty clear that she thinks that each society has an obligation towards its members but I didn't her mention anything about obligations societies have towards non-members. I very much doubt that she's against, say, the right of asylum, but there's nothing there that I can see that implies that she believes France has an equal responsibility to provide for Chinese citizens as it does towards its own.

TomMarius 8y ago
As GP said, her philosophy makes exactly zero sense if she doesn't mean everybody, regarless of what she actually thinks.
- coldtea 8y ago
  It makes total sense. It's perfectly rational to say: a) I want the best for my country and fellow citizens b) I think the best outcome for (a) comes if all citizens in my country are given X rigts etc. There's no need to "mean everybody" for this to be a perfectly rational philosophy. If anything, your extra requirement that she has to "mean everybody" seems to come from a moralistic or christian source, rather than rationality.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    I agree it's reasonable but she claims to want the best for all people, not citizens of her country. IMHO it's a very important distinction.
    - pytester 8y ago
      You're conflating wanting each society to provide the best for its citizens with wanting each society to provide for other society's citizens. Like her, I think China should do something about its wealth inequality. Like her, I don't the Czech republic really needs to get involved. It is, as you say, an "important distinction".
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Her argument is based on the fact that all humans are equal. A person from outside your country is equal to you and needs help, then. She doesn't say that all US citizens are equal.
        pytester 8y ago
        It absolutely was based on people being equal, yes, but all humans being equal does NOT imply an obligation on the Czech Republic to care for citizens in China's society. It implies that both China and the Czech Republic are obligated to level out arbitrarily enforced class divisions in their own societies. She used the word "society" a lot, not "world".
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Maybe that's the difference between our opinions. While there are obvious differences between Chinese and Czech people, I see humanity as it is today as a single society - since we're sharing this world and influence each other greatly. That of course wasn't always the case and might not be the case in the future (e.g. with people living in other star systems), but right now I see it like this.
- pytester 8y ago
  It makes perfect sense. There's no logical requirement at all that she should want France to be obligated to provide for China's citizens just because she wants China to be obligated to provide for China's citizens.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Since she doesn't say a word about citizenship or nationality, but instead says that all humans are equal, then yes, the requirement is there.
    - pytester 8y ago
      No, but she mentions the word "society" a lot and discusses its obligations. France and China are self evidently distinct societies. So no, the requirement definitely is not there.

oh_sigh 8y ago

> Her moral philosophy seems predicated on the idea that everyone is deserving of certain rights. Everyone in a society. Does she feel that way about people not in a society?

deogeo 8y ago

> If we're going to deny these rights to some people on the basis of birth-location Is denying rights and denying entry the same? I find that belief self-centered - is <your country> the only one able to confer rights?

coldtea 8y ago

>If we're going to deny these rights to some people on the basis of birth-location, why not deny the same rights on the basis of other criteria such as race, gender, intelligence, physical health, etc We don't have to deny them to anybody. Just to ask that those other countries it give them to their citizens, not having us give them to them. Not to mention, those in those other countries might even value other things.

whack 8y ago
> We don't have to deny them to anybody. Just to ask that those other countries it give them to their citizens, not having us give them to them. Well clearly the girl in Congo is born into a country that is not able/willing to grant her all the freedoms that Anderson is championing. We can blame Congo for her predicament all we want, but that doesn't change the fact that she's being deprived of the freedoms that we have the ability to grant. So why should we not grant her those freedoms? The whole point of foundational moral philosophies is that they should be applied universally. I'm very suspicious of moral philosophies that are applicable only to your in-group, and not your out-group. If the philosophy is so sound, why shouldn't it be applied towards everyone? At which point you find yourself inventing a whole other moral philosophy, in order to explain why XYZ people should be in your in-group and ABC people should not. And yet another moral philosophy which determines what is right/wrong when interacting with those in your out-group. And then another moral philosophy which explains why you need 3 different disparate moral philosophies, instead of just applying one of them universally.