4 ms·
>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 so
by 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 agoAs GP said, her philosophy makes exactly zero sense if she doesn't mean everybody, regarless of what she actually thinks.
- coldtea 8y agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoYou'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 agoHer 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 agoIt 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 agoMaybe 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 agoIt 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 agoSince 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 agoNo, 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.