2 ms·

The way I think about it is that you are applying mechanism that evolved and is useful for small close groups of people (morality) to the whole world (or a coun

The way I think about it is that you are applying mechanism that evolved and is useful for small close groups of people (morality) to the whole world (or a country). Think about it this way: you have two countries at two ends of the world. They are independent, have their own policies, culture, economy. People in one are pretty smart about policies and hard work and build wealth over decades while people in the other can't organize, have constant struggle for power, zero social policies and end up not being able to feed their every growing population. Is there any reason people in the rich country should feel moral obligation to not be rich and devote resources to lift the other country out of poverty? Additional problem is that the poor country won't easily give up independence and accept smart policies so the situation is kinda hopeless. Now apply to the local level. Even if you feel moral duty towards those in need you can't do much if you don't get some authority over their decisions/culture/education etc.

noduerme 5y ago
I upvoted this even though I think you have a hopelessly Confucian mentality wherein the imposition of authority can be a cure for bad policies/backward culture/lack of education. I believe culture, education and good policy can only grow and thrive among educated populaces (i.e., those educated to reject blunt authority), and really can't be induced from the top down. In third world basket-cases, a distributed, non-authoritarian approach of soft power is better; it's only American or Russian or Chinese imperialist ideas that argue an external imposition of order or a new political hierarchy will be the cure for social arguments in a nation that can't grow enough grain to feed itself. For examples of how local authority is less impactful than soft power, consider the economic and cultural growth of the entire planet under American cultural dominance from 1918 to 2001.

noduerme 5y ago

I upvoted this even though I think you have a hopelessly Confucian mentality wherein the imposition of authority can be a cure for bad policies/backward culture/lack of education. I believe culture, education and good policy can only grow and thrive among educated populaces (i.e., those educated to reject blunt authority), and really can't be induced from the top down. In third world basket-cases, a distributed, non-authoritarian approach of soft power is better; it's only American or Russian or Chinese imperialist ideas that argue an external imposition of order or a new political hierarchy will be the cure for social arguments in a nation that can't grow enough grain to feed itself. For examples of how local authority is less impactful than soft power, consider the economic and cultural growth of the entire planet under American cultural dominance from 1918 to 2001.