More replies, but shorter at least this time.
So now you have given yourself the burden of proof that a nation must act in all possible travesty because by some causal chain it is going to affect us negatively to a significant (significance in terms or life, liberty, capital) enough degree to warrant action. Go.
I don't quite see myself in that position, but w/e. Any time we help another country, it increases the chances of receiving help in return. I'll try to relate this to a philosophy example I was given. Which world would you prefer to live in?
A. A world where no one steals, but you do steal.
B. A world where no one steals, and neither do you.
C. A world where everyone steals, and so do you.
D. A world where everyone steals, but you don't.
I ordered them according to greastest benefit for you. Of course we all want choice A, but if everyone goes for that we are self defeating and end up with choice C. Thus if everyone instead strives for B, we end up with B. Its not optimum, but not everyone can get optimum at the same time. Now for the relation:
A. A world where every country helps others, but you don't.
B. A world where every country helps others, and sor do you.
C. A world where no country helps others, and neither do you.
D. A world where no country helps, but you do.
As you can see, this example works much the same. Choice A is what we would prefer, but it is self defeating. So everyone should aim for the next best option of B. How is that for a justification?
What is freedom but a buffer by those who fear that those in power will control them?
Freedom is a sense of self control in your own life. The abiltiy to persue what makes you happy (as long as it doesn't impede others freedom; creating a slightly controled freedom). We know what slavery is, freedom is the opposite end of the spectrum.
make yourself into your own work of art.
I'm sorry, but what does that mean? I went through a couple art classes in junior high, but I don't think you are refering to paintings. :lol:
People can be quite cruel....its an observation on that nature. Its not about justification as much as it is an observation on why that structure exists.
Why: 1. The reason, cause, or purpose for which.
Cruelty is not the reason or justificaiton for the structure's existance.
How are people going to be better off if another dictator takes power in Iraq when we leave ... ? How are we centering their locus of control by saving them from a cruel dictator which perpetuates a helpless mindset?
Last I checked we were installing a republic and they held elections recently. That implies they will not have another dictator. You don't center a locus of control, you improve it. When people gain a sense of control, choice, rights, freedom, it grows. The ability to have a legitamate election for their leader for the first time in decades is a big step in the right direction. People with a strong locus of control will not fall into learned helpness and are more likely to help themselves in the future.
But Utilitarianism is strictly a teleological standard which is very blatant in saying an action is either moral or immoral based on its outcome NOT its intent.
I'm just going to have to disagree with your interpretation. An action is not judged solely on the result and consequences. The intent plays a huge role in the morality of the action. Just look at our own legal system (not saying it's perfect). When you kill someone, whether you get first degree murder or man slaughter depends solely upon intent. If you act with good, reasonable intentions for what is seeable as the best, most reliable outcome, then that action can not be called moralely wrong.
2. Any egalitarian or humanitarian act is done out of a percieved obligation stemming from a moral belief and the majority of people will fulfill it if it little sweat off their back, only people with strong convictions go further.
You and your social contract beliefs. :lol: Have to give you credit for coming up with a creative answer at least.
I do not have an obligation to complete strangers in a different country
I notice you bring up the word 'obligation' quite a bit. Do you have an obligation to some equally strange person in your own city? State? Country? Continent? World? It's all a matter of perspective and where you draw your lines. Some people draw them larger than their country (which seems to be where you draw yours).
And adding more lives to it is only devaluing the nature of humanity, people are not to be calculated into those sort of ratios unless there is an equal obligation to all those people and you are in control of their fates ie government.
I'll use the line my philosophy teacher used, would you boil a baby if it would save a million lives? A billion? All acts, no matter how awful (eg: boiling a baby) have some limit where it is outweighed. This relates back to my first example in this post about stealing. In this case, if everyone made the decision to sacrifice their own life to save many others, the world would be a better place than a world where no one would sacrifice their own life to save millions. This example is best seen in bee hives, no bee wants to die, but they will all die unless a few sacrifice themselves in defence of their colony.
What did the doctor say was wrong?
