Subject:
|
Reasonable offerings of aid (was Re: Blank checks drawn upon the US)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:33:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
I would say that, if we are able to provide assistance, then we have an
obligation to assist those who ask for it
|
Why? Who placed this obligation on us and what was gained in exchange?
|
Well, I reject that framing of the issue--there’s no need to assume that there’s
a tit-for-tat arrangement. Why must there be?
My assumption (with which you are free to disagree, of course) is that the
entire system is improved if the good of that system is served, which is to say
if the amount of “goodness” increases. (You may also (and likely will) disagree
with my definition of “goodness”)
Overall goodness of the system is increased when the goodness of the constituent
entities is increased with relative evenness (thereby preventing concentrations
of goodness and concentrations of badness). It is in the best interest of each
constituent entity to contribute to the overall goodness of the system, because
this would yield longer-term and more reliable benefits than would hording
goodness for oneself (thereby creating jealous neighbor entities).
| |
| |
or (if they are unable to ask for
it) those who do not refuse our assistance.
|
Why?
|
Same as above.
| |
| |
Additionally, we should respect their assessment of the help they need,
rather than forcing them to accept our estimation of that need.
|
Why? What if they are convinced that blue mud is the cure for AIDS (c.f.
South Africa right about now) when we know for sure it isn’t?
|
Or colloidal silver?
But your point is good—my wording was imprecise. Maybe a better phrasing is “We
should work with the recipient to form a realistic assessment of needed
assistance and base our offer of assistance on that assessment. “ If the two
parties cannot agree on the needed help, then the donor should not force
unwanted assistance upon the recipient.
| |
| |
Further, our offer of assistance should not be contingent upon the
recipient’s acceptance of terms antithetical to the recipient’s values or
culture.
|
Why? Why should we help those who embrace values that require our
destruction, for example.
|
Yeah, now that I reflect upon it, that’s not a great idea. It seems analogous
to saying “we are able to create an environment in which ultralethal viruses
thrive (which would help those viruses) so we should therefore create that
environment.”
I withdraw this requirement.
| |
| |
Finally, we must not use assistance to gain leverage to force the recipient
to undertake action in conflict with its own values.
|
Why not? Why would we not act in our own enlightened self interest?
|
Well, what might have been the result if 1950’s America had desperately and
inescapably required the aid of the USSR, but the USSR would only give that aid
if the US chose to embrace Stalin’s pseudocommunism? How would our enlightened
self-interest have parsed that conundrum?
But perhaps I should clarify my imprecision. It strikes me as unacceptable to
say “we gave you assistance when you needed it last year, therefore you must
change your values today to suit us.” Assistance may be offered contingent upon
the cessation of negative actions or the adoption of positive actions, but
assistance should not be used as a lever to force future (as-yet-unspecified)
demands. Of course, if the recipient chooses to allow for future demands, then
that’s okay, but the recipient must not be forced to accept those demands
against its will.
Out of curiosity, do you think it’s acceptable to use force to drive a party
into accepting a contract that the party would not otherwise have accepted?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Blank checks drawn upon the US
|
| (...) Why? Who placed this obligation on us and what was gained in exchange? (...) Why? (...) Why? What if they are convinced that blue mud is the cure for AIDS (c.f. South Africa right about now) when we know for sure it isn't? (...) Why? Why (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
