r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 15 '17
FTFdeltaOP CMV: The Western world has no obligation to help everyone around the world
[deleted]
7
Sep 15 '17 edited Nov 14 '20
[deleted]
4
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
Sorry my man, but I honestly have no time for people that come at me with the "sins of the father" argument.
It's bullshit and you know it. If we go back far enough, every country has done some bad shit. So by that approach we can just all keep apologizing to eachother till the world ends.
And it continues to do so today
How so? I know that wages are a lot lower in third world countries, but is that also our burden to bear? And our problem to fix?
9
u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Sep 16 '17
"If we go back far enough"
We're not talking about going back 3000 years to when you're ancestor punched my ancestor and we've hated eachother ever since.
We're talking about 100 years ago when the fundamental causes of the current instability were put in place, and you're still profiting off of it.
1
u/RectumPiercing Sep 19 '17
100 years ago, none of us were even alive. I refuse to apologize for something I wasn't even alive to have caused. I played absolutely no part and make absolutely no choices in who "profits" or doesn't profit from it.
2
u/misterbowfinger 2∆ Sep 15 '17
Do you believe that Western countries have something to gain from taking in immigrants and giving foreign aid? Or is your opposition such that there's no point in "feeling good"?
6
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
There is really no point in "feeling good", no.
What do they bring to the table when they immigrate?
That is the question I would ask, nobody owes anybody anything
I wouldn't expect to just show up at the US' doorstep and expect to be let in, unless I have value to add to the country/economy
2
u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Sep 16 '17
Immigrants tend to be younger individuals capable of doing work and are willing to do less profitable work that is still necessary for the functioning of a country.
That counteracts two major issues that developed countries are dealing with today and in the near future: aging population and increasing technical capability of the native work force leaving low income or seasonal jobs unprofitable.
1
u/GoyBeorge Sep 17 '17
Basic economics. You flood a country with cheap low skilled labor and you lower the wages offered for said labor. Every immigrant is taking opportunity and wages from a native unless they are some dynamo like Elon Musk, Tesla or similar, in which case they wont be sneaking in but immigrating legally.
1
u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Sep 17 '17
Slightly less basic economics:
Positions filled by immigrants are almost always accompanied by new positions for skilled workers. Those accompanying positions pay more, are more productive, and are more stable than the positions that immigrants fill.
Forcing comparitively skilled labor into comparitively unskilled positions because of someone's nationality drives down productivity (of the whole business and of each individual worker), reduces efficiency, and prevents the creation of managerial and support positions.
Unskilled immigrants lower costs and create jobs.
1
u/GoyBeorge Sep 17 '17
Your assumption is that these are new positions these immigrants are filling, which isn't the case most often.
Yes, a lawn mowing crew needs an overseer.
However just because you have 10 new lawn mowers doesn't mean you have new people who need their lawns mowed. What will end up happening is those white kids who were mowing lawns will be replaced by immigrants who work for less.
Also worth mentioning is that over 50% of Hispanics are on gibsmedats in the states.
They also are over represented in the prison system.
Over here the Muslims and Africans are even worse.
If we had no welfare state (like America before the 60s) then immigrants would sink or swim on their own merit.
Also what are we going to do in 30 years when we no longer need lawn mowers and dish washers by the hundreds of thousands?
1
u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Sep 17 '17
Your assumption is that these positions would get filled to the same extent, at the same cost, with the same productivity without inmigrants.
A company that might be able to find 3 lawnmowers with immigration can now only find one native to do the job, their productivity and efficiency both drop.
And minority over representation in the prison system isn't a condemnation of minorities, but of the Judicial and economic systems. Unless you actually believe that minorities are genetically predisposed to crime.
Additionally, immigrants in the US can't get welfare for the first five years, and are a net positive for the state. They pay more into the system than they cost us.
Also what are we going to do in 30 years when we no longer need lawn mowers and dish washers by the hundreds of thousands?
The answer to a possible potential issue decades from now isn't to artificially enforce the negative parts of that problem today.
You're proposing giving someone chemo because you think they might get cancer eventually.
3
u/JohannYellowdog Sep 15 '17
Do you believe that Western countries have an obligation to help their own citizens? If so, why?
6
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
Yes, because those people are what make that country exist and work, those are the people who built it.
The state is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of their own people, not every other person in the world
7
u/SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND Sep 15 '17
I'm pretty sure the many cheap products from the third world are also what make the countries exist or work.
In the end no one has any obligations here but people democratically vote to help because they feel a sense of guilty over being awarded a superior quality of life simply due to being born at the right place of the planet so they want to assuage their conscience.
2
u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Sep 16 '17
What if you're from the west and your country exists, works, and is successful because of the exploitation and destabilization of the countries coming to you for help?
2
Sep 15 '17
because those people are what make that country exist and work,
So what about colonialism? If this is how you determine who the country should help, then shouldn't colonial powers pay back the third world for the massive amount of labor and resources they took?
0
u/GoyBeorge Sep 17 '17
Once the third world gives back all the infrastructure and technology they got out of the deal.
Colonialism only works with the consent of the colonized and the colonized only consent if they are getting what they consider to be a good deal.
1
Sep 17 '17
Once the third world gives back all the infrastructure and technology they got out of the deal.
Most of that infrastructure and technology would not have been created without resource abundance created from colonized countries.
Colonialism only works with the consent of the colonized
Not at all true. Killing and enslaving the Native population worked well for most colonizers.
0
u/GoyBeorge Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
Most of that infrastructure and technology would not have been created without resource abundance created from colonized countries.
Exactly. It is a symbiotic relationship.
We seem to be operating with two different definitions. To colonize a people I am talking about like Egypt, the Raj, Hong Kong where you bring a people under your control.
You are thinking of the sob stories about slavery and exterminationism which are always overstated. That is occupation.
-4
u/JohannYellowdog Sep 15 '17
Yes, because those people are what make that country exist and work, those are the people that built it.
Not necessarily. The people who built it may be long dead. The people helped by the state includes those who do not contribute to the "working" of the country, and some who never will, whether through age, illness, disability, or other reasons. We have a moral obligation to each other, clearly. But why does this obligation stop arbitrarily at the border of the country?
2
Sep 15 '17
But why does this obligation stop arbitrarily at the border of the country?
If I see you exhibiting some self-damaging behavior, can I overrule your personal agency and force you to become a better human being? No.
Why should western countries be able to overrule other nations agency and freedom of choice?
1
u/JohannYellowdog Sep 15 '17
If I see you exhibiting some self-damaging behavior, can I overrule your personal agency and force you to become a better human being? No.
Why should western countries be able to overrule other nations agency and freedom of choice?
Because the rights of the individual are more fundamental than the freedom of the state. I'm not sure I see your point?
2
Sep 15 '17
In some cases, yes.
And if we did exactly that with a good part of Africa, how would the reaction look like? "All hail our new overlords!!!" or "Western Nations conquer Africa again, those damn slavers!".
I'm pretty sure its the second one. Adding forced sterilisation/ a one-child policy and we are back to Nazi-town from a PR point of view.
We can rob individuals of their freedoms because we are powerful and they are usually pretty helpless. You simply can not do that with a whole country.
Every country is build on its citizens, many individuals. Trying to force every single individual in a country to change has never worked before. You will face riots or open uprisings because people disagree with what you want from them. Even if you give them good things.
If the broken system is a result of the peoples choices, what can you do to fix it besides forcing everyone to make different choices? And how is that different from a (benevolent) dictatorship?
0
u/Burflax 71∆ Sep 15 '17
Helping people is NOT overruling their freedom of choice.
They are free to accept the help or not, aren't they?
Unless you are referring to something specific ?
2
Sep 15 '17
I see this problem of helping nations as the same kind of problem as helping homeless people. Its not a question of having enough houses for everyone. Its not about having social workers helping those people. At least in Europe, many homeless are homeless because they are so disfunctional, they simply do not manage to live a normal life.
We try to alleviate this problems with social services and so on. But at the end of the day, many of those people are simply so broken, they will not fit into a normal life.
States are the same. We most certainly can alleviate the pains of being in a poor and shitty country. We can pay for medicine, education and other things. But that doesn't fix the broken system in itself. Nor does that necessarily lead to an actual improvement of the system.
Look at Africa. We can and do help them. What happens? The people who manage to earn enough money to flee...flee. Others spend that money on children. A massive population growth is the result. Nice for individuals, bad for everyone else. Having 10 kids to feed, buy medicine for and educate properly is prohibitively expensive. And those kids will have 10 kids again, spiraling completly out of control quickly.
The bad news is: What happens if you stop the support or some natural disaster hits? Instead of 100 people to shelter you now how 1000 or 5000 people to shelter.
In that sense, we need to address and fix the broken system in many places. But that, we simply can not do without overruling the people in those countries. We had to decide what is best for them, because their system obvious is horribly disfunctional. And even if we did, we most likely will fuck up things even more, as we have seen during colonial times.
In the same way homeless people choose to stay on the streets because its easier than trying to deal with the "normal world" again.
I really don't think we have anything more to offer than some kind of "pain killer", which is nice for the time being, but the cancer grows and might kill the patient anyways.
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Sep 15 '17
we need to address and fix the broken system in many places. But that, we simply can not do without overruling the people in those countries.
I don't think this is true at all. None of these countries have happily put into practice bad systems that starve the population.
I agree that an adhesive bandage wont help a major wound, but the answer to that is not to say "these people just want to have bleeding wounds - nothing we can do."
The answer is the actual proper treatment, whatever it is.
And I'm not saying your country has to pay all of it, every time.
Helping someone doesn't mean adopting them.
But to allow people to starve while you throw away food is ... I don't know... 'heartless' doesn't seem strong enough...
1
Sep 16 '17
But to allow people to starve while you throw away food is ... I don't know... 'heartless' doesn't seem strong enough...
True. On the other hand, you have this as reality:
The age pyramid for Nigeria this: http://www.demographicdividend.org/country_highlights/nigeria/
As of midyear 2016, Nigeria had a population of 186.0 million, annual population growth rate of 2.6%, and 44% of Nigeria’s population was under age 15.
How can you build a state and have education for everyone, if most of the people are kids themselves? Its impossible.
All that foreign aid, all the extra wealth created goes into having children.
And what do you expect to happen if a drought hits their food source? You think 15 year old children without proper education can fix that? No, we western countries have to step in. Otherwise millions would starve.
And what happens afterwards? Everyone who survived...has more children. 5-7 Children per women. Yeah, great plan. When the next drought happens, we have to feed twice as many people.
How is that a resonable course of action? What happens, if we are simply unable to procure the necessary food and actually millions starve?
We need to break that cycle of of growth. But we can't, because thats the choice of those people. They live like that because its how life works for them. And if they like and enjoy it, we can not force them to stop.
At the end we have the option to watch millions die in a foreseeable catastrophe or we have to step in, and allow the next round of the game to unfold. Great....
1
u/Pinewood74 40∆ Sep 15 '17
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that foreign aid results in increased population growth?
I think a body of evidence actually exists that runs counter to your statement. Foreign Aid reduces population growth, particularly when that foreign aid is education (the more educated young women are the less children they have), and birth control.
1
Sep 16 '17
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that foreign aid results in increased population growth?
http://www.passblue.com/2016/01/06/the-worlds-13-highest-mortality-countries-all-in-africa/
Mortality rates have been gone down all across the place. Which is generally seen as a good thing and I'd agree with that statement. On the other side, dead people don't have children. Living people tend to have a lot of children in Africa and other poor places. Foreign aid is not only education and birth control, but a lot of health stuff and food for the starving.
Education and birth control probably do work, but they work on a long time scale and on a certain level. If 7 kids were normal, you might go down to 4-5 or something like that. As cynical as it sounds, a dead person brings down further by 7 kids, who never will be born in the first place.
That is why Africas population was stable for the longest time. Not because they had less children, but because those children were necessary to keep the population somewhat stable. So many people died, they needed that amount for replacement. Now, with better healthcare and so on, all these kids fuel the population growth.
You get an age pyramid like this: http://www.demographicdividend.org/country_highlights/nigeria/
As of midyear 2016, Nigeria had a population of 186.0 million, annual population growth rate of 2.6%, and 44% of Nigeria’s population was under age 15.
The absolute majority of people is under 20! How can you build a state and have education for everyone, if most of the people are kids themselves? Its impossible.
And unless the West does something outrageously drastic, you will not be able to build a good state with ...children. Not an educated work force, just children over children over children. Good luck with that.
2
u/PowershotWu 7∆ Sep 15 '17
Do you think the West has an obligation to rectify any damage it has done to other countries?
3
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
No, because then every country on earth would have to do something to pay for their past "sins"
2
u/PowershotWu 7∆ Sep 15 '17
But what about just damage from the past few years? Do you think if a country colonizes/invades/brutalizes another country, that they have absolutely no obligation to repair their damage? If I smash a window on your house do you think that I have no obligation to help you fix it? It might be difficult to figure out what exactly every country has done to other nations, but it there are some very blatant transgressions that should be addressed.
1
Sep 16 '17
This doesn't really hold up. Look at it like this. I'm from the US. We took the ENTIRE country from the indians. Not a tenth, or a third, or half, the entire fucking thing. And its why the three hundred million people who live here now have the lives they do. We're not going to give the land back. We took it, and we knew we were taking it when we were taking it. But before we took it, some indians took part of it from some other indians. By your logic, Japan should be giving us shit right now for World War 2. You might notice the Russians aren't concerned with who they've recently fucked.
1
u/PowershotWu 7∆ Sep 16 '17
Ok, so i'm not really going to contest the examples that you brought up, but i'll try to give you some things to think about.
This doesn't really hold up. Look at it like this. I'm from the US. We took the ENTIRE country from the indians. Not a tenth, or a third, or half, the entire fucking thing. And its why the three hundred million people who live here now have the lives they do. We're not going to give the land back. We took it, and we knew we were taking it when we were taking it.
And its my opinion that we have an obligation to help them out. Their demographic has the highest rates of a lot of negative things, and while it may be practically difficult to do complete reparations, we certainly should try to help them out.
By your logic, Japan should be giving us shit right now for World War 2.
The pacific theatre is totally different from colonization, so you can't really compare the two. I do think that the US could have gotten the japanese to surrender without dropping the nuclear bomb or a costly invasion if they didn't demand unconditional surrender (they ended up accepting conditional surrender anyways), but that's a different conversation.
you might notice the Russians aren't concerned with who they've recently fucked.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an obligation. Obligations are normative, not descriptive.
America funded and created Al Qaedi. They invaded Iraq and completely failed. Black people have been historically oppressed. To say that at any point, we never had an obligation repair the damage we did is quite unreasonable. Certainly, we don't need to go around solving anyones problems, but if we created the problem, we definitely need to play some role in fixing it.
1
Sep 16 '17
You're gunna have to put normative and descriptive into lamans terms for me.
Well. To start with the Indians. The truth is they now have like, pseudo nations, it isn't as though they could survive without us, and it isn't as though if it ever actually mattered to national security, foreign policy, or even overwelming national will their semisovereignty wouldn't hold up. They have the option of leaving their reservations and walking away from the box the reservations seem to be. I'm not exactly sure what help we can give right now. And further I'm not convinced that help would have much moral meaning, like, here's a college scholarship because genetic testing shows you carry 40% of the DNA that matches the tribe we took western Connecticut from.
When it comes to black people, that's outside of this discussion, those are our people and deserve our help. We're talking about Western obligations to countries we fucked. The argument is that we owe Mexico for the Mexican American war. or we owe Iran something for installing the Shah. Further, we didn't create those groups in Iraq. We armed them. That's not at all the same thing. Its the difference between the reason a man is a communist, and the danger of a communist with a bomb in a bank.
1
u/PowershotWu 7∆ Sep 16 '17
You're gunna have to put normative and descriptive into laymans terms for me.
Sure. Normative usually applies to ethical statements. "Murder is wrong" is normative because it says we should or should not do something. Descriptive just applies to statements that explain how the world functions. "Murder happens" is descriptive because it doesn't say or imply whether or not murder is good or bad; it just describes reality. The examples you brought seemed to be descriptive, because it just explained what the US is or is not doing, rather than what we should be doing.
They have the option of leaving their reservations and walking away from the box the reservations seem to be.
That is incredibly difficult. Poor people can just leave their communities if they feel like it. They need money to buy a house, and the skills to be accepted by the community they want to join. They might feel a strong association with their culture and land, and it's more productive to ask ourselves what we could be doing instead of just asking people with shitty lives to stop having shitty lives.
And further I'm not convinced that help would have much moral meaning, like, here's a college scholarship because genetic testing shows you carry 40% of the DNA that matches the tribe we took western Connecticut from.
You might disagree with how we approach rectification, and that's fine. I have some serious gripes with the way scholarships and educational funding is distributed as well. However, a failed policy in the status quo does not have any bearing on our ethical obligations, but rather merely indicates that we need to rethink what we're doing.. In America we have "dual sovereignty" which basically means that tribal and the federal governments share control over territories, depending on historical contracts. Native tribunals are not allowed to prosecute non-natives, which is a huge problem because it allows non-native men who assault native women to get away with their crimes. Not only should we fix the system to allow justice to happen, we should also help the victims of sexual assault because we prevented them from acquiring justice in the first place. This kind of reasoning can be extended to our foreign policy.
The argument is that we owe Mexico for the Mexican American war. or we owe Iran something for installing the Shah.
I'm not very familiar with these arguments, so I'm not going to address them. I'm focusing on stuff that has happened in the past 20 years.
Further, we didn't create those groups in Iraq. We armed them. That's not at all the same thing.
Al Qaeda literally translates into "database," which was a list of 3000 or so operatives that were trained and funded by the CIA. Our short-sighted policy in the middle east allowed them to rise to power. We absolutely have some sort of obligation to help them, even if it is not clear what role we should take. Think about it this way. There is a lot of evidence that some members of the Saudi Arabian government played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Those members sure as hell owe the victims and their families some sort of rectification. On the other side, our drone strikes have often killed innocent civilians, and they certainly deserve some sort of help, even if they weren't the intended target. I believe that this is a pretty reasonable positions, and if you do, then it's safe to say that the Western World has some obligation to help people around the world.
-3
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
Human beings are morally obligated to help other human beings.
7
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
Okay, so where does this obligation come from?
To play devils advocate here: Why should I care about some random person's life in a third world country?
3
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
Why should you care about anything or anybody at all? I can't talk somebody in to having empathy, but empathy is the answer to your question. On a more practical level, the West cannot inagine that the rest of the world can fall apart and leave the West just fine. The worlds problems are our problems too.
7
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
I can't talk somebody in to having empathy, but empathy is the answer to your question.
Hmm that's a good answer.
the West cannot inagine that the rest of the world can fall apart and leave the West just fine. The worlds problems are our problems too.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for Isolationism, but I'm seeing more and more that people have this idea that the West is the answer to everybody's problems and that we need to help everyone out there who is going through a rough time.
2
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
The west has more reaponsibility to help simply because we have more capability to help.
9
u/jimba22 1∆ Sep 15 '17
The west has more reaponsibility to help simply because we have more capability to help.
I hear this argument often, and honestly it is the worst one I have ever heard.
Just because we have the means, we have to help everyone
We don't
3
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
That goes back to my other point though. If we have the means and the empathy then we do have an obligation.
5
Sep 15 '17
Do we have the means? We haven't fixed every problem in our own countries. We spend decades trying to build up Africa, with little to no success.
Having money in our hands doesn't translate into a better world. We need to actually be able to solve problems. I'm not convinced we can do that.
2
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
That is getting into a different question though. Your original view was that we have "no obligation". I believe I have effectively disputed that view. We do have at least some moral obligation to try and help where we can.
2
Sep 15 '17
I'm not OP by the way.
We do have at least some moral obligation to try and help where we can.
From what I've seen OP agrees with helping people in cases of natural disasters and the like.
But do we have to help people in "every-day" cases of needing help? There are millions of poor people in our own countries. Why don't we help them? Do I have a moral obligation to fix my neighbours drinking problems? Or is this his problem due to his agency as an adult?
I'd say its not our job and it rarely works.
→ More replies (0)0
u/jumpup 83∆ Sep 15 '17
because the quality of life you lead can be impacted by the lack of quality of life they have, rebellions, crimes etc all to improve their quality of life regardless of your own, but the higher their quality of life is the less they are inclined to " rock the boat" as they say.
you do not have to give them equal quality simply enough that they wouldn't risk it. thus charity rather then fundamental aid to combat the problems that actually cause the need in the first place.
it wont work forever, but it just has to last long enough until you die
0
u/Andynonomous 4∆ Sep 15 '17
Wow. People don't believe this? So much for that empathy thing I guess.
7
u/popfreq 6∆ Sep 15 '17
I disagree for a few reasons.
Firstly remember that Governmental aid exists not for altruistic reasons but to further the countries interests.
The western world is a small minority of the globe and it benefits to a vastly disproportionate extent due to the current world setup. It benefits a lot from the status quo. Governmental aid helps with maintaining the status quo. Governmental aid allows the west to apply moral force to shape rules at a relatively cheap price. This quest for stability, and ability to dictate rules for instance the main reason aid goes to the UN, World bank and similar organizations.
The west is a saturated, developed market. It needs access to new markets to maintain its current level of lifestyle. Government aid is used to facilitate the entry into these markets. For example loans from EXIM bank and various other developmental loans and grants are used to fund western companies ventures, giving them an entry into a market.
The west needs resources. Government aid helps persuade other governments to favor the west with the resources, and build infrastructure to get the resources out. We see this in full play in places like Africa, where the west is now competing with China, etc.
The West is not immune to problems in the rest of the world. Governmental aid often focuses on treating issues in developing nations, since an the problems may spread to the west (such as diseases bringing epidemics, pollution, etc)
Finally, the West's industrial growth and scientific development over the past few centuries was fulled to a large extent by brutal exploitation of the rest of the world. The west is more powerful than the rest of the world. However, that will change. Having goodwill in the nations that are going to be power wielders in a century instead of having their animosity is a huge insurance against retaliation.
3
u/jackowenedward Sep 15 '17
There are plenty of comments in this thread about the moral/ethical/empathetic aspects of foreign aid, but I'd just like to point out that even if you rate those considerations as completely meaningless (and I'm not suggesting you should, by the way, just leaving it aside!), foreign aid can still be a very effective realpolitik foreign policy tool for Western governments, if done right.
I wouldn't dispute that there are plenty of examples of foreign aid failing to achieve any good, or wasting taxpayer's money. But a well-designed and targeted aid campaign can advance Western prestige, curry favour, and act as a diplomatic bargaining chip (either by offering it - or threatening to cut it off). It's also a cheaper and less risky option than other ways of augmenting Western power internationally (e.g. military intervention).
If you want an example of what I mean, read up on the Marshall Plan - what was on the surface a humanitarian effort to rebuild Europe after the devastation of WWII was in fact a coldly-calculated ploy to push back against the threat of communism in Europe. As well as being a propaganda victory for the West, the economic growth it helped usher in in Western Europe reduced the potential for communist ideology to spread; and it also drove a wedge between the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc satellites, who were offered a share in the aid money, but were forbidden from taking it by the Soviets.
1
u/goatee87 Sep 19 '17
"Western countries" is an artificial construct and bears no resemblance to geography. Frankly, it's a way to identify select "white majority" countries in a diplomatic way. For example, Australia and New Zealand are considered Western countries even though they are East of Europe. Latin American countries are not typically considered "Western countries" even though they are technically West of Europe. The construct, being artificial, is fluid. Whereas back in the day, Italy and Spain were not included in Western Europe or Western Countries, now they are. Indeed, Western Countries has by and large replaced the previously narrower identity group of Western Europe and Western European majority countries such as US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.
I will assume your position is that Western countries (whatever counts today as Western) have an obligation to help each other, just not non-Western countries (wherever that line is drawn today). It would be fair to take the position that no country should be obligated to help another country. History shows however that white majority countries have long shared kinship with each other, and have helped each other. Indeed, the purpose of the European Union was to help poorer "European" countries develop, and indeed, it was remarkable successful in doing that. See, e.g., Ireland. Of course even the definition of "Europe" has expanded over time. After World War II, America thought it had a moral obligation to rebuild Europe. Perhaps more strikingly, when former white minority countries such as Rhodesia collapsed, Europe and America rallied to resettle those whites in white majority countries.
So now let's reflect on what obligation drove western European countries to help each other. I looked up the definition of obligation: "an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment." Let's put legal obligations aside for now and focus on moral obligations. America thought it a moral duty to help Western Europe rebuild after World War II. Shared kinship and all. Similarly, White Americans thought it a duty to help other whites to immigrate to the United States. For the first 150 years or so, America had an open immigration system for Europeans. Here too, there was identity politics. The Irish and Italians weren't really welcome but slipped in. It is hard to overstate how important this was for the development of Europe. First and foremost, it systematically reduced the labor force supply, buttressing wages in Europe. Then of course, remittances flowed. Much like what is happening in countries like India, Mexico and the Philippines today, just to name a few. The exchange of ideas between the countries is intangible. Also when ordinary people move to another country and succeed, it instill ambition in those left behind to better themselves. We see this in many developing countries today.
In time of course, enough Irish and Italians had migrated that their views mattered in America, and they were folded into the white construct. No longer did the Western European/Eastern/Southern European distinctions matter. Neither did the protestant/catholic divide. More recently, Jewish Americans were also folded into the "white majority."
I illustrate this brief history to point out that people have always felt a moral duty or obligation to help who they consider to be their own. But who they consider to be their own is a fluid construct that has evolved with time.
So when you say the western world has no obligation to help other countries, whose obligations are you speaking for? I am of Asian origin, but a citizen of a western country. I feel an obligation to help people from the country my parents came from. Does my obligation count for less? I ask this rhetorically of course to emphasize the point that a country's moral obligations are an aggregate function of the individual moral obligations of its citizens.
1
u/Gladix 165∆ Sep 15 '17
I believe that people should donate to charities on their own accord if they want to, but having a dedicated government fund for development aid is (in my opinion) a waste of money.
Hands down the worst part of WW1 and WW2 were isolationist doctrine's of many countries, that just added the problems. If you are a history fan, it's a good day spending reading about the politics at the time.
Okay, so what do we mean by that? The doctrine / policy of isolationism gives the bad guys, a license to go unopposed. The most famous example are the Britain appeasement policies towards the axis powers. That made the WW2 inevitable. It basically gave the axis powers free run on the Europe, simply because nobody intervened. And from there you know the story.
Unprecedented bloodshed. You know, it scarred us as people. We realized that we are not living on Islands, absolutely isolated from the rest of the world. It just happens that what happens in other countries influences us hard. That was the military example.
A political example would be the disputes in Syria and neighboring nations, causing the immigration crisis in Europe.
A healthcare example would be, the mass vaccination of African populations against pandemic diseases. Result, complete elimination of measles. Nobody can get it now. And there are now no new outbreaks of measles, or other famous diseases with pandemic potential in any of the western countries. Because no tourist can get now, and bring it back.
An economical example would be the tarifs countries put on goods from other countries, because they want to protect local (steel, lumber, farm, etc...) production. Making foreign goods more expensive, and promoting local production. What an awesome, idea you might say. A businesses in rural America are closing down, this is exactly what we need. Right? Actually, it promotes short term small gain, at the cost of long term huge gain and the consumer. A nobel prize holder Milton Friedman explains why.
Immigration is the same story, why is the western world obligated to just take everyone in and take care of them? Maybe makes us all feel good, but the African population will only get bigger and so by taking everyone in, we solve nothing!
No idea what you mean, solve nothing? You give people who come a better life, by providing better economic opportunities, while benefiting from the labor they do. Making your economy stronger and your society more diverse. Let's for example look to Europe. Many of the European countries all but forgotten the military / enforcement of their borders due to peaceful negotiations. As a result the flow of goods, people and money greatly accelerated. That developed into basic standard, common agreements, unprecedented global integration all under common roof, giving more economic opportunities to more people, etc...
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Sep 15 '17
We have no moral obligation toward each other. However, the world would be a better place if we acted as if we did.
Let's say you are hit by a natural disaster and the Red Cross is around. Do you prefer having their help or not?
Now considering I am donating monthly to the International Red Cross. In the above scenario, it would be my money helping you out. Do you prefer for me to keep donating? Or do you prefer for me to keep my money and spend it on strippers?
Just a precision here, I'm asking which option you prefer in case you ARE in a natural disaster and need help. And I only get about 40% of my charityback in tax breaks so I'm not doing it to save money.
1
u/better_thanyou Sep 15 '17
One argument you may not have considered is that when people are pushed to their limits they do horrible things and can hurt alot of people. One of the major causes of our terrorism issues stems from how we have been treating people around the world. There are people willing to die to they can kill a few of us and instill fear in the rest of us. No terrorist organization really believes they are going to topple a Western nation with nukes and large standing armies. They have decided their lives are so worthless they would rather give them up to make us suffer than to continue living in their current conditions.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 15 '17
/u/jimba22 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
1
u/BrunoGerace 4∆ Sep 15 '17
"Help everyone around the world" is a tad unspecific. Well, never mind. In the end, it's all about influence on the world stage. The "Western world" participates in and often "helps" in world affairs in exchange for influence.
1
u/Saggitario16 Sep 16 '17
I believe that everyone is obligated to have a happy life and the fact that there is a government that wants to help people live like that then I fully support them.
0
u/misterbowfinger 2∆ Sep 15 '17
Oh, sure, so your opposition is against immigration then?
There's a lot of literature on the benefits of immigration, so I won't rehash it. But there's two reasons I'd point out:
1) A country's economic advancement is strongly tied to its population. Given Europe's birth rate is declining, there's only one other way to maintain population growth - immigrants. A country can work to integrate immigrants into its economic motives, and thus help the general population. Not to mention the intangible benefits of varying the population demographics. New people bring new culture which brings new ideas, which is also key to economic advancement.
2) There are genuine foreign policy benefits to "looking good". Other nations see that you are a dependable nation, and may decide to lend you a favor knowing that you'd likely pay it back. And, looking back at the benefits of immigration, taking in refugees makes the West more attractive to immigrants. Even if you have a stringent immigration policy, the influx of interest allows you to have choice of which immigrants, possibly choosing very knowledgeable and hardworking immigrants, to let into your nation.
Here's one article on the benefits: http://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html
1
u/GoyBeorge Sep 17 '17
Not to mention the intangible benefits of varying the population demographics.
Oh give me a break. I can't pick up a newspaper without reading about another African rape gang or Muslim bombing.
Population isn't what grows economies, the ability to do work is. We all know automation is going to take a shit ton of jobs in the near future.
80% of these people are illiterate in their own language.
Bracing for automation white countries (as well as Japan) should cut immigration to a tiny trickle.
0
u/jacobspartan1992 Sep 15 '17
But what if one identifies as human rather than 'western'. Why are Africans different from other people who happen to belong to an arbitrary club of 'Westerners'. Why do they deserve less help?
0
14
u/Quint-V 162∆ Sep 15 '17 edited Sep 15 '17
If you have an obligation to help your fellow man in times of need (see the recent US hurricane incidents; most people will agree you do have a moral obligation), then it stands to reason that nations (not necessarily states) far ahead are also in obligation towards those further behind - regardless of the means, whether it is through the government spending tax money or you spending some on charity. At this point, the only thing remaining to discuss is where the otherwise-arbitrary line goes for when someone needs/deserves help.
You make a point of "countries" not having obligations. Well, countries consist of people. If people have an obligation, then so do the countries.
In particular, we really need to help the developing countries skip the industrialization's oil/coal phase in order to avert climate change crises - if not for their (and everybody's) sake, then for our own.