You make a very cogent point about morality here. Yes, it's moral to expand the definition of "us" in terms of people of moral worth as much as you possibly can. And not only moral, but it practical because of the large scale organization thing you have such a good grasp of.
But there's another factor apart from moral worth: what Levinas calls responsibility. Sure, it is morally correct to regard people on the other side of the world as people, but you're not responsible for them in the same way you are for your family and friends. Most people wouldn't think much of someone who let his children starve because he was spending all his money on helping victims of humanitarian disasters in the third world, for example.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 08:48 pm (UTC)But there's another factor apart from moral worth: what Levinas calls responsibility. Sure, it is morally correct to regard people on the other side of the world as people, but you're not responsible for them in the same way you are for your family and friends. Most people wouldn't think much of someone who let his children starve because he was spending all his money on helping victims of humanitarian disasters in the third world, for example.