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. I agree completely, but I think such people may be wrong. If I allow people to starve in this country but save others from starving in another country I see that as no different from preventing starvation here while not preventing it abroad.
What is it that makes us responsible for family and friends but not people on the other side of the world? Is it because of distance? In todays connected world of banks and aid organisations that isn't a practical issue. Is it because I'm related to my family more so than the person abroad? If so that doesn't explain why I ought to care more about my friends than the person abroad. Perhaps the answer for this cuious behaviour lies in kin selection.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 10:18 pm (UTC)I agree completely, but I think such people may be wrong. If I allow people to starve in this country but save others from starving in another country I see that as no different from preventing starvation here while not preventing it abroad.
What is it that makes us responsible for family and friends but not people on the other side of the world? Is it because of distance? In todays connected world of banks and aid organisations that isn't a practical issue. Is it because I'm related to my family more so than the person abroad? If so that doesn't explain why I ought to care more about my friends than the person abroad. Perhaps the answer for this cuious behaviour lies in kin selection.