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.
I'll agree that the responsibility there decreases, but that is a function of shared history and commitments; yes, I am less responsible for some random stranger in Calcutta than I am for my immediate family and close friends, but that is by virtue of having built relationships with family and friends and conscously assumed the responsibilities thereof, of a life with a background of choices already made. It would not make it any more morally acceptable, were I to suddenly and strings-free come into possession of half a billion dollars tomorrow, for me to spend the entirety of that on my family and close friends.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:39 pm (UTC)I'll agree that the responsibility there decreases, but that is a function of shared history and commitments; yes, I am less responsible for some random stranger in Calcutta than I am for my immediate family and close friends, but that is by virtue of having built relationships with family and friends and conscously assumed the responsibilities thereof, of a life with a background of choices already made. It would not make it any more morally acceptable, were I to suddenly and strings-free come into possession of half a billion dollars tomorrow, for me to spend the entirety of that on my family and close friends.