What I mean is --
I keep hearing "If you would save each day what you spend on coffee drinks you would save......" or "If you would donate what you spend of coffee drinks you coud feed....."
But within walking distance from my house there are two Starbucks and a Coffee People -- and thats not counting the ones in the grocery stores.
I hear people complain about the obesity epidemic and fast food but within a half mile of my house there are dozens of fast food places that are open for 24 hours and they are always busy.
I hear people complain about the dumbing down of America and movies like "Dude, where's my car" make a fortune.
What I mean is - if we're not willing to do it as individuals we have no right to expect the government or big coporations to do it either.
I don't necessarily see it as a failing, culture just is. I think Americans have a "its not my fault" mentality - and this applies to both liberal and conservative ideologies and the no ideologies.
Just because it wasn't my fault you fell down, I mean, I didn't trip you or anything, it doesn't mean its not my responsibility to help you back up.
Okay, maybe its not my RESPONSIBILITY but it is how I chose to live my life.
Binny -
The Golden Rule is golden for a reason. I can't think of a creed, religion, or ethical standard that has survived the test of time that does not feel that we should not treat others like we want to be treated.
This means that when national disasters happen and we cannot help ourselves - we would want to be helped and even beg for that help. To refuse that help is simply not ethical.
How about this, what reason do you have for denying those people who are dying help?
Again, if the excuse is 'lets help our own first' - I stated that we should and could do that - but in comparison to world hunger - we would have that handled in about 6 months.
TF
TTF,
Simply not ethical is not something I can accept without further explanation.
But I can accept the 'no creed has survived...' argument. Plato's point with Cephalus was that creeds are all well and good to the rich, but, often, as soon as they become inconvenient, they go out the window. Some stubbornly hold on to the last day. But others (most?) loosen their interpretation of their creed as their means diminish. So it seems to me that self interest is a more fundamental 'creed' than the golden rule. Of course evolution supports this theory... greed is what gets your genes in their target (the no one is looking so no one knows kind of greed). This line of thinking leads to the conclusion that we follow the golden rule only so far as others see. And otherwise, we (depending on our means) act in self-interest, unless somebody creates a big brother that is always watching... god. So sans the god part, what is the basis for the golden rule? What compelling reason can you give to the poor and disgruntled that they should act in the interest of others above their own interest (which is how they would like to be treated)? And furthermore, in most (not all) situations, is not treating others the way you would like to be treated just another way of saying, do exactly the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do? And again, is this not MUCH easier if you are used to having your desires met?
So can it be that the golden rule should only be applied to the party in the disadvantage?
And does not the golden rule have obvious disadvantages, in which cases we inexplicably ignore it?
Ex. There is a criminal that kills and rapes. The golden rule would have us treat them as we would have ourselves treated in the other person's shoes. So we put ourselves in his shoes and find that he wants to be let off for his crimes and allowed to continue. Yet we do not do this. This is social contract. He has declared that he does not follow the golden rule. So we do not have to apply it to him. And of course it's more complicated than the golden rule. But this example shows that it is clearly not universal.
As far as a reason not to help them, there is of course more than one.
1. Just don't wanna
2. Prefer not to think about it
3. Their interests may conflict with mine (south park... [drawl]They took our jobs[/drawl])
4. Money isn't infinite, and their gain is my loss
5. Their belief set is so contrary to reality that they are nothing but a burden on progress toward the eventual technological transformation that will convert every member of the human race into a cyborg.
And so on.
But as I say, I agree that giving up some of our stuff to give them homes and food is the best way to go. But I have little to justify this. And I was looking for some vigorous justification.
Boomerang, I think your ideal is neat... but I also think it's unrealistic on a thing or two:
For instance,
We don't go around donating our money to the transit authority.
But we DO expect the government to take responsibility where the individual fails.
If we left everything to the corporations and individuals it just wouldn't get done.
And one difference between the obesity epidemic along with the fascination with movies like Dude Where's my Car, and the issues of homelessness and hunger is that the prior are problems some perceive in OTHERS, whereas the latter are problems professed by those afflicted. This makes the prior not important in the slightest and the latter quite important indeed.