Globalism and morality

Do people opposed to Globalism think that products that originate in America, like the Microsoft Windows operating system for example, should only be sold in America so as not to steal "Indian" jobs?

One thing that makes the question difficult to answer is that, if it is true that globalization will cause "the standard of living of many Americans [to] decline," it is also the case that that standard of living does not correlate in any easy relationship to a generic "American." The average standard of living in the United States, while always among the top in the world, is more unevenly distributed among individual citizens than in most other comparably affluent countries, which means any domestic effects of American globalization (again, to the extent that we can track the effects of the latter to the former) will be felt in uneven proportions throughout the country.

The problem is, as I see it, the nature of economics. Its only recognized ethical consideration is the welfare of self, family and perhaps the CEO's "moral" obligation to his or her stockholders. We will fight the diminution of OUR economic welfare, but I think we feel little moral obligation to the welfare of workers in other countries, especially when THEIR gains are at the expense of workers in OUR country (this is assuming, of course, a zero-sum situation). I oppose NAFTA in good part because I know and care about a number of Mexican peasant farmers who have suffered from it. But regarding the poor elsewhere I am inclined to give their plight no more than an occasional moment of "theoretical" thought.

Economics has no interest in morality. I think that most people agree with your position. I find it difficult not to take the same attitude. Moral principles and reason can be a big pain in the rear.

Yes, that's the problem. Profits are the sole motivation. There may well be financial gains for the workers in China & India as a result of globalisation but at what cost, for example, to the environment?

I think that most criticisms of the economic disparities in America have to do with SOCIAL, rather than economic, justice. Such critics want to modify the rules of the game, as it were, a game that favors certain kinds of personality structures. We tend to forget that there are many talented, responsible, energetic people who are simply not constructed psychologically to live the life of capitalistic competition. Consequently, they tend to be less successful, ECONOMICALLY, and there are people who are willing to work hard but who lack the skills and maybe intelligence. In other words, capitalism selects for certain kinds of people; it produces BOTH successes and (relative) failures. If the rules of the economic game were changed, the new system (say a socialist system) might select for people with different kinds of personality structure. This might be a shift in value from competitive individualists to cooperative communalists.
The success of the former type is not absolutely valid as is the success of certain kinds of animals for food niches. Human competition does not occur in a jungle; it occurs within a legal system. Therefore, the laws underlying the American capitallist system, with its emphasis on private property is an artificial man-made system. I consider this is a basis for viewing the mega-rich as obligated to the society which contains a system favoring their abilities, personalities and interests.

Re: Globalism and morality


Is the standard of living of other Americans more important to you than the standards of living of other human beings? Why?

If your concern is about your own standard of living, then it's a question of selfishness vs philanthropy.

If your concern is because you value Americans more highly than other people, then it's a matter of nationalism (if not racism or xenophobia) vs humanism.

Eorl

I think that a bull's-eye target might be useful for thinking about the human capacity to be concerned about fellow humans. The further you move from the center, which might be considered as our immediate family, the less intense our concern becomes. If we go past the nation there is little concern left regardless of ethnic or other considerations.

Likewise in the matter of time.