I listened to a professor of Ethics from Princeton U. on the radio today. He was suggesting that we have a moral obligation to alleviate "world poverty". This suggests or assumes that world poverty can be alleviated, and also suggests that the only moral question is one of poverty.
These "moral universalists" impose thier views or convictions on others, just as much as those who want to legislate their personal moral convictions, say, about gay marriage, or abortion. Laws are made to impose moral action. Those with religious convictions are of course divided as to what is of most importance, in a world that is filled with complex issues.
Our nation has been generous in humanitarian aid, but that aid has been limited by immoral governments. Government determine, control and demand certain actions, while prohibiting and limiting others. A moral government must not limit individual choice, otherwise, it becomes a dominating, limiting, and oppressive government. Our nation has given 2%, while most other nations have given much less.
Social moralists are socialistic and Marxist in ideological commitments. These ideological commitments are regimes that make us all poor. This is proven historically.
Moral outrage should never drive our policy or legislation. But, these "moral universalists" demand that others have the same conviction and commitment and, Ulitmately, the same political view of implementation. "Welcome to "globalism"...
Moral univeralism limits personal responsibility and hinders freedom of expression and opinion. Governments then become "run" or led by those whose views are uniform, which ultimately makes for a communistic view of governing.
Diverse views promote and allow academic freedom, individual and personal freedom, and benefits man through creative ways of taking responsibility for their own life in innovative ways of making a living. Otherwise, the free market is limited, by government controls, and demands, which limits productivity and the ability to produce and to give.
Marxism has never led to the betterment of mankind, but in a world that is seeking for a way to understand altruism in an evolutionary world, there are no easy answers. But, usually, these believe that man must be responsible in planning how altrusim should be developed. Self interest is the epitome of "social sin".
Although I do not condone pursuing the "Almighty Dollar", pursuit is a relative term. Absolutism in the domain of morality is nothing less than domination by government control, which is immoral itself, as there must be moral choice and responsibility for there to be any moral value!
Petra: Go For A Camel Ride Later?
15 hours ago