- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Why do so many progressives ignore sexist/homophobic atrocities in Muslim countri
Why? What is different about the constitution of human beings outside of the US that makes them worth less ethically? How is the pain and suffering of someone in India less bad than of someone in Ohio? There was a time when tribalism served an important survival purpose, but in modern times it's just an enabler (if not outright cause) for a lot of suffering in the world that should be avoided (see: our history of black slavery).
Clearly. But if such tribalist views are irrational - and they are - then it's definitely a bad thing as it's leading us to ignore a great deal of suffering in the world that shouldn't be ignored.
Right but almost nobody would disagree with this. We have expanding spheres of ethical obligation according to our spheres of control. We have the most influence over ourselves and our close family/friends, so we have the most obligation to them. Then co-workers and neighbors. Then local community and so on. There was a time when people had almost zero influence over what was happening on the other side of the world. This is still largely true but the technology connecting the world and driving globalism is changing this. As voters in the most powerful nation in the world we have more power to influence, say, what's happening to people in Syria than, say, a peasant in medieval Europe would have had over what was happening in China at the time.
But this an entirely different view than supposing what happens to people in Africa doesn't matter. On the contrary it acknowledges that it does matter but that we don't have the reach to help.
I fully admit to tribalism. Not only do I care more about my tribe, I consider it fully superior to other tribes. What people are doing to each other in Africa, Europe, Asia, the ME, I care very little about. What we are doing to each other in the US, I care alot about.
Why? What is different about the constitution of human beings outside of the US that makes them worth less ethically? How is the pain and suffering of someone in India less bad than of someone in Ohio? There was a time when tribalism served an important survival purpose, but in modern times it's just an enabler (if not outright cause) for a lot of suffering in the world that should be avoided (see: our history of black slavery).
I do not consider that a bad thing.
Clearly. But if such tribalist views are irrational - and they are - then it's definitely a bad thing as it's leading us to ignore a great deal of suffering in the world that shouldn't be ignored.
We do have to prioritize and use resources where they will do the most good.
Right but almost nobody would disagree with this. We have expanding spheres of ethical obligation according to our spheres of control. We have the most influence over ourselves and our close family/friends, so we have the most obligation to them. Then co-workers and neighbors. Then local community and so on. There was a time when people had almost zero influence over what was happening on the other side of the world. This is still largely true but the technology connecting the world and driving globalism is changing this. As voters in the most powerful nation in the world we have more power to influence, say, what's happening to people in Syria than, say, a peasant in medieval Europe would have had over what was happening in China at the time.
But this an entirely different view than supposing what happens to people in Africa doesn't matter. On the contrary it acknowledges that it does matter but that we don't have the reach to help.