Is it moral that we do better than most?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is a discussion topic. I have no fixed view to peddle.

Is it possible for 7 Billion people to live as well as I do? I am not rich. I am not poor. I have money troubles but can eat at (cheap) restaurants and own a car.

Is it possible?

This is something that always crosses my mind when people talk about not exporting jobs or buying American. Are we supposed to protect our own standard of living?

Do I have a highly moral obligation to an American stranger I will never meet who lives 3,000 miles away? I think I have Canada, Mexico and most of the Caribbean closer to me than Oregon.

This is not a call to throw in the towel on the US of A. It's a troubling moral background hum.

How do we rationalize our nationalism?

Serious question.

I know I must rationalize my nationalism somehow, but it's not a well developed rationale in my mind.

[potone]

1. I think you are confusing nationalism with patriotism.

I do think that we owe something to our fellow citizens, for we all share this country and if we let huge sections of our populace sink into poverty and despair the societal costs will be enormous. That is not to say that we don't also have a responsibility to the rest of the world--in particular to stop bullying and exploiting other countries and to learn to live in a more responsible way in regards to the environment and the livability of the planet. Just my Sunday morning thoughts.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

The natural resources of the earth could not sustain say 4

Americas.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Dupe

[Sparkly]

3. I think the rationalization is...

... that we have to put on our national oxygen mask before we can help other countries with theirs.

(Yes, I realize there's a world of irony in that.)

[Jim__]

4. How do you define morality?

Many people, including me, consider morality to be an element of evolution. In my view, morality is a system for helping to insure that we continue to survive. We can extend our definition to say that all of humanity belongs to our group; but, I'm not sure that all of humanity sharing resources equally, is the best way to insure the survival of humanity.

My first thought is that it is moral for some to do better than others. That may be a form of insurance that humanity will survive. If we all share everything equally, there will only be one system, and any weakness in that system can doom us all.

My view doesn't preclude helping other groups; it does preclude forcefully taking since that is extremely dangerous to our survival. I just think that having multiple ways of living, multiple cultures, is a net plus for humanity. Inherent in having multiple cultures is having resources distributed unevenly.

Peter Singer has written on questions like the one you're asking, e.g. Practical Ethics. My view is only based on some quick thoughts this morning and not on his books.