America First vs. Cosmopolitanism (dollars, politicians, terrorism, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When it comes to trade me and Chen Li are better off when we can trade with each other with as little government interference as possible. What the American Foolsters always forget is the consumer.
Would you willingly be unemployed yourself so a refugee could have a job? If you knew that one of your loved ones would die in a refugee terrorist attack would you still have the same stance? A significant percent of prime age Americans can not find a job, is it moral to bring in 400k people and give them jobs while people are jobless?
You are likely an affluent, young, White Liberal who would sacrifice nothing to bring in 400k refugees yet you will call people who would have to sacrifice "racist". To you it would mean more ethnic restaurant options, to other people it means having to stay on welfare rather than working. People like you are why I left the Democrat Party. The real reason you want open borders has nothing to do with helping anyone, it's because you know open borders would mean Democrats would win every election for the rest of time.
1. I never advocated open borders.
2. If my being unemployed meant someone else in the world wouldn't starve to death or die from preventable disease, yes, I would do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Agreed.
Perhaps you should point out where someone has actually explained why we should care more about Americans than foreigners. I'm referring to actual answers, not merely true facts that don't actually lead to the conclusion that Americans should come first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvr789
The "why" is survival.
In your example, you want to take the life of 25 Americans in exchange for saving 400 Syrians.
So, let's say you ascribe to this cosmopolitan theory and therefore you give your life, your kids lives and your extended families lives (up to a total of 25) so that the 400 Syrains live.
Fine, you feel morally vindicated but You Are Dead. The people and gene pool that didn't ascribe to this cosmopolitan moral code are alive. They win, they have babies, they rule the world. Not you.
I am a mom with two young kids. I will tell you that once your babies are born you WILL have a primal instinct to keep them safe and alive. I would find it VERY hard to think of a situation where I would kill my 2 innocent children so that 3 children in Syria would live. I want no child to die but first and foremost my instinct is to keep my kids alive.
And if you think the human race has evolved enough so we don't need these kinds of instincts anymore, you are wrong.
Imagine I am standing with twenty other people on a sidewalk watching a house burn down. We then learn that there are four small children inside. The twenty other people are unwilling to go in to save the children because they are afraid they might die. By your logic, I shouldn't go in because, even if I save the four kids, I might die. The people and gene pool that didn't value heroism would be alive to have babies and rule the world.
Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?
Furthermore, there is a big difference between saying we should sacrifice our own children so strangers across the world can live and saying we simply shouldn't value strangers across the country more than strangers across the world.
This.
It's a simple and widely understood theorem.
No man is an island, grouping is natural and necessary for survival at an atomic level on up.
I think my OP is clearly a serious piece of reflection, so even if you don't agree, there's hardly grounds to call me a troll.
I agree that your point is simple, but the problem is not an issue of complexity. The problem is one of justification. I also agree that many people agree with your view, but that doesn't lead us to the conclusion that it is correct.
I also agree that grouping is natural -- I said just as much in my OP. However, in today's world, it's very hard to argue that the sort of grouping I'm discussing in this thread is necessary for our survival.
I believe "America First" to be a dangerous ideology. I believe it relies on the natural "in group vs. out group" tendencies of many people -- tendencies that are likely evolutionary remnants from our tribal days.
So you don't believe in taking care of your family first? Same concept.
You can't take care of others if your own financial house is a mess
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,460,386 times
Reputation: 12187
The real problem is that the global super rich are hording huge amounts of money. My big problem with the OP is that they are punishing working class people in the West who did nothing to create poverty in the Developing World. Who is more responsible for poverty in Africa, the CEOs of Big Oil or a mechanic in Youngstown Ohio? CEOs of Big Banks or a farmer in Kansas?
The solution should be to force the super rich to share more money with the world's poorest people so they don't have to immigrate. Most people in the world simply want to live where they were born and live the same life as their parents and grandparents, they don't dream of being a refugee transplant in the USA. To be frank most religious Muslims don't want to live in non Muslim countries because their religion is also a govt system, in effect you can't be a 'true Muslim' in land dominated by non Muslims.
I am cosmopolitan in that I do care about all human beings. But I understand that there are many different religions and ways of life that make it very hard for there to be no borders and universal govt. What legal system would satisfy a vegan Hindu and a native American tribe that eats fish and seals every day? Europeans believe lack of clothing frees a woman, Muslims believe a woman modestly covered is freed from men's gazes. Until there is a universal belief system among all people borders prevent conflict.
1.
Imagine I am standing with twenty other people on a sidewalk watching a house burn down. We then learn that there are four small children inside. The twenty other people are unwilling to go in to save the children because they are afraid they might die. By your logic, I shouldn't go in because, even if I save the four kids, I might die. The people and gene pool that didn't value heroism would be alive to have babies and rule the world.
Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?
Furthermore, there is a big difference between saying we should sacrifice our own children so strangers across the world can live and saying we simply shouldn't value strangers across the country more than strangers across the world.
I answered your question of why, I didn't say it was the most moral solution in abstract terms. In your second example above, you are still likely dead and the other people are living. There is no flaw to my logic that people who protect themselves first are more likely to survive than people who abstractly think of some greater good when it comes to their life.
With regard to choosing another American's life vs. lets say a Syrians life (per your example, not mine). Part of living in this country and enjoying the protection it provides is putting your countryman first b/c you have shared values and have made an agreement to live in peace, under shared rules and to protect each other. To my knowledge we have no such agreement with Syria and the value structures are very different which makes living in peace more difficult.
He wants to do something that's already being done?
Just out of curiosity, how effective do you think any kind of background check on your average Syrian refugees is?
Who exactly do you check with, what records are accessable, etc?
I believe "America First" to be a dangerous ideology. I believe it relies on the natural "in group vs. out group" tendencies of many people -- tendencies that are likely evolutionary remnants from our tribal days.
First, America First posits that an improvement of any kind in America is a worthy pursuit, regardless of what corresponding damage it might cause in another country. For example, let's imagine that it is actually true that a very small percentage of Syrian refugees are terrorists, and if we let in 400,000 refugees, 25 additional Americans will die from terrorism. However, let's also imagine that, if we do not let in those 400,000 refugees, 400 of them will die from famine, disease, violence, etc. The America First ideology says that we should not let in the refugees because it will cause 25 Americans to die, but that inherently values the life of an American as being 16 times more important (in the scenario I've concocted) than the life of a Syrian. This seems inherently immoral.
Second, America First doesn't properly value improvement in other parts of the world. Agreements like NAFTA and TPP unquestionably increase the standard of living of people living in other parts of the world. This increase in standard of living likely far exceeds the harm done in the form of job losses in the US because the people who are employed in other countries due to these agreements were much poorer and worse-off than the Americans who lose their jobs will be. America First ignores these considerations completely.
The evolutionary history of humans has been one of ever-expanding "in groups." Our group loyalties likely originated when our own safety was heavily dependent upon cooperating with those near us to resist enemies. We were stronger in groups than we would have been alone. However, we aren't on the savanna anymore. We have no good reason to value the life of a person in Ohio more than we value the life of a person in Shenzhen.
America First is immoral because its value system inherently leads us to conclusions that are unethical. Cosmopolitanism is a virtue, and as moral agents we should value things like flourishing and happiness and oppose things like suffering regardless of the nationality of the person experiencing these things.
I take it, you were not born and raised in rural America, or even America for that matter.
Perhaps you should point out where someone has actually explained why we should care more about Americans than foreigners. I'm referring to actual answers, not merely true facts that don't actually lead to the conclusion that Americans should come first.
I did in post #36, not that I expected it would interrupt your fun time shouting "Why?" at everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
