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.
I am not trolling. You and the other poster have repeatedly stated your position -- that charity should start at home, more or less -- repeatedly. That is not the same thing as explaining why charity should start at home. Pointing to feelings that we all have about our country such as eating a hot dog on July 4 doesn't explain why such feelings should lead to us preferring to take care of Americans first.
Saying the majority of people feel that way doesn't answer that question, and saying you choose to care about people who are similar to you doesn't answer that question.
Moral beliefs should ultimately be explainable by their relation to basic moral propositions. For example, I could explain why torturing puppies for fun is wrong by pointing out that it causes great suffering without some corresponding, large benefit. Since we should seek to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, causing great suffering for no good reason is wrong. So far, your responses about why we should prefer Americans have just been statements about feelings we have or the normal practices of people. They haven't tied the act of preferring Americans to any sort of basic moral beliefs that would provide genuine explanation.
Just to be as clear as possible, let me concoct an example: Let's say you ask me why alcohol sales should be banned on Sundays, and I say that Sundays have always had a special place in American society. I also say that many people consider Sunday to be an especially important spiritual day, and that many other businesses are closed on Sundays. Have I actually explained why alcohol shouldn't be sold on Sundays? Of course not. The things I've said are true -- Sunday is a spiritual day, it does have a special place in society and many other businesses are closed on Sundays. But even though those things are true, they don't actually answer the question of why alcohol shouldn't be sold on Sundays. Your explanations about Americans being cut from the same cloth or the patriotic feelings we all share are certainly accurate statements, but they don't explain why I should give more consideration to the experiences of Americans than those of foreigners.
We need an emojo of someone beating a dead horse..........
So if there was a .00000001% chance someone you care about could be harmed by letting in refugees, you'd want to keep them out, even if it meant 10,000 of them died?
Why would you deprive those 10,000 from having an opportunity to turn their lives around in their own country? thereby creating new opportunities for others that could turn their Situation that resulted in them wanting to be refugees into a positive that could help everyone?
I gave up on "morality" on a river in Asia some 50 years ago. I learned the immediate goal was to stay alive so you could try to keep your buddies alive. You did what was necessary. All else was and still is BS.
Now some 50 years later I have not changed my definition of morality very much. You take care of yourself, your family and your friends first. The fate of millions caught is some geopolitical duel over oil in some **** hole in Arabia is not my, and by extension, our country's problem. If Iran (Shia) and the Saudi (Sunni) want to exterminate each other that is not my concern. It is also not our responsibility to be more than slightly concerned with the refugees so long as we keep them and their religion out of Europe and the Americas.
FWIW - I also have very little concern for self reverential urban "Cosmopolitan culture". They live in their own world and we should just sit back and watch.
finally. A KISS answer. I agree,and this is Reality.........the OP is in another world..........one that may or may not exist in the far future.
So if there was a .00000001% chance someone you care about could be harmed by letting in refugees, you'd want to keep them out, even if it meant 10,000 of them died?
What if there's a 100% chance that a percentage of those being let in will not assimilate? That there will be crimes against our people? That they'll target Jews and homosexuals? That some of our women will be either sexually assaulted or harassed for the way they dress and look?
I'm sorry, but I believe our government should always - ALWAYS - put America and Americans first.
If you feel this is a moral dilemma, why aren't you going after the Gulf States who have refused to take in their own?
That's it. But,I want one approved by city data.....they have a habit of deleting just about anything that is not PC.........that would probably offend some horse lovers.........
What makes you think there are not a lot of people here who are "cosmopolitan" .
Just for instances. I volunteered to fight in Vietnam to help the south Vietnamese gain their independence.
If that is not going out of my way and sacrificing to aid other poor people in this world then what is? By the way there were 2 million American military people in Country doing the same thing.
If that one does not suit you......I married a Filipina woman who had an 8 year old daughter. Brought her to this country,helped her become a permanent resident,and a citizen. This cost many thousands of dollars by the way. Before I go any further, my wife is very against any Illegal immigrants. She feels as I do that they should do it legally and go through the entire lengthy and difficult process as she has.Just giving them citizenship without the nightmare of government red tape and the very high costs, is a slap in any honest LEGAL immigrants face.
As to the "sacrificing" for the others on this planet that need help........we both send any spare money and clothing,Household items,ETC. that we can to the Philippines. We are both helping our daughter to try to go through college also.I also have two other daughters who were unemployed for very long periods of time.
So OP. Just what SPECIFICALLY is your definition of a "cosmopolitan" person???
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.
What if there's a 100% chance that a percentage of those being let in will not assimilate? That there will be crimes against our people? That they'll target Jews and homosexuals? That some of our women will be either sexually assaulted or harassed for the way they dress and look?
I'm sorry, but I believe our government should always - ALWAYS - put America and Americans first.
Then should be locked up and charged with a hate crime like anyone else if they target a specific group.
Women are already sexually assaulted and harassed for the way the dress and look. One of those kind is running for president.
Quote:
If you feel this is a moral dilemma, why aren't you going after the Gulf States who have refused to take in their own?
Because it's kinda like that whole Catholic vs Protestant thing...
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.
You need balance. You also need reciprocation.
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.
.
