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 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.
..lol...believe and say what you want, this is america..... you are able to do that here...try doing that in 'shenzhen....lol
What does that have to do with my post? How does the fact that people in Shenzhen may have fewer rights than I do imply that I should value the lives of people in Shenzhen less than the lives of people in America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel
It's pretty basic in any country to favor your own.
If by "basic" you mean common, yes I agree. That isn't justification for that practice, though. We have no good reason to care more about strangers across the country than we do strangers across the world.
"Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds. The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”
This species is racially diverse (within limits) and eager to assimilate the fun-seeming bits of foreign cultures — food, a touch of exotic spirituality. But no less than Brexit-voting Cornish villagers, our global citizens think and act as members of a tribe. …
They can’t see that paeans to multicultural openness can sound like self-serving cant coming from open-borders Londoners who love Afghan restaurants but would never live near an immigrant housing project, or American liberals who hail the end of whiteness while doing everything possible to keep their kids out of majority-minority schools.
They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world."
"Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds. The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”
This species is racially diverse (within limits) and eager to assimilate the fun-seeming bits of foreign cultures — food, a touch of exotic spirituality. But no less than Brexit-voting Cornish villagers, our global citizens think and act as members of a tribe. …
They can’t see that paeans to multicultural openness can sound like self-serving cant coming from open-borders Londoners who love Afghan restaurants but would never live near an immigrant housing project, or American liberals who hail the end of whiteness while doing everything possible to keep their kids out of majority-minority schools.
They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world."
"Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds. The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”
This species is racially diverse (within limits) and eager to assimilate the fun-seeming bits of foreign cultures — food, a touch of exotic spirituality. But no less than Brexit-voting Cornish villagers, our global citizens think and act as members of a tribe. …
They can’t see that paeans to multicultural openness can sound like self-serving cant coming from open-borders Londoners who love Afghan restaurants but would never live near an immigrant housing project, or American liberals who hail the end of whiteness while doing everything possible to keep their kids out of majority-minority schools.
They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world."
I can't read the entire article because I've used up all of my free NYT reads, so I can only respond to the section you quoted. However, this seems to be more of a critique about the people who claim the title "cosmopolitan" than cosmopolitanism itself. Besides, even if we only say we care about "cosmopolitanism lite," such as simply generally valuing all humans equally, America First fails. Perhaps those who claim to be cosmopolitans really aren't so cosmopolitan, but that doesn't seem to refute the idea that pursuing policies which benefit Americans while producing greater offsetting harm elsewhere conflicts with what our moral ambitions should be.
Sorry I care about my own brothers and sisters first. Let the asian continent take these people in. Look at France, nobody wants that here. We have our own problems to deal with first.
Sorry I care about my own brothers and sisters first. Let the asian continent take these people in. Look at France, nobody wants that here. We have our own problems to deal with first.
Who said anything about your brothers and sisters? I'm talking about strangers who are 1,000 miles away versus strangers who are 8,000 miles away.
Why should I care more about the plight of a person I've never met if that person lives in Kentucky than if that person lives in Canada or Belize?
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.
Per the bolded ---How can you be serious? NAFTA harmed many people who lost out when their jobs left this country. And you say that's okay? I bet you were one of those who callously told all those factory workers that it was their fault that they are out of work because they didn't go to college or trade school. You then told them to go get training. Many went back to school to learn IT only to have their jobs get outsourced or they were displaced by H1-B visa holders.
If the TPP passes, it will devastate this country even more. I know---you are smug when it comes to your own job. You think that your job won't get outsourced nor will you be replaced by a visa holder or a legal or illegal immigrant. When it does happen to you, will you gleefully smile and say "It's okay. My job went to someone in another country who is worse off than I am."?
Charity starts at home. It means we take care of our own first and foremost. If there is anything left over, we then help legal immigrants. Would you move several people into your home then feed, clothe, shelter and pay for their medical care while your own family gets neglected and suffers?
BTW, this thread belongs in the P&OC forum.
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.
