tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post116634490902662615..comments2023-11-03T06:36:27.305-04:00Comments on Phronesisaical: Peter Singer on Foreign Aidhelmuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1167549012758018842006-12-31T02:10:00.000-05:002006-12-31T02:10:00.000-05:00Thomas Pogge Thanks Helmut I'll look into thatThomas Pogge Thanks Helmut I'll look into thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166491735471714822006-12-18T20:28:00.000-05:002006-12-18T20:28:00.000-05:00was anon - the kind of blackmail on aid you're tal...was anon - the kind of blackmail on aid you're talking about is as much structurally international as it is a function of a corrupt dictator. I posted somewhere earlier about this. Look for Thomas Pogge's work.helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166476639527656882006-12-18T16:17:00.000-05:002006-12-18T16:17:00.000-05:00I think in-kind service would be better. And perha...I think in-kind service would be better. And perhaps a large number of u-hauls. <BR/><BR/>Far too large a percentage of the hungry are in that state do to this or that militia controlling the food supply and using aid as a weapon.<BR/><BR/>Giving for aid in the short-term is a good thing, but if the suffering is not the result of drought or famine etc. (i.e., "natural"), the only moral thing to do is to provide security clean water, power, and cultivation tools. <BR/><BR/>This may require partition of old colonial boundaries to more closely align to tribal settlement patterns (genocide being a "very bad thing").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166447911567553422006-12-18T08:18:00.000-05:002006-12-18T08:18:00.000-05:00Right. The problem is not which number is best. Ev...Right. The problem is not which number is best. Even determining "best" there is largely going to be a moral question, beyond the ken of economists. <BR/><BR/>The point is the basic moral argument. The point of me bringing up the numbers is that once the moral argument holds, you then also see how little we actually do, though we think quite highly of ourselves.helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166409594307292092006-12-17T21:39:00.000-05:002006-12-17T21:39:00.000-05:00The issue for me is not determining an exact figur...The issue for me is not determining an exact figure but understanding the hegemonic roots of all those false assumptions.If I believe 20% of the budget is already going to aid and all the propaganda about wasteand corruption in aid system I end up using "freedom"cynically like the cabby to be stingy.<BR/><BR/>The real issue, of course,is why should there even be a need for charity.Replace moral obligation with real justice and "power to prevent" with distributing power equally.Now everyone is sharing the hunger as well as the bounty.Of course I miss that warm feeling of being oh so generous.troutskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16020298501632120830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166383296521208142006-12-17T14:21:00.000-05:002006-12-17T14:21:00.000-05:00Should we? We're still talking about a mystery. Wh...Should we? We're still talking about a mystery. Why should we? Because the average man on the street (though not a taxi driver selected at random) appear to regard 0.7% as too small. What if the best economists say 0.0000000000001% is just right? Then the moral "ought" Singer's proved is trivial. Makes me want to boo the man off stage and cry out for an economist.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166375186135494202006-12-17T12:06:00.000-05:002006-12-17T12:06:00.000-05:00Once you show the simplicity of the moral issue, t...Once you show the simplicity of the moral issue, then you move to policy. That's where the question becomes one of establishing numbers and percentages. But these are also bounded by the realities of the problems we face. We're talking about a fairly small range in relation to the problems. That is, if it were estimated (to make up a number) that $800 billion would solve the problem of global hunger, and that number is achievable by a 2% increase in giving or, say, resource taxes, then shouldn't we do it?helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1166373452487355692006-12-17T11:37:00.000-05:002006-12-17T11:37:00.000-05:00He's like a mathematician proving that something m...He's like a mathematician proving that something mysterious is bounded. Great, so it's bounded. 0% is too low. 100% is too high. What great moral problem shall we solve next?MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.com