At 01:58 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:58:12 -0500
From: tjpa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Gulag?
On Nov 27, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Adil Godrej wrote:
> Obviously, the whole thing is quite complicated, specially when you
> add in those people who cannot afford to be ethical if they are to
> survive. Let's take the much-maligned WalMart. Many people who work
> there also shop there because that's what they can afford. And they
> work there because that may be the best job they could get. Waving
> the ethical banner at people who are living on the edge isn't very
> ethical in itself (think about that!). Once you get them off the
> edge, then go ahead and wave that banner. That (living on the edge),
> however, is not an excuse that those in power can use. What's their
> excuse for not helping others?
The "cannot afford to be ethical" concept is totally false.
Does one rush out to snatch the baby from out of the path of the
rushing car? Does one run into the burning house to save grandma?
According to what you hare written, the answer is "Hell no!" I have
to respond to you with "Hell no!"
Oh, I agree that one must snatch the baby and save grandma. If you
are willing to actually help the people, then go ahead and wave the
ethical banner all you want. But, if grandma is in a burning house,
it doesn't help her to tell her she should not have been in the house
because it was made of non-renewable wood. Or telling a starving
child that he shouldn't eat that corn because it was produced with
pesticides. Unless you are willing to help that child, you cannot
afford to wag your finger. That's what I said. Believe me, I have
seen plenty of dire poverty and starvation up close to know that
those who are starving don't need sermons on ethics, but assistance.
You are talking about assisting these people (saving grandma), and I
have no quarrel with that.
A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has
one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he
"cannot afford to be ethical" in those circumstances. Telling him
that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that
is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are
people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to
be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should
I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, "hell no". Let
there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then
talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires
sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it
surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as
those who are better off?
I prefer to be on the side of those who would raise the lot of the
poor so that they can actually exercise their ethics. First, find
that starving person some ethically grown food. Raise his standard of
living so that he can exercise his ethics. Then you are welcome to
criticize him if he still goes for the GM stuff. Your examples of
those rushing to snatch the baby and save grandma are examples of
people who would help first. I hope that most rational people would
do the same.
I hope you now understand what I meant when I said "cannot afford to
be ethical". It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that
they have no time for ethics. Should a person not work at WalMart if
it results in his family becoming homeless due to a lack of a job?
Fortunately for me, I earn enough so that that is not a question I
need worry about: I don't patronize WalMart. But I don't believe in
being patronizing to those who would patronize WalMart, unless I am
willing to actually do something, as opposed to talking about, it.
Dictators who starve their people (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc.) know
that a starving man is too busy surviving to care about what is being
done to others, let alone be able to do something about ousting the
dictator. Yes, there are some who rise above that and create
resistance to the abusive rule, but there are very few who succeed in
the dictator's lifetime. If North Korea sends food that it has kept
from its own starving people to Sudan, should a starving Sudanese man
not eat it because it would be unethical? That man doesn't really
care where the food came from and "cannot afford to be ethical". You
and I can afford to care about where the food came from. But what are
you and I going to do about it? That's the question.
Adil
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
