On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thomas Pogge makes a very good case for the ethical and moral burden > and undeniable culpability of the rich in keeping the poor poor, in > his GRD paper from 2001: > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002063.pdf > and http://www.hughlafollette.com/eip3/global.resources.dividend.pdf > > The UN is sitting on very solid proposals worth about a couple of > hundred billion dollars at the maximum end that if implemented are > broad spectrum solutions for ending poverty, and not just a token > promise. It would require the money of course, and more importantly > the will of the western governments to implement and enforce the law > and order during implementation of the ideas. >
i think what he is proposing is practically impossible. it would require a change in the total perception of what morality is. presently morality is something reactionary - e.g. you see images of starving people and you react to those images. the outrage is not directed at perhaps the institution that caused it, but more on 'people must not starve'. This is why you dont see countries being invaded because their populations are starving because of an incompetent government, but instead you see the opposite, countries being invaded because of a perceived threat or for something of economic value. This is also why a terrorist attack affecting 50 people causes greater outrage than the failure to provide clean drinking water to 1000s of people. its much easier to identify with 50 people and their stories , and is thus considered a much greater fault , than the similarly negative consequences endured by 1000s of people because of unsafe water. i think its impossible for the population and nations at large to empathise and introspect on morality.
