I've been away from the television for the past few days. I can't complain. The still images of death and destruction in Haiti are bad enough. I don't need the moving pictures, played on a loop on the cable networks, to reinforce the depressing picture. Television creates the illusion that it's a small world. It's not. Haiti may be on America's doorstep, but it's far from me--and my help (sympathy doesn't count as help). I'm reminded of Tom Fleming's excellent book, The Morality of Everyday Life: "To love the whole world, we must begin by loving our parents, our spouse, and our children. Charity, so it is said, begins at home. It then radiates outward in ever broader and weaker concentric rings until it encompasses the widest human horizons a person is willing to acknowledge. For Edward Banfield's Calabrians, this may be the village; for many moderns, it may be the nation; and there may even be saints capable of loving the entire human race. But if such general love is not based on more specific and local attachments, it amounts to little more than whim, a narcissistic love that basks in its own superiority without acknowledging the personhood of other human beings." Pray for Haiti.

"James Rachels (1941-2003) on Moral Monstrousness

'Jack Palance, who refuses to hand a sandwich to a starving child, is a moral monster. But we feel intuitively that we are not so monstrous, even though we also let starving children die when we could feed them almost as easily. If this intuition is correct, there must be some important difference between him and us. But when we examine the most obvious differences between his conduct and ours—the location of the dying, the differences in numbers—we find no real basis for judging ourselves less harshly than we judge him. Perhaps there are some other grounds on which we might distinguish our moral position, with respect to actual starving people, from Jack Palance's position with respect to the child in my story. But I cannot think of what they might be. Therefore, I conclude that if he is a monster, then so are we—or at least, so are we after our rationalizations and thoughtlessness have been exposed.'

According to Rachels, the following three propositions are incompatible:

1. There is no morally relevant difference between Jack Palance and us.

2. Jack Palance is a moral monster.

3. We are not moral monsters.

Rachels rejects 3. Which proposition do you reject?"
-http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/james-rachels-19412000-on-moral-monstrousness.html

One cannot dismiss the problem of worldwide starvation (or suffering), either at home, Haiti, or elsewhere, so easily, if one wants to not behave like a selfish ethical egoist. If we have the technical and resource capacity to improve a situation (ie providing for the subsistence needs of each precious human being), then it follows that we (or the institutions we support, public and private) would have a moral duty to do so. Whether you want to ignore that moral imperative or wish it away so that you can look at yourself in the mirror is up to you.

Praying is great, but if God wanted to help people it could regardless of prayer, and according to mainstream Judeo-Christian doctrines God would require sacrifice from those who have the capacity to help or improve a situation, or face its judgment. Luckily for people like Rick Warren and Mark Sanford, and other fornicating money changers, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

You trully suck NMA.

"If we have the technical and resource capacity to improve a situation (ie providing for the subsistence needs of each precious human being), then it follows that we (or the institutions we support, public and private) would have a mora duty to do so."

In a few words, we don't have the technical or resource capacity to provide for the subsistence needs of each precious human being. In fact, we don't have the capacity to do much to assist Haita right now. At least not without neglecting the needs of our own people. Also, the Marines, air craft carrier, and other troops being deployed to Haiti would be better used to defend Aemrica.

Furthermore, we don't have the money to undertake this humanitarian mission either. The funds either have to be borrowed from China, printed by Government printing presses thus lowering the value of the dollar even more, or the funds need to be diverted from badly needed infrastructure projects here in America.

By allocating those resources elsewhere and neglecting our own the government is being immoral. The Government's first moral imperative is in looking out for the interests of the American people that it is supposed to represent. There are plenty of worthy humanitarian projects right here in America that the Government can undertake. If Mother Theresa were alive today and she lived in America, there would be plenty of needy people she could assist all without ever leaving the United States.

Since we have neither the technical nor resource capability feed Haiti much less every human being, we have no moral imperative to do so. In fact, to attempt this project in Haiti is immoral because it means neglecting our own needy people. In addition, the troops being deployed to Haiti may compromise our national security interests, as it would have greater utility for those interests if those forces were deployed along America's borders or in America's coastal waters defending the country.

Rick Warren is an evangelist and pastor of a church. He's not particularly significant. I'm not sure who Mark Sanford is. I doubt he is very significant either.

In any event, these men have nothing to do with the Haitian situation. As such, no useful purpose is served by mentioning these men in this context. Furthermore, the fornicating money changer charge will have to be proven but again the personal lives of these men have nothing to do with the present situation and it serves no useful purpose to mention them.

Finally, praying for Haiti is the best advice someone can give. Perhaps God will see fit to provide us with resources to help here or perhaps he will see fit to bless the hands of the aid workers as they help the Haitians rebuild their country. In additon, perhaps God will prosper the works of the Haitian people themselves and that they would successfully rebuild their nation. My prayers are with them.

B.Poster wrote,
"Also, the Marines, air craft carrier, and other troops being deployed to Haiti would be better used to defend Aemrica."

What? How the hell is a Marine aircraft carrier going to defend the continental US from a terror attack?

B.Poster wrote,
"In a few words, we don't have the technical or resource capacity to provide for the subsistence needs of each precious human being."

According to Devinder Sharma,

"Well, let’s be, first, very clear. You know, there is no shortage of food in the world. You know, we have about 6.7 billion people on the earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. There’s no shortage. It’s only that one part of the world is eating more, and one part of the world is starving. And I think that’s a distribution problem, the critical problem that we need to address."

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/14/as_us_and_other_wealthy_nations

So with regard to the subsistence need of food, you're absolutely incorrect.

B.Poster wrote,
"Since we have neither the technical nor resource capability feed Haiti much less every human being, we have no moral imperative to do so."

Devinder Sharma already addressed this ignorance.

B.Poster wrote,
"Rick Warren is an evangelist and pastor of a church. He's not particularly significant. I'm not sure who Mark Sanford is. I doubt he is very significant either."

Mark Sanford was head of the Republican Governors Association, and was floated as a possible 2012 presidential contender. He fornicated with an Argentinian woman on the taxpayer dime.

Rick Warren gave the Obama inauguration invocation and is a multi-millionaire author of books and rakes in millions from his megachurch Saddleback. He also hosted a discussion with Obama and McCain (separately) during the campaign.

In short, you completely failed to address James Rachels proposition AND you made totally false claims about the world's resource and technical capacity to provide for the subsistence needs of every person.

PMA,

How does an aircraft carrier defend the American homeland? It does so the same way they are used to provide for the defense of other countries. They can be used to monitor the skies off of the country's water ways, as well the waterways themselves. Also, as I understand it, they may have the ability to detect submarines in some cases. Some of our enemies, such as Hezbollah, are said to have some type of submarine technology. In any event, there is more than simply terrorists. Russia and China are up and coming enemies of the United States and in many ways their military capabilities surpass those of the United States. As such, sending an air craft carrier to Haiti is not a wise use of this resource. A better use of this asset would be in the defense of America or its interests.

In an attempt to be as brief as possible, Devinder Sharma is wrong. Even if he is correct, the world as a whole may be able to assist Haiti. The United States does not have the resources or the technical capacity to do so at this time without compromising its own just interests. Instead of the entire world, perhaps I should have been more clear in pointing out that we, in America, don't have the capacity.

With regards to Mark Sanford and Rick Warren. Quite a few people write books and make large sums of money and a number of people hold discussions with political candidates even presidential ones.

Mr. Sanford does not have a monoply on this kind of corruption either. This type of corruption permeates both major politcal parties. If we cut Government down to its proper size, there will be less taxpayer dimes to commit such actions with. Given that Democrats control all branches of Government right now the head of the Republican Governors Association is not going to be very nfluential.

Mr. Warren is just one of many best selling offeres who heads one of many churches. In any event, it does seem that either of these men are irrelevant to a discussion on Haiti, however, perhaps as is usually the case Evangelical Christians are in the forefront on assistance when natural disasters occurr. Perhaps if his church or he does something of significane in this regard, he might be rellevant to the discussion. Until such time, there is no relevance.

There is no doubt that there is more than enough food to feed the world each year, but no one wants to because you can't make money off of it.

And I reject 3. There is no reason that we should wait for a disaster like this or the Tsunami, or Chinese earthquakes or famine in Africa to give aid. Apparently both major parties believe you never want a good crisis to go to waste.

There is a proximity effect in our altruism, which goes to show the selfish modus operandi we carry underneath a banner of self-righteousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem

"Russia and China are up and coming enemies of the United States and in many ways their military capabilities surpass those of the United States."

Really? "Russia has to wait for the rise of western economies since it didn’t manage to change its economic model and climb down an oil needle."

http://rt.com/Business/2010-01-15/economic-outlook-2010-forecast.html

And China's yuan is locked into the the dollar. Our survival is their agenda.

To clarify, I have no doubt that our Marines are the best at destroying buildings, eliminating targets, and defending our borders from attack. But any Marines, or aircraft carriers, or other military resources we send are superfluous military resources. We are currently engaged in a war against terrorism. How could one argue against doing so if it ends up saving lives and doesn't leave us more vulnerable to terrorism?

This is the stupidest conversation going, imho. Obviously there is enough manpower and stuff on the globe to allow all humans to live well materially. The major problem is not greed or selfish egoism or the profit motive, blah blah blah. It is the inability of people to live correctly themselves, to organize themselves well, to keep up civilization. Have any of you blowhards talking about global starvation and condemning Americans ever let a homeless man into your house?

Stop it. Stop what? There may well be enough food to feed the entire world but the United States does not produce enough to feed the whole world nor does it have the logisitical capabilities to deliver the food all over the world even if it could produce enough. Other nations would need to step up. The United States is doing all it can. In fact, in order to try and address these problems, the United States is undermining the well fare of its own citizens and compromising its own just interests.

Russia does not have to wait for Western economies to recover. There are many options for Russia to sell its oil to. Russia is not dependent upon Western economies, however, Western economies are dependent upon Russia to supply the oil that make their economies run. The rt.com article like much of what we find in the main stream news media is incorrect.

Actually, China has massive manufacturing capability. If the dollar collapses, this hurts us far worse than it does them, as we would have no way to finance our massive deficits. Also, if China should decide to stop supplying us with manufactured goods, we would be in serious trouble, as we do not have the manufacturing capabilities and lack the ability to bring them online quickly. As such, China's survival is likely America's agenda. China does not need America.

Furthermore, in a conventional military confrontation, America's chances of prevailing are slim and none. America's military planners and China's military planners are no doubt aware of this and are planning accordingly. Likely the only thing keeping the peace is America's nuclear deterrent which the government is allowing to degrade!!

PMA,

We are currently stretched to thin already and our military forces are being worn down to the point that even basic defense is compromised. These resources that are being sent are far from superfluos military resources. They are vital to our national defense. In any event, what are they going to be used for? To provide security? To distribute aid? In security operations, it is almost a certainty that some of our people are going to be killed. Soldiers lives should only be risked when America's interests are at stake. In my opinion, this does not qualify.

"We are currently engaged in a war against terrorism." I think it would be more accurate to say we are engaged in a war against the nations who support Islamic terrorism. These include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the former Iraqi government and to an extent the current one, North Korea, Syria, Palestine, most Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and China. Our inability to properly define this enemy is causing us great hardship and making the situation far more difficult.

"How could one argue against doing so if it ends up saving lives and doesn't leave us more vunerable to terrorism?" The Haitian government is among the most corrupt on earth, the distrubition systems are not very good, and our abilities are limited. As such, there is no guarantee that our aid will save any Haitian lives. By deploying military assets here this will leave us more vunerable to terrorism, as these resources cannot be used to counter Islamic terrorism or any other threats to America's security interests. As such, any benefit to Haiti is questionable. The fact that our security interests are being compromised more than they already are is a given. As such, we may be placing American lives in jeporady for no real benefit to Haiti.

The American government's primary purpose is to safe guard American lives and American interests. This aid package to Haiti places both in jeporady. In other words, the Aemrican government is neglecting its own in order to stand on Haitian soil. Didn't our founding fathers warn us against such things.

America's financial, economic, and military situation is EXTREMELY precarious right now. For now, ALL foreign aid to EVERYONE should be halted until we can conduct a top down review of this to determine what we can afford, what serves our just interests, and where we can have the biggest benefit. I would estimate that this process could be conducted in two to three years. As such, all foreign aid should be halted for a minimum of two years until this review can be completed. This includes Haiti.

More facts:

"Americans are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.”
-Sardar & Davies (2002)

The fed defecates more money down the bankster toilet in an hour than we give in foreign aid in a year.

It's bad enough that our alleged government leaders want to nanny all of us here in the United States, but now we have to nanny the rest of the world too?

I'm in complete agreement with giving temporary aid around the world. But this disaster in Haiti has turned into a referendum to take that country under our wing and provide unlimited American resources to it along with allowing a flood of Haitian immigrants with no restriction to enter the United States and likely stay here drawing continued government largesse.

This current government can barely think or manage their way out of a paper bag regarding domestic issues here and now they are advocating taking on the problems of a backwater third world country that is unfixable even in the best of times?

What I've seen over the last year has been Hope and Change inevitably turning into Chaos. Starting with a President that has a third world mentality in the first place.

asdf wrote,

"What I've seen over the last year has been Hope and Change inevitably turning into Chaos."

I agree completely, things are rapidly falling apart for the DEMONcrats, who have sold their souls to the corporatocracy with reckless abandon. That Scott Brown is competitive and will probably win in MASSACHUSETTS shows how chaotic things have become and the depression of the left! The majority of the blame for this political crisis rests on the shoulders of Obushma.

Actually it is very rare that politicians or media figures tell Americans we are the most generous nation on earth. The lines given by PMA and Jimmy Carter are far more common. It is done in an attempt to make Americans feel guilty. in any event, America's economy is in bad shape. As such, the average Swede and the average Japanese is far richer than the average Americans. Based strictly on ability these countries sgould be expected to give more than America. I wonder if donations to charity is factored into giving in Mr. Carter's figures? Probably not. Even if it is the average Japanese, Swede, and other Western European is far richer, enjoys a better standard of living than the average American, and has a higher income than the average American. As such, they should be expected to give much more tgan Americans should be expected to give. Finally, the money was0given to the bankers under the assumption they would lend. so far they haven't If this doesn't change soon, the Obama administration will come down like a hammer on the bankers. Will this help? Probably not. A much better solution would have been to give the bail out funds directly to the people rather than funnel it through the banks.

A much better solution would have been to give the bail out funds directly to the people rather than funnel it through the banks.

You won't find me arguing with this, but think of the temper tantrums and screaming from the right about "socialism" and "Marxism" if a government of the people had acted for the people in the United States.

Even if it is the average Japanese, Swede, and other Western European is far richer, enjoys a better standard of living than the average American, and has a higher income than the average American.

LOL! Careful there, B.Poster, don't admit that those Godless socialists have it better than God's chosen people in God's chosen country.

I don't think you would have gotten much argument from the "right" if the stimulus money had been distributed directly to the people as opposed to the banks. As I recall, it was mostly the "right" that is if we equate the "right" with Republicans who opposed the stimulus package. As I recall, there were two basic problems. 1.)We can't really afford it. 2.)Distrubting it to the banks with their already bad business models was and is not the best approach. I think distrubiting it directly to the people would have gotten more support. We paid the taxes any way so give some back to us would have been the thinking.

I actually think the best approach would be to let the banks who made bad loans crater. This would have been a mess for a while but once all of the bad loans are out of the system the economy would have started growing again.

No one has ever said any thing about Americans being God's chosen people or America being God's chosen country. Americans are on the whole the most humble people on the planet. As such, we don't make such claims. No one of any significance does this.

With that said, if you are a Christian as I am, it is deeply distressing to see our country turn from its Judeo-Christian heritage. I believe that America was largely blessed in the past because the citizens and the Government made an honest efforts to pattern their lives and their actions in accordance with the Judeo-Christian concepts found in both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. As we continue to turn from these principles, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where God would continue to bless this country. But again, no one of any signifcance has ever made a claim that the United States is God's chosen country or God's chosen people.

i have no problem with helping haiti. we have the skill and the will. plus thats what make me love my country so. we do have heart.

It's kind of funny, ironic and hypocritical all at the same time to see the Corruptocrat "leadership" of this country, who were brought up on hating and rejecting some kind of false concept of American Imperialism, fall all over themselves to move in and takeover in Haiti.

I mean, why not? We're in bottomless debt, dollar dropping, unemployment over 10% and climbing, pushing Cap and Trade, NHC, increase our welfare rolls by bringing in more illegal aliens sounds about right for this brain dead crew of Marxist ideologues.

And the world is demonstrating, once again, how they hate us no matter how many bows to despots or flowery empty speeches "The One" gives.

I just can't take you seriously when the term "Marxist" is being bandied about. Can you define Marxism, and list 5 concrete policy implementations of the Obama administration that are "Marxist"? Nah, I didn't think so. Bray and bleat on, good sir.

Demonizing Capitalism

Advocating and instituting Social Change

Atheistic worldview

Class Warfare

Elimination of private ownership and means of production

PMS you got smacked down.

Boy, I sure did! Jesus, those "5 concrete policy implementations" that asdf listed convinced me that Obushma is a raging, God-hating Marxist, despite the fact that nothing about those 5 things were concrete, implemented policies. Wait, what does the word Marxist mean again?

Demonizing capitalism is pretty nebulous. In what respect is bailing out Wall Street and providing massive subsidies to private contractor cartels and the health cartel a demonization of capitalism? It's a laughable assertion and certainly not a concrete policy implementation.

Advocating and instituting social change? That's not a concrete policy implementation. I can't think of one area where any of this has actually been "instituted". He's brought up a couple topics, but words and actions are two different things.

An atheistic worldview does not denote Marxism. In fact, many Christians embrace Marxism, particularly European Protestants and South American Catholics. From wikipedia,

"Although Marx was intensely critical of institutionalized religion including Christianity, some Christians have "accepted the basic premises of Marxism and attempted to reinterpret Christian faith from this perspective."[18] Some of the resulting examples are some forms of liberation theology and black liberation theology. Pope Benedict XVI strongly opposed radical liberation theology while he was still a cardinal, with the Vatican condemning acceptance of Marxism. Black liberation theologian James Cone wrote in his book For My People that "for ana1yzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social ana1ysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."[19]

Class warfare is not a concrete policy implementation, but you're right, Obushma and the Committee To Screw The World are doing everything in their power to enrich corporations and funnel wealth upwards.

Elimination of private ownership and means of production? What are you talking about specifically? If you're talking about the bank bailouts, we should have put them under receivership and broken them into smaller units. If you're referring to the auto bailouts, he did not "eliminate" anything. The federal government PURCHASED certain companies. A fundamental principle of free market capitalism is if you purchase something you own it.

I didn't see a definition of Marxism or proof of a link between it and CONCRETE policy implementations of the Obushma administration.

Foreign aid is by definition wrong. Generosity with one's own money is magnanimous. Generosity with other people's money is theft. If we donate our own money, that's a praiseworthy thing for us to do. If other people donate our money, that's not praiseworthy of either them or us. When the government forces you to give to charity, that's no credit to you because you didn't choose to do it; the government forced you to do it. It's no credit to the government because it's theft--no different in principle than if I stole your money and gave it to someone who needs it more than you do.

Foreign policy should be a selfish thing. It's not in America's interest, when we're already drowning in debt, to borrow lots and lots of money to send to a foreign country for charitable purposes. That we're wasting a lot more money on other stupid stuff is no justification for spending even more on something that doesn't benefit this country.

Watch out PMA, wikipedia is a liberal propaganda media machine set on ruining this country and robbing us of our hard earned money... at least that's what Faux News tells me.

Its just too easy to shoot the messenger so you don't have to read.

Conservative mantra= tl;dr

And Alan, "no different in principle than if I stole your money and gave it to someone who needs it more than you do."

ummmm... did some one elect you to make decisions such as aid? Nope. Did someone elect Red and Blue congressmen to make decisions? Yes.

Or are you just upset that the government (both sides) simply manufactures our consent to meet its will?

So if the thief is elected, then it's not theft? By that logic, if an elected parliament votes to have an entire race of people exterminated, it's not murder because the murderers were elected.

Nice logic, genius. Good going.

The fact that a government is elected is not by itself a defense of what the government is doing. I notice that you left unanswered almost everything I said. But I'm sure you can be proud of yourself anyway because you worked a Chomsky title into your argument. Cool beans, dude. Now say something smart for a change.