Globalism and morality

Globalism and morality

From the American view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

What moral judgment should an American take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

Are we in a dilemma with regard to the moral implications of Globalism ??? Well it is quite and mostly improbable that we arrive at a conducive solution but the intriguing aspect of this fact being that we live in a world which unfortunately and fortunately has people who are not equivalent.

Considering the fortunate fact that all are not equivalent primarily negates an environment of moral reasoning as this fact clearly sidesteps our present dogma that all are to be treated equally and it is to be clearly understood that we should not reconcile the former and the latter.We here are not to discuss the validity but the relative aspect.

However, perfect equivalency is idealistic and understanding the primary response to a deviation from a biased state is vital.

It’s no wonder Chuck. Talking about morality within the context of economic globalization makes as much nonsense as talking about war crimes within the context of war.

???

coberst, that’s quite a delusional view of the positive/negative aspects of globalism.

Read some (basic) economics and then you’ll understand that globalism INCREASES the standard of American living and DECREASES the level of other countries. It’s exactly the same effect of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer under pure free market capitalism.

I certainly think that the context of economic globalization is just as much a moral area as is any other. I also think that war crimes are a matter of morality. Just recently the US has tried and convicted soldiers of murder while in a battle area.

Economics does not consider matters of morality. Economics says many things about which I disagree. I am not well versed in economics but I am well versed in human nature and that economics is the handmaiden of the powerful who are concerned primarily with their own interests.

Sorry Chuck, I said too little or I could be confused. I’ll try to explain. See, I consider war to be a crime against humanity. I mentally throw up every time I hear people talk about rules of engagement and war crimes within the crime of war. A while back you had another thread about front line soldiers making moral decisions that I similarly couldn’t fit into my tiny brain. I likewise think it is absurd to put moral decisions and economics in the same sentence because “Economics does not consider matters of morality”. There is no moral rebar in the philosophical foundation of our economic system and the deficiency can’t be covered with moral drapes.

DEB

I agree with your finding of absurdity in the lines we draw in matters of war. These are lines that I guess are necessary but also seem absurd. But since some of our instruments that we use such as war and economics have no moral content it does not mean that we must not keep moral judgment in mind. We have so many aspects of our lives that seem so absurd it boggles the mind. But I think that we must try to sort it out even though we must do it alone.

I have been reading “Brighter than a Thousand Suns” by Robert Jungk. This book focuses on the small band of physicists who built the atom bomb and their wresteling with their moral responsibilities in having done so and their attempt to convince the government to consider the moral question involved.

Chuck, my assessment is that we are living in our own moral ‘shit’; and we can continue drawing lines in it in a vain effort “to sort it out”, or we can get rid of the ‘shit’ before it “hits the fan”. I think I imbedded this message in: ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … t=#1846976

When only a handful of industrialized countries lay claim to the resources of all other countries and lands, globalization just amounts to a wider gap between rich and poor and wars in attempts to make up the difference. Where is morality in all of this?

Ierrellus asks --“Where is morality in all of this?” coberst smugly replies ‘morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder’.

Chuck, please tell me you missed a few of your CT 101 classes.

Coberst, Coberst, Coberst,
Why do you flit from flower to flower, from thread to thread? In this thread, which you seem to have abandoned already for a fresh smell, once you can see morality as a matter of life and death the relativities of which you speak have no meaning whatsoever.

I did how could you tell? I told my brother not to tattle on me.

Threads have a half life of 12 hours.

You betrayed yourself Chuck. Yesterday you said:

Today you said:

This sounds like a CT short circuit to me.

DEB

I may have contradicted myself but I do not think so. I think that morality is subjective but I also think that it is often someting that must be worked over in the mind. Just like beauty I may not recognize something is beautiful at this moment but after study may change my mind but I recognize that others may very well find my choice of beauty to be off the mark.

Here’s the point: reality is subjective, good and bad don’t exist, etc. etc. Our lives are meaningless, there is no point to our race or the universe, and in time, we’ll be extinct.

But after we realize accept that fact, we also realize that we are here, experiencing this. The experience is undeniable (for 90% of people): when I am poked by a pin I feel pain, when somebody I love is lost I feel emotional anguish, and I believe we should do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.

Thankfully, majority rules, otherwise the 10% that ruled wouldn’t feel the pain normally felt when somebody close to them died, and didn’t feel pain when pricked by a pin, and never felt emotional anguish, wouldn’t find the need to outlaw killing others at random, and our race would have already been dead.

But it is safe to say the majority of the world do feel this way. “Why” we feel this way is an interesting question, a question that many evolutionary biologists and neurologists are looking to answer. So with this majority rule, we outlaw killing, we outlaw hurting other people, we try to enforce laws that reflect the golden rule without restricting the creativity that makes our race and species truly unique and enjoyable to be experiencing right now.

Maybe this is our species way of finally accepting itself for who it is after a 10,000 year identity crisis, allowing us to continue evolving and changing in ways that make the majority who experience it glorious.

Sorry Chuck, I was being objective. I think I understand completely the concept of subjective morality. It just never occurred to me that anyone exercising “critical thinking” could believe subjective morality will result in anything but more of the “shit” we are in. “CT” is beyond me. I’m gone.