Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

[Kael Hate]

That's like saying that an alpha male gorilla and a submissive male gorilla from the same pack are different.  It's irrelevant because they're part of the same pack.  There will always be a pecking order within each group, but that doesn't mean that those higher up on the pecking order don't take care of the individuals lower on the pecking order.  Each group -- any and every group -- will have dominant members and less dominant members; in the same way, each group exists somewhere on the pecking order of groups, and groups higher up in the pecking order take care of groups lower on the pecking order.  See: America's foreign aid budget.

Is your DNA the same as mine? or like a gorilla am I going to kill you because your DNA doesn't match mine and to keep a balance between food and growth I would kill you?
Gorillas will kill other primates to keep their resources even tho they are closer genetically than you are to me.
Wolves will cull other packs to keep their grounds their own.
Lions and Bears will even eat their own kin to keep their grounds.

Just because you have a family does not mean we are all the same family.

[Essence]

DNA is irrelevant, and that's the entire point I'm trying to make.  The selfish gene is a MYTH.

You and I are part of at least one social group -- these boards.  If an outsider came into our group and started attacking you (flaming), I would be heavily inclined to jump to your defense despite almost certainly being completely unrelated to you.

If you and I were in a military unit, a neighborhood, an SCA group, a pinochle club, a Boy Scout troop, or a mutual admiration society -- or a country! -- together, the same rule would apply.  Because humans -- and all other pack animals -- have a biological drive to defend members of their group even at their own expense.  It just so happens that in civilized society, we do so by giving money to those less fortunate than we are, because we recognize that poverty kills.

Of course wolf packs cull other packs to keep their grounds -- just like human nations, political parties, and neighborhoods strike out against outsiders that they perceive as impinging upon them.  That's normal.  If the needs of the social group are dire enough, humans -- like bears and lions -- will turn on their own families and destroy their own kin (American Civil War).  That's normal, too.

The social group is the important factor here, and it always was. 

Is that a moral imperative?  Define 'moral'.

[Essence]

Mind the double post.

Note that it does not say "legally determine" but "morally determine."
Just because you agree to follow the laws of your country doesn't imply that you have to abide by that agreement or that the laws represent the highest order of morality. If it was that easy, then we could just say "There's no law in the United States Constitution that says I can't hoard all my resources while others around me are dying, so it's not immoral," and let the thread end there.

The laws are irrelevant.  Participation in a social group defines the status symbols, mores, and morality of the people who participate in that group.  Ask a young inner-city kid whether he'd rather be able to eat whatever he wanted every night for dinner or dress fly every day, and even if he's starving, he'll choose dress fly every time, because being able to pimp yourself is a status symbol in his social group, and being high-status and hungry is better in every way than being low-status and full. 

The morals of a given social group are passed along exactly like the status symbols are.  If you choose to participate in a social group that values giving to the poor -- like America does -- then you have a choice between submitting to the group's moral code and being a moral person within that group, or defying the group's moral code and thus being an immoral person.  End of story.

[Kael Hate]

DNA is irrelevant, and that's the entire point I'm trying to make.  The selfish gene is a MYTH.

You and I are part of at least one social group -- these boards.  If an outsider came into our group and started attacking you (flaming), I would be heavily inclined to jump to your defense despite almost certainly being completely unrelated to you.

If you and I were in a military unit, a neighborhood, an SCA group, a pinochle club, a Boy Scout troop, or a mutual admiration society -- or a country! -- together, the same rule would apply.  Because humans -- and all other pack animals -- have a biological drive to defend members of their group even at their own expense.  It just so happens that in civilized society, we do so by giving money to those less fortunate than we are, because we recognize that poverty kills.

Is that a moral imperative?  Define 'moral'.

So I guess that is the difference in our perspective.
I don't always consider humans by default part of the same group as myself.

Thus persons not of my group Starving to death is of no concern to me, and choosing not to take any action while living a situation that may be considered luxury in not Immoral to me.
In fact I believe that because of situation lacking culling, and the support or continual allowance of something plausibly considered feral or uncontrolled to grow and take resources will undoubtably create a starvation.

Leave rabbits in a paddock and they will breed until they die of starvation. Would you kill them off? let them die? or do what the protectorates of the world try and do and sacrifice yet more resources to the rabbit horde?

[Essence]

I know I'm getting repetitive, but again, the rabbit horde is irrelevant. 

Of course humans are in a different social group by default.  That's normal.  But so is any given human being part of at least a few social groups.  If your claim is that you refuse to consider yourself part of ANY social group, I flat out don't believe you.  Humans that don't have any social backdrop for their lives are universally either suicidal or they're sociopaths.

The fact that you believe that the population could do well by reducing it's own numbers is intriguing, but unless you're willing to stand up for your beliefs and act on them by doing some culling yourself, it's merely a psychological game and -- again -- completely irrelevant.

[Kael Hate]

I know I'm getting repetitive, but again, the rabbit horde is irrelevant. 

Of course humans are in a different social group by default.  That's normal.  But so is any given human being part of at least a few social groups.  If your claim is that you refuse to consider yourself part of ANY social group, I flat out don't believe you.  Humans that don't have any social backdrop for their lives are universally either suicidal or they're sociopaths.

The fact that you believe that the population could do well by reducing it's own numbers is intriguing, but unless you're willing to stand up for your beliefs and act on them by doing some culling yourself, it's merely a psychological game and -- again -- completely irrelevant.

I often get asked that.
But, if I was to take a gun with infinite ammunition and shoot a chinese man (nothing particular against chinese, just an example of a mass population base) every second I would still have not killed enough men, to even stop the growth of the country.
In fact more people die from starvation in that country than I could possibly kill in my lifetime with conventional arms.

Such is that I do not have the resources to make a difference. If I did have a method I would likely use it without question if it could guarantee erasure of humanity. I would not expect you to understand, you likely are not a Misanthrope as I am or have the same measure of practicality as I do.




Lets add to this.
Do you do something if you think it is Immoral?
I am of the belief that any action can only ever be correct at the time of the action. Only afterwards when the results are seen can I decide that my action was not correct because of the light of new evidence but I could not have made a more correct descision at the time.

So if living a life of comparitive luxury when people in a far away nation starve is immoral to you, do you take action to try and solve their starvation? If not and you ignore the situation its not something Immoral now is it?

[Essence]

I am certainly neither misanthropic nor terribly practical (at least my wife assures me of the latter).

But believing yourself to be insignificant isn't a valid reason not to take action.  If you really genuinely believed the words you're saying -- especially if you were as practical as you claim to be -- you would find some form of action to take that would make you a more significant player in that field.  It doesn't matter if the field in question is liberal politico-economics (like me), or some form of arbitrary paraMalthusian population concern -- if you don't believe it enough to act on it, then it's just hot air.

Do you do something if you think it is Immoral?

Yes.  I justify a lot of my actions on other grounds despite thinking that they are immoral.  For example, I sometimes steal things from Wal-Mart.  I justify it by saying that they're a shitty company that does shitty things to good people and good places, but really, I know it's immoral.  I just don't care.  That's actually pretty normal, too.

I am of the belief that any action can only ever be correct at the time of the action.

Correct =!= moral.

So if living a life of comparitive luxury when people in a far away nation starve is immoral to you, do you take action to try and solve their starvation? If not and you ignore the situation its not something Immoral now is it?

People in a far away nation are not part of my social group, and I'm under no obligation whatsoever to care for them.  They have their own social groups that have that job.  People in my own city that are starving while I live a life of comparative luxury -- that's my obligation, and I take action to help them on the rare occasion that I find myself with extra resources.  Most often, I give to the food bank and volunteer to clean churches.

[Kael Hate]

I am certainly neither misanthropic nor terribly practical (at least my wife assures me of the latter).

But believing yourself to be insignificant isn't a valid reason not to take action.  If you really genuinely believed the words you're saying -- especially if you were as practical as you claim to be -- you would find some form of action to take that would make you a more significant player in that field.  It doesn't matter if the field in question is liberal politico-economics (like me), or some form of arbitrary paraMalthusian population concern -- if you don't believe it enough to act on it, then it's just hot air.

My action is inaction.
I let them die by their own means.
Until I find a method better to create balance, it is the most efficient means I have.
Say its hot air, but the result is what I expect.
What action do you take?

[Essence]

In my chosen field of liberal politico-economics?  I'm a founding member of the Coffee Party, I write articles for blogs, news sites, and the occasional local print newsletter pointing out flaws in the conservative politico-economic theory, and I post here and in other places supporting the notion of paying taxes and letting the government take care of the disadvantaged in the way it sees fit.

Is there more I could do?  Sure, but I also happen to love Elements, so that takes up a lot of my time as well.

Say its hot air, but the result is what I expect.

Funny, it's exactly the result I expect, too: you talk a bunch of shit, do nothing, and nothing changes.  Like I said, it's hot air.  Nothing personal or deliberately offensive, just a statement of fact. 

[Kael Hate]

In my chosen field of liberal politico-economics?  I'm a founding member of the Coffee Party, I write articles for blogs, news sites, and the occasional local print newsletter pointing out flaws in the conservative politico-economic theory, and I post here and in other places supporting the notion of paying taxes and letting the government take care of the disadvantaged in the way it sees fit.

Is there more I could do?  Sure, but I also happen to love Elements, so that takes up a lot of my time as well.

Say its hot air, but the result is what I expect.

Funny, it's exactly the result I expect, too: you talk a bunch of shit, do nothing, and nothing changes.  Like I said, it's hot air.  Nothing personal or deliberately offensive, just a statement of fact.

I do nothing and things flow as expected.
You try to do something and your expectations are denied.

I condsider mine the greatest gain.

Why spend resources on something that is ineffective?


If I kill those that are an obstruction to the growth and evolution of humanity and then am persecuted and cause a reactionary counter growth of ferals, I have lost more than I have gained. It is not a tactical benefit for me to take an action that would create so little benefit for my cause. The action needed to be taken must be decisive.

[Essence]

You try to do something and your expectations are denied.

Are they?  I certainly don't think so.  Why do you decide that my efforts are ineffective? 

The action needed to be taken must be decisive.

Right!  And if you believed your own words enough to act on them, you would be busy making a plan.  A single dedicated human being can totally accomplish the destruction of billions of individuals.  Are you doing research?  Finding the most likely ways of obliterating vast quantities of people?  Don't limit yourself to instant destruction, either -- keep in mind that a slow death that takes a few generations to kick in is completely an option, and if you pull it off you won't ever get persecuted because people are stupid and they won't realize what you've done until after your dead.

You're making excuses instead of taking action.  It dramatically weakens the notion that you actually believe what you're saying.

[Neopergoss]

A single dedicated human being can totally accomplish the destruction of billions of individuals.  Are you doing research?  Finding the most likely ways of obliterating vast quantities of people?  Don't limit yourself to instant destruction, either -- keep in mind that a slow death that takes a few generations to kick in is completely an option, and if you pull it off you won't ever get persecuted because people are stupid and they won't realize what you've done until after your dead.

Don't tempt him. 
I think you're right, though, Kael. Chances are that humanity will annihilate itself without your involvement. Sure, there are things you could do that would help to ensure the desired outcome and expedite the process, but do you really care that much?