Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear Roger,
It's good to see that you are now using the terms " the USA " and "America", which I see as closer to the mark than "Americans", as in

"Americans have a huge moral debt to the world at large for their crimes past and present. . . "

a quote that seems - to me at least - to be contradicted by this in your recent posting:

"And note that so much depends on that single man in the White House - not on the American nation . . ."

Of course, it would, in my opinion, be even more accurate (and nicer) to employ terms such as "the USA government" and " American administrations", instead.

The two of us seem to agree on so many points that perhaps my quibbling over this matter IS nitpicking, but I hope you understand that, as one of those "Americans" - one who is in almost total disagreement with the present administration - I felt that I and many others were being
unjustly accused.

Just to keep the pot boiling, though, I have to question this assertion of yours:

"A strong country can afford to be altruistic . . . ."

since I strongly doubt that ANY country has ever been "altruistic":

"having an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others".

Even the "Marshall Plan", sometimes given as an example of such behavior, was inspired, I believe, by that most reliable (and perhaps, most noble) of motivations: enlightened self-interest).

Heck, I'm not even sure that individuals can be altruistic.

Regards,
John

[dduck]

[johnslat]

Dear dduck,
Perhaps I'm being overly scrupulous here, but it's my belief that everyone does what he/she THINKS is going to make them happy/happier. Of course, the "catch" is in the word "thinks", for so many times that thinking is wrong. Even acts of "supreme self-sacrifice", the giving of one's life for others, seem to me to be inspired by this (and perhaps other) motivations that would appear to be less than altruistic, at least as I understand the term. How can any human escape selfhood, and the "selfishness" it entails?Even, say, Mother Teresa - was she an example of altruism? I can't say "yes" or "no" for certain, but I suspect not. She did what she did (I think) because so doing pleased her conception of God, made her feel good and, perhaps incidentally, also got her further along the road to an "eternal reward". If "altruism" is defined as "an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others", it's hard for me to see how any human can claim to be altruistic, since, even it's only in the "good feeling" that results, there's always a "payback".
Regards,
John

[dmb]

My students this evening told me that Saddam is in Qatar. Has anyone else this report? Hmmm I wonder if he needs an English teacher.

[dduck]

[johnslat]

Dear dduck,
Actually, I have read rather extensively about Buddhism (including the writings of the Dalai Lama). I don't think we disagree, since you wrote:

"People who act selflessly do it because everyone feels good. They are still part of the whole, and perhaps they gain in the same way that everyone gains. No (h)arm in that."

I concur - no harm at all. But (and you KNEW there was going to be a "But" coming, didn't you?) "selfless acts" still do gain some "payback" for the ones who perform them - in the forms of good feeling, peace of mind, etc. Again, that's fine. If we do those "selfless acts", however, so that we may get these good feelings, peace of mind, etc., then I have to ask whether it's altruism, in the purest sense of the word. Personally, I don't think any human being, Buddhist or otherwise, can eradicate his/her sense of "selfhood" so completely as to not get that "payback". We're so "wired" as humans that I think we HAVE TO "receive when we give", which is wonderful, I'd say. In fact, if someone didn't get anything back from a "selfless act", I'd suspect he/she was a computer ( a la Commander Data) rather than flesh and blood. Bottom line: doing good, doing "selfless acts" is perhaps mankind's noblest behavior. But there has to be a "self" doing them.
Regards,
John

[guest of Japan]

According to Abraham Maslow what many may define as altruistic is really self-actualization. Self-actualization is the final stage on his basic needs hierarchy. Below is a brief description of the hierarchy.

1. physiological needs - hunger, sleep, sex, etc.

2. safety needs - stability, order.

3. belonging and love needs - family, friendship.

4. esteem needs - self-respect, recognition.

5. self-actualization needs - development of capacities.

According to Maslow it is impossible to climb the hierarchy until the more basic needs are met. Even if an individual does rise into the hier stages if one of the more basic needs comes to be deficient the individual will revert to a lower level.

Lawrence Kohlberg writes of six stages of moral development.

1. Punishment and obedience orientation - individual's primary concern is whether punishment will be dealt to them personally.

2. Instrumental relativism - you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Choices are made for personal gain.

3. Interpersonal concordance - standard of peer group strongly influence patterns of behavior.

4. Law and order orientation - People make decisions based on established rules, regulations and traditions.

5. Social-contract, Legalistic orientation - People at this stage are likely to battle authority for what they see as good for society. They consider the legal position of authority, but if they view the authorities position to be morally wrong they will seek to change the situation.

6. Universal Ethical Principle Orientation - Individuals base decisions to certain universal priciples to which they have decided to commit. Decisions of the conscience take precedence over formal rules, wishes of the peer group and legal framework for altering rules. An example may be a conscientious objector who chooses not to serve in the military in time of war based on moral convictions. This is the stage where an altruistic person (if they exist) is to be found.

Have a nice day.

[FGT]

Isn't this the "Anglican heresy"? That by doing good, you reach the afterlife (therefore it's a selfish act), but you should be doing good only because it's good. Can't remember the particular saint's name who propounded this but I hope someone will remind me.

[tjpnz2000]

It had to come and here it is;

The top 10 things that the Bush administration could charge Saddam Hussein with now they have captured him.

10) Buying a yellow cake. Not `yellow cake uranium` from Niger as was alleged but he was President for years so probably bought a yellow cake, maybe lemon flavored, at some stage.
9) Making Tony Blair's `they could launch chemical weapons in 45 minuets` claim look completely ridiculous.
Possession of aluminum tubes. No idea what they were for but he had them.
7) Failure to produce any, as United State WMD hunter David Kay put it, `shiny, pointy things I would call a weapon`.
6) The Kennedy assassination.
5) Waging an aggressive foreign war just like the Nazis. Oops! That was the side waving the Stars and Stripes. Change that to; Failing to defend his country from an aggressive foreign invasion.
4) Reading about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Time magazine. A link is a link and that is all that matters.
3) Buying mobile hydrogen production equipment from the British and maybe using it to produce.... hydrogen.
2) Associating with known lying terrorist madman Don Rumsfeld, great 80`s video of them hugging.
1) Being as President Bush put it to the Australian parliment: `A bad guy`.

Cracked by Cracku

[arioch36]

one thing Maslow acknowleged that he didn't adress was...evil. I will probable misquote and say that "for evil to prevail, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" The truth of this has been seen many times. But today's PC is that we should all just get along...Chamberlain's the policy of appeasement is the rule.

Seems people have so much hate in their heart,
ie Bush = Sadaam (how many towns did Bush drop Chemical weapons on? How many lectures did he set up on torture?..where in America are the 300,000 + mass graves Are these people just trolls, or they really believe this

These people with so much hate in their heart will say the same things about Bush and America no matter what they do. The US attacks Iraq...they attack Bush. The US doesn't attack Korea, they attack Bush. If Bush had been the president during WWII they would have called him another Hitler.

I am still looking for the answer ...where were these people when American was encouraged by France to attack Yugoslavia/Serbia ?

Same question i asked on the last post, still looking for the answer. But I guess sometimes silence says much.


the moral debt that the US owes? Talk about hypocrisy

Britain, a country that is probably responsible for more looting raping slavery then any country

France, the country that enslaved Vietnam to benefit the few rich.

Germany, japan? ... no moral debts there?

Which countries did the US enslave??? Conquer into subjection??? I could make some arguements for Hawaii, that's about it.


And please...for any of you who don't know...AMerica is not a Democracy!!! This is a very simple, easily understood fact.

America has been called by most countries, Chinese included, the leader of the free world, but I have never heard anything that says they have the best democracy. Never has a president been elected by half of the people.

Perhaps the Americans should have stayed out of WWI and WWII. After all, we weren't threatened. Perhaps we should have let Britain burn to the ground. But for the past 100 years the world has been crying to the US for help for every damn problem...and that's a fact. I'm sick of it, i don't want American soldiers dying for England, Kuwait, or Taiwan. I've been to Kuwait...seen how they live high and might, while thier fellow muslim servants from poor countries are virtually slaves. I am all for America pulling out of Korea, and the Middle East. You'll be crying for AMerica to come to the rescue again PDQ, Roger.

[arioch36]

For those Scifi/fantasy readers out there, the author of the Xanth series did an interesting story arguing that a truly selfish person should pursue altruism because it would be the best path for success.

[dduck]

If I may indulge in some shameless self-advertisement, I've started a column (otherwise known as a blog) on the subject of Bush, the evil empire, and Saddam. Mix these nouns as you see fit.

You can find it at: http://www.20six.co.uk/dduck

Iain

[Roger]

Well, Chris,
I have never in my whole life cried for America to go to war to "liberate" whoever they were supposed to libeate, and I shall never ask the US government to do this, never, hear me?
And, by he way, hso much hypocritical moral indignation about British, French and so on "guilt" - come on, Chris, you are being self-righteous to your gills!

[odysseus]

I think in a conversation like this it�s important to differentiate between the ruling class and the common people. The ruling class in all countries is self-interested and seems to have no qualms about sending youngsters off to war. All they seem to have to do is tell people that there is a national threat and kaboom off go the people to war. Just pick up a history book and see that mans insanity knows no geographical boundaries.

Arioch36, you can�t cloak illegal acts of aggression in red, white and blue to make them noble. Since when has it been US policy to rid the world of oppressive regimes? Where is the precedent? Our country has been fighting proxy wars in central and South America for years ensuring leaders like Sadam stay in power. We have caused untold suffering among people in many poor countries by supporting corrupt regimes. During the cold war the CIA created people like Osama. Just read a little history of the Middle East. Don't believe everything on CNN or Fox.

The ruling class exists as it has through out history, it�s just the new emperors are western and the kings well they are all over the place. In Asia the Emperor was supreme and the kings like little bothers. Korea never had an emperor - just like today, just kings so off to Iraq they go to do what their emperor (USA) asks of them. The kings get something in return for their service to the emperor; they are all the ruling class. The rulers usually make out well, but the people suffer this has always been true!

[arioch36]

Since when did i say any American action was noble? What i said was that for those so inclined, they will see every action as ignoble. I said it would be nice to see some consistency.

So again, the same question. Why all the protest towards Bush? Were the same people protesting against Clinton when he bombed civilian targets in Serbia/Yugoslavia, in order to get someone suspected of far fewer crimes, Milosevic?

This is an easy question.

Hey, Odysseus, I agree totally. I think the history shows that its counterproductive to try to overthrow regimes. I think what we (America) did in Chile was morally wrong. And I believe politically it did nothing. Likewise when we led a "coup' in Vietnam, to install the leader we liked.

I am still waiting for the Rogers on this cafe to answer the above question. Prove to me I am wrong about their hypocrisy

I disagree with such actions politically and morally. We like to make Kennedy into a hero, especially liberals, but he was knee deep in this kind of stuff. reread my post, or any post of mine. I never suggest i like such activity.

Roger says "moral indigination. Nope, i just call them like I see them. For someone from France or England or Germany to cry out against America for the "great moral debt they owe the world"...without crying out against their own countries is a joke, especially as some of these same posters lament Chinese students one-sided view of history. Hypocrisy, my friend, hypocrisy.

Odysseus... show me any post were I say America is great and wonderful. Show me any post were I say people from country X are immoral cowards. But if you dis my nation, maybe you should take a look at the beam in your own eye.

I wil as another easy question. Name me all the lands that America occupied as ruler. Iraq, of course, remains to be seen. I can name you lots of countries England, France and Germany occupied, and the atrocities they committed in these countries. So why do some posters say bush is evil. Will they say Queen Elizabeth was evil? Hypocrisy, my friend, hypocrisy

So if someone wants to say how morally evil America is, maybe we should compare, and see what the evidence says?

I don't watch FOX, or much TV news. I will say I do disagre with Odysseus on this...the people are responsible for the actions of the country. And despite the Rogers of this world ignoring the truth, Blair and the other countries supporting the Iraq action were not forced to. And Bush's actions were approved by a majority of Democrats and Republicans. It is not a Bush thing. Personally, I would prefer that we left the middle east alone, and that we get out of Korea. But the president is not a totalitarian ruler, and needs the support of the people.

Did Bush use "lies", or conviently accept wrong information? I think so, as did Blair, Clinton, Thatcher, Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt. What makes Bush worse? His actions? Or something else, maybe is the real reason for these people to protest so loudly.