I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing them into a narrow set of more or less cherry-picked dimensions. At that point we're talking about abstractions, not human beings anymore. At that point we lose a big part of our own humanity.
I feel bad for sounding so aggressive, but your kind of reasoning makes me feel like throwing up, because it opens the gate to all kinds of atrocious behaviors.
Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that?
I mean there were the crusades - but really that was the exception. Religion? Exception right? There was the Holocaust there I suppose. And a bunch of other genocides. A couple of global wars and unsubstantiated racism. Oh but please - let's continue in just believing things without evidence - because that's worked so well - relying on intrinsic gut reactions.
Belief and conviction - a boon to humanity - in all its forms!
/sarcasm
How the hell is what I've written disturbing? I'm slightly perturbed at your reliance on unsupported thought models getting us all killed just because you believe in something. I'd rather not rely on people's beliefs - they are notoriously flexible.
I've indicated that a) poor people should be protected, b) that humans are long-term equal and c) we should work towards helping everyone - because it's good for all of us in the long run.
No, logic is not subordinate to anything. That's you putting numbers on stuff again.
I think you try to draw the term "fuzzy" into a negative light here because you have trouble dealing with ambivalence. Then you go absurd and use things like Crusades! and Holocaust! which I clearly wasn't talking about (because blind faith has as little to do with reason as applying quantitative analysis to every question in the universe, and I was following up those terms with what my actual, concrete conviction is made up of) in order to discredit my whole point without trying to understand where I'm coming from.
You're wondering why I find the things you've written disturbing. It's because you put a price on human beings in reply to an article that's about altruism. I'm convinced (WATCH OUT, FUZZINESS AHEAD!!!) by my feelings of compassion that helping people in need does not need a reason beyond It's The Right Thing To Do. I trust my instincts on that one, and I think any attempt to make an altruistic act appear logical is ugly and coarse. And take note that I don't equate “logical” with “reasonable”. Especially not in a case like this.
Again, your trying to put the practices of fear mongering institutions like the various churches and the Nazis in the same category as basic altruism based on the fact that all of these somehow involve belief and conviction (which can be logical, depending on the quality of abstraction you apply) is lazy and disingenuous.
My replies to you probably convey a more hostile tone than I feel comfortable with, and it's kind of random that I'm writing all of this to you, who I only have a vague idea about, in effect addressing many of those I put in the same category as you right now. I would rather discuss something like that in person to take the edge off of it. But I can't shake the feeling (and my impression might very well be wrong) that you've developed some kind of arrogance because you've detected at an early age that you're very intelligent, and how pleasing it is to figure out an axiomatic system and use this enlightenment to your advantage.
That has its place. But that place is not when dealing with the welfare of humanity. I do not object your conclusions. I object the path that led you to them.
> I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all.
Similarly logic and rationalism can be condemned for excesses such as the French revolution. Of course you can retort "but those people were nuts," but overzealous rationalism is clearly just as dangerous as overzealous theology.
So are you going to change that about yourself, or are you going to prolong it in your particular corner of the universe?
Humans are equally borne into the world weak and helpless, with but a day of survival unless they gain help from others, immediately, for a few years. This equalizes everyone, in terms of need. We all need at least a decade of help, if not more, before we can help others and help ourselves.
So, how does it help, in any way, to consider that babies born in 'lesser conditions' are economically worth less than babies born 'in luck, elsewhere'? It doesn't, at all, help one bit .. but your position does, instead, prolong the righteous justification for continued hatred of ones fellow man on the basis of their inferiority, economic, mental, culturally or otherwise.
You're disclaimer makes it even worse.
I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing them into a narrow set of more or less cherry-picked dimensions. At that point we're talking about abstractions, not human beings anymore. At that point we lose a big part of our own humanity.
I feel bad for sounding so aggressive, but your kind of reasoning makes me feel like throwing up, because it opens the gate to all kinds of atrocious behaviors.