Moved from D1 forum

[--Pete]

Hi,

Are you saying that eppie and I agree in some squishy middle ground?

No. I'm saying you two (and I) disagree just where in the squishy middle ground we should be, but agree that we need to be in some squishy middle ground. The discussion becomes an argument when any of us calls anything to the left of our position communism, or to the right capitalism.

And neither of you is basing his argument on the behavior of real people in the real world.

I am. Hence, my reference to the Masai and the cows.

While that is true, it is limited to demonstrating that poverty is a relative thing. It is the behavior of people, in the whole, that is what you two are ignoring. That people are both selfish and altruistic. Indifferent and concerned. Stingy and generous. Malignant and kind.

Seriously, the argument to me seems to be that our system has failed because there are people suffering.

Which, of course, is an illogical argument. It presupposes that there exists some system under which no one is suffering. Since no viable alternative is offered, the argument boils down to "I'm not happy, so this must be wrong." No consideration is being given to the question of whether it is possible to completely eliminate suffering in the first place.

Of course, the counter argument that the existing system is the best that can be done is equally illogical. It presupposes that there exists no system under which no one is suffering. That we haven't been clever enough to find such a system may be more a reflection of our ingenuity than of its existence.

Especially when you export our notions of adequate ...

Prior to the 1950s, no one felt deprived by the lack of a color television. We all want to live like kings, forgetting that not long ago kings had fleas and lice and lived in cold castles.

--Pete