(Brett you recall that...) A while ago we were discussing cosmopolitanism, specifically in relation to the global poor and discursive moral standing: The idea that people should be able to engage in discussions regarding the nature of their moral standing and come to agreements, as opposed to having others decide whats good or moral for them and simply imposing that. Well check it! The poorer nations are taking their discursive moral standing, whether people like it or not. This made my morning :) A philosophical question: the newly formed group is planning to abandon the $US for good. This is super bad news for the US, as when their dollar-bubble bursts, their economy is doomed and hyper-inflation ensues. To what extent do the G77+China need to take steps to protect US citizens from the dire consequences of whats in the works? One the one hand, this has come from anger and resentment over US control and manipulation laying waste to their nations. So why should they care? On the other, US citizens also suffer under their corrupt corporate regime. Is it fair/moral that they should suffer even more now? Perhaps the doctrine of double effect is relevant? Harm which is forseen but not intended (ie doesnt feature as necessary in the list of means to the desired end) is morally permissible, when in pursuit of a goal at least as morally relevant as the forseen harm. americanoutrage.us/index.php/leads-front-page-hidden/757-133-g77-nations-vow-to-destroy-america-s-new-world-order
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:29:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015