Philosophy Now Forum

“It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.”
Simone Weil (2003). “The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind”, p.5, Routledge

How can we philosophically reconcile the eternal ethical obligation to oppose hunger and the need for a thriving free society when they come into conflict?

This may well happen on America’s southern border. It is quite probable that 15,000 or so immigrants coming from Central America may well arrive at the border and be denied entry by the military. Of course the caravan was created to serve a political purpose so is being supported along the way. But once they arrive the political purpose will have been achieved so the migrants will be abandoned. What happens to 15,000 exhausted, hungry, thirsty, smelly abandoned immigrants abandoned at the border?

The invasion cannot be allowed into America for obvious reasons. Will Mexico adopt responsibility to care for the immigrants who may refuse to return? If Simone Weil was right, we have the eternal obligation to help but for how long?

It can be said that people are dying from hunger all the time in the world so what difference does it make if people on the border having put themselves into their position do the same?

So we have an opposition between an eternal ethical obligation and the practical reality of preserving what is necessary to sustain America as a free society. How can we resolve it philosophically? You tell me.

In a sane world, protected sanctuaries (not city mean streets) would be set up on Mexico's side of the river.

On the US side would be a tall wall.

Border-jumpers who don't need no stinking rules, and who are trying to enter illegally, would be detained on Mexico's side.

They would be given all the care and rest they need, which would take about a week, courtesy of USA to keep out cartel influence.

Then the United States, be that as government or private charities, would give each a good pair of shoes, a backpack of supplies, and whatever else they need such as bicycles. They would be pointed south, and once again inspired by a community organizer, they would start walking en masse for their protection from wolves and other killing things. This is how they arrived. They would walk until they could hitch a ride to wherever they are going.

*

The philosophy that drives storming the borders in this situation:

They have the publicity now. For how long after the midterm elections? Who knows. If that many can make the distance together, they will actually be met by an army of US lawyers jockeying for camera time, ready to petition the government and tie up the legal system with delays and appeals in an attempt to change law through the coercion of class-action suit. All kinds of injunctions can be attempted, thus legally stalling law enforcement.

The objective is to open the borders, change the voting requirements, and flood the population with direct government-dependents, over and above those already here, who theoretically will vote for the promises of freebies, thus establishing one-Party Progressive rule in the country.

In other words, destroy the system for the sake of holding power.

Walker

In a sane world, protected sanctuaries (not city mean streets) would be set up on Mexico's side of the river.

On the US side would be a tall wall.

Border-jumpers who don't need no stinking rules, and who are trying to enter illegally, would be detained on Mexico's side.

They would be given all the care and rest they need, which would take about a week, courtesy of USA to keep out cartel influence.

Then the United States, be that as government or private charities, would give each a good pair of shoes, a backpack of supplies, and whatever else they need such as bicycles. They would be pointed south, and once again inspired by a community organizer, they would start walking en masse for their protection from wolves and other killing things. This is how they arrived. They would walk until they could hitch a ride to wherever they are going.

But why would they want to return. They came to the border with the assistance of trucks to provide food and water. I've read it will have cost around $7,000 per immigrant for the trip. Who will pay for the return. They will be in Mexoco and techniclly Mexice's responsibility. Suppose they refuse to help, what is the ethical thing to do? That is the question for me: the ethical responsibility vs the practical necessity to protect America.

The philosophy that drives storming the borders in this situation:

They have the publicity now. For how long after the midterm elections? Who knows. If that many can make the distance together, they will actually be met by an army of US lawyers jockeying for camera time, ready to petition the government and tie up the legal system with delays and appeals in an attempt to change law through the coercion of class-action suit. All kinds of injunctions can be attempted, thus legally stalling law enforcement.

The objective is to open the borders, change the voting requirements, and flood the population with direct government-dependents, over and above those already here, who theoretically will vote for the promises of freebies, thus establishing one-Party Progressive rule in the country.

In other words, destroy the system for the sake of holding power.

Yes, you've described the Cloward-Piven strategy well.

http://humanevents.com/2014/06/09/clowa ... he-border/

Back in the Sixties, Marxists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven came up with a great strategy for overloading and collapsing democratic welfare states, paving the way for socialist tyranny. Basically, the idea was to hit the system with a tidal wave of demands it couldn’t refuse, and couldn’t possibly fulfill. The Left would then insist that the moral argument for the system remained intact, so the only way to meet those impossible demands was to scrap every vestige of Constitutional restraint and republican self-government, instituting a totalitarian system that in theory would forcibly restructure society to promote “fairness” and give all those government dependents what they “deserve.” (In practice, of course, what you actually get is an iron-fisted dictatorship that cooks up reports to make itself look good, or simply tells the unhappy citizens to shut up and obey when things deteriorate to the point that no volume of phony reports can paper over the problems – say, when the glorious worker’s paradise of Venezuela runs out of tap water.).....................

How do we reconcile the ethical problem of hunger and the practical necessity to protect America? Not an easy problem.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:26 pmHow do we reconcile the ethical problem of hunger and the practical necessity to protect America? Not an easy problem.

(Well, everyone has their own opinion and how can you as a greedy Colonial expansionist possibly say what is right and wrong, true or false, and there is no way you can prove that one opinion justifies action off your turf or … just kidding, that was my daily ration of parody, which is not funniness or constructive criticism, not even a dash of bitters.)

You asked what is the humanitarian obligation of the US to these walkers, hikers and hitchers? To feed them when they get close enough to personally say thank you, and to apply political pressure that results in their governments acting in their best interests.

Food is the obligation and the lesson. Feed the hungry.

Otherwise ...

The hikers look pretty well fed already, and although the media broadcasts images of plump women and children whenever possible, many of the hikers are young, strong men. Strong enough to bust the heads of some Mexican cops at the southern border of Mexico who were maintaining some sort of checkpoint. They got that strong by being well fed.

Everyone is a damn victim, aren’t they.

- In the American colonies of Britain, the Americans were oppressed by the government.
Patriotic local governments for the people rebelled, on behalf of the oppressed.

- Currently, the hikers are oppressed by their neighbors back where they live.
Their government for the people allows this to happen.

- In Rwanda, one group of people was attacked by their neighbors where they live.
Their government for the people allowed this to happen.

- The United States and UN did nothing to stop it during the Clinton administration. Although guns were not the cause of the killing, the genocide happened too quickly for a blue-ribbon panel to deliberate a course of action while enjoying gourmet lunches and first-class accommodations.

- In addition to feeding the hungry at the borders, the United States can pressure the Central American governments to protect their people.

- Money makes the world go round, and the money goes into secret Swiss bank accounts of government officials, or it goes into the bellies of the people.

- The US can pressure for a system of government that benefits the people with food in the belly, and in other ways.

- Therefore it is Philosophically Written, from the United States to those slacker governments, no bucks, no buckwheat pancakes with real maple syrup, but also no secret monthly deposits into secret Swiss bank accounts, with secret codes to access.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 am “It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.”
Simone Weil (2003). “The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind”, p.5, Routledge

How can we philosophically reconcile the eternal ethical obligation to oppose hunger and the need for a thriving free society when they come into conflict?

HOW does a 'thriving free society' actually come into conflict with an 'eternal ethical obligation to oppose hunger'?

WHAT do the two entail? And,

WHERE is the conflict between the two?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amThis may well happen on America’s southern border. It is quite probable that 15,000 or so immigrants coming from Central America may well arrive at the border and be denied entry by the military. Of course the caravan was created to serve a political purpose so is being supported along the way. But once they arrive the political purpose will have been achieved so the migrants will be abandoned. What happens to 15,000 exhausted, hungry, thirsty, smelly abandoned immigrants abandoned at the border?

They get abandoned by a society that locked them out.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amThe invasion cannot be allowed into America for obvious reasons.

WHAT are those "obvious" reasons? I do NOT see any reasons at all.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amWill Mexico adopt responsibility to care for the immigrants who may refuse to return?

WHAT do you think?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amIf Simone Weil was right, we have the eternal obligation to help but for how long?

I think you will find the word 'eternal' in 'eternal obligation', will answer your question here.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amIt can be said that people are dying from hunger all the time in the world so what difference does it make if people on the border having put themselves into their position do the same?

To some (most?) people there is NO difference at all who dies of hunger, just as long as the one who is dying of hunger is NOT one of their close family members.

In TRUTH no human being REALLY CARES what happens to other human beings, as long as it happens out of 'sight' and it happens to a not a familiar human being.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amSo we have an opposition between an eternal ethical obligation and the practical reality of preserving what is necessary to sustain America as a free society.

WHAT in america actually NEEDS preserving?

Are there actually some people who actually believe america is a free society?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amHow can we resolve it philosophically? You tell me.

With sound, valid argument/s.

But what is the "it" that you say actually needs resolving first?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:26 pm But why would they want to return. They came to the border with the assistance of trucks to provide food and water. I've read it will have cost around $7,000 per immigrant for the trip. Who will pay for the return. They will be in Mexoco and techniclly Mexice's responsibility. Suppose they refuse to help, what is the ethical thing to do? That is the question for me: the ethical responsibility vs the practical necessity to protect America.

"If the sole purpose of this exercise was for the participants to leave their hostile countries, then the story would be over. They’ve made it to Mexico, a country with the 15th-largest economy in the world, less than 4 percent unemployment and more cultural and ethnic similarities to their own countries than the United States. But their plan was not just to leave their country for a safer, friendly one. Their plan was to reach America and demand entry.

That’s an invasion."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -complete/

Hi Age

HOW does a 'thriving free society' actually come into conflict with an 'eternal ethical obligation to oppose hunger'?

WHAT do the two entail? And,

WHERE is the conflict between the two?

You’ve raised an ancient philosophical question: the relationship between law and mercy. It is a secular as well as a spiritual question. The law states that a driver must stop at a red light. It is a law that protects people and society. But what if a person is taking another to the hospital at 2:00 AM because of an accident and are in dire need of help so they don’t pay attention to lights as they drive to the hospital. The law says one thing but circumstances require breaking the law.

A free society needs blind justice and rule of law to sustain itself. But when do circumstances transcend rule of law? People will argue this in relation to how they’ve been conditioned. How do we reconcile it by impartial philosophy?

They get abandoned by a society that locked them out.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:01 am
The invasion cannot be allowed into America for obvious reasons.

WHAT are those "obvious" reasons? I do NOT see any reasons at all.

WHAT in america actually NEEDS preserving?

Are there actually some people who actually believe america is a free society?

Do you believe in the purpose of America and the values it was founded upon? Of course we are losing them but the point is if a person believes in these traditional values described in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Are they worth fighting for?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From this perspective people are equal in opportunity but not necessarily in results. Traditional American values do not originate with Man but rather were “remembered” and originating with higher consciousness. Happiness including the right to pursue religious ideas becomes a matter of ones own conscience as opposed to governmental dictates..

The ideals of freedom must be wanted and people of this invasion have no concept of them. They will be conditioned by the left to demand rights but will no have idea of the obligations necessary to sustain freedom anymore than modern secularism.

But what is the "it" that you say actually needs resolving first?

If the potential for freedom needs the religious influence to avoid descending into tyranny.

“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil

It is through inviting the help of grace that people can experience the quality of conscience necessary to feel the value of voluntary obligations necessary to make rights possible.

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” ~ Simone Weil, The Need for Roots.”

America is a nation descending into statist slavery. It is perpetually arguing rights. Allowing invasions merely hastens the process and the loss of freedom.

In the above post *

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 amWill Mexico adopt responsibility to care for the immigrants who may refuse to return?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:20 amWHAT do you think?

“Mexico’s government unveiled a plan to provide employment, health care, and education to thousands of Central American migrants who are part of the caravan that is traveling from Honduras towards the U.S border.

UPDATE October 27, 9:20 CDT: Members of the migrant caravan from Honduras rejected Mexico’s offer of asylum, jobs, and benefits on Saturday, CBS and the Associated Press reported.

Thank you but no was the response from a group of migrants in Arriaga, Mexico. “No, we’re heading north.””
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/1 ... -migrants/


USA or bust!


* viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25356&p=380932#p380827

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:52 pm Hi Age

HOW does a 'thriving free society' actually come into conflict with an 'eternal ethical obligation to oppose hunger'?

WHAT do the two entail? And,

WHERE is the conflict between the two?

You’ve raised an ancient philosophical question: the relationship between law and mercy. It is a secular as well as a spiritual question. The law states that a driver must stop at a red light. It is a law that protects people and society. But what if a person is taking another to the hospital at 2:00 AM because of an accident and are in dire need of help so they don’t pay attention to lights as they drive to the hospital. The law says one thing but circumstances require breaking the law.

A free society needs blind justice and rule of law to sustain itself. But when do circumstances transcend rule of law? People will argue this in relation to how they’ve been conditioned. How do we reconcile it by impartial philosophy?

They get abandoned by a society that locked them out.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:01 am
The invasion cannot be allowed into America for obvious reasons.

WHAT are those "obvious" reasons? I do NOT see any reasons at all.

WHAT in america actually NEEDS preserving?

Are there actually some people who actually believe america is a free society?

Do you believe in the purpose of America and the values it was founded upon? Of course we are losing them but the point is if a person believes in these traditional values described in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Are they worth fighting for?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From this perspective people are equal in opportunity but not necessarily in results. Traditional American values do not originate with Man but rather were “remembered” and originating with higher consciousness. Happiness including the right to pursue religious ideas becomes a matter of ones own conscience as opposed to governmental dictates..

The ideals of freedom must be wanted and people of this invasion have no concept of them. They will be conditioned by the left to demand rights but will no have idea of the obligations necessary to sustain freedom anymore than modern secularism.

But what is the "it" that you say actually needs resolving first?

If the potential for freedom needs the religious influence to avoid descending into tyranny.

“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil

It is through inviting the help of grace that people can experience the quality of conscience necessary to feel the value of voluntary obligations necessary to make rights possible.

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” ~ Simone Weil, The Need for Roots.”

America is a nation descending into statist slavery. It is perpetually arguing rights. Allowing invasions merely hastens the process and the loss of freedom.

I do not follow this post properly. Some quotes are misplaced or out of order, and, your responses to my points seem to be way off track with what I was meaning. That is not your fault, but mine.

How about those hikers.

They turned down Mexico’s offer.

Steak is on the menu, not hamburger helper.

That just might change a premise or two, how 'bout it.