-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
"Other countries' problems are not our concern" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter *wbg*
- Start date
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
By that logic, we also are 'alone' if there is a problem. We have a duty to help our proven allies first, and all of humanity second.TerrbleSpellor said:
What if we get attacked by Indonesia? Would you not hope that our allies would help us?
I think the fact that my grandfather flew US-made aeroplanes during WWII testifies to the necessity of a strong alligance. And that is just in a military sense -- what about natural disasters?
However, the line has to be drawn when, by 'helping', we're interfering with another culture and group of people. Metaethical cultural relativism and such.
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Read up on objectivism, the works of Ayn Rand in particular, and this should give you some solid evidence.*wbg* said:
The idea is that by providing aid we are hindering the development another countries economy and just helping to centralise power further because the government will, in general have a good say in how that aid is dispersed.
We should only be concerned with the problems of other countries if they affect our national security or trade.
EDIT: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/jraibley_faq-virtue-selfishness.asp
Similar to this, except on a more macroscopic level.
Last edited:
spell check
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 842
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 1998
this should be rephrased as 'other people's problems are not our concern,' considering a "country" is just a bunch of people
if you don't care about other people, then you wouldn't care about other countries
and if you do, then you would care about other countries
and if you only care about the people in your country, you are most likely a racist
if you don't care about other people, then you wouldn't care about other countries
and if you do, then you would care about other countries
and if you only care about the people in your country, you are most likely a racist
Well, it could be argued that fostering over-reliance on foreign aid is a bad thing, and that countries should instead try to find their own niche in the global market, in order to foster a healthy international trade.*wbg* said:
One thing that will be brought up by the con side is human rights violations. A possible counter to this (although I don't find it satisfactory, myself) is that we should value and respect differing cultural norms in all ways, because to do otherwise could be considered patronising and imperialist of us, which breeds resentment.
hey guys this a VERY BRIEF outline of the points i have so far (no elaboration, examples, evidence included) if you guys can think of ANYTHING more it would be greatly appreciated..i have to do this debate on thursday so i need to write it tonight! thanks heaps
1. Why are we trying to help other countries when we haven’t got our own country under control? Helping others out OUR expense. We cannot try and fix other countries problems before we can stay that our problems are under control (unemployment, poverty in indigenous communities…..)
2. It can be a danger to our own county. We got involved with America and Iraq and now we are under threat from terrorists.
3. Our interference is often to the detriment of the other nation, especially in terms of aid etc. because it encourages dependence on the aid relief, the money/resources are at the disposal of a centralized government which gives this small body a huge about of power….
1. Why are we trying to help other countries when we haven’t got our own country under control? Helping others out OUR expense. We cannot try and fix other countries problems before we can stay that our problems are under control (unemployment, poverty in indigenous communities…..)
2. It can be a danger to our own county. We got involved with America and Iraq and now we are under threat from terrorists.
3. Our interference is often to the detriment of the other nation, especially in terms of aid etc. because it encourages dependence on the aid relief, the money/resources are at the disposal of a centralized government which gives this small body a huge about of power….
Potential Rebuttal:
1. If we were to wait until we got our own country perfect, we wouldn't be able to help anyone else at all - all of us live in an imperfect world. While we chase the little things in our own countries, we are ignoring the much more weighty things in other countries.
2. When one of the Australian terrorists was arrested (not Habib or Hicks, the other bloke whose name escapes me) it was discovered in his papers that the 2000 Olympics was considered as a potential target, but was dismissed. This shows that terrorist organisations have considered Australia as an enemy even before we joined the alliance (although that coulda been predicted easily, given our history)
3. Tied aid can assist in making sure that the aid goes into the right places (that's when, for example, Australia gives Zambia money to build schools with, but only if they contract the building to an Australian company) although the money ends up in the rich country again. Aid is all about what one does with it, and it can be used in such a way that the project is sustainable, even when the foreign aid is gone.
A point for you to consider as part of your argument:
Corruption in the government cannot be discounted.
1. If we were to wait until we got our own country perfect, we wouldn't be able to help anyone else at all - all of us live in an imperfect world. While we chase the little things in our own countries, we are ignoring the much more weighty things in other countries.
2. When one of the Australian terrorists was arrested (not Habib or Hicks, the other bloke whose name escapes me) it was discovered in his papers that the 2000 Olympics was considered as a potential target, but was dismissed. This shows that terrorist organisations have considered Australia as an enemy even before we joined the alliance (although that coulda been predicted easily, given our history)
3. Tied aid can assist in making sure that the aid goes into the right places (that's when, for example, Australia gives Zambia money to build schools with, but only if they contract the building to an Australian company) although the money ends up in the rich country again. Aid is all about what one does with it, and it can be used in such a way that the project is sustainable, even when the foreign aid is gone.
A point for you to consider as part of your argument:
Corruption in the government cannot be discounted.
thanks for the rebuttals.. ill definitely prepare some possible responses
QUOTE: A point for you to consider as part of your argument:
Corruption in the government cannot be discounted.
^is that in reference to giving aid etc. to third world countries?
QUOTE: A point for you to consider as part of your argument:
Corruption in the government cannot be discounted.
^is that in reference to giving aid etc. to third world countries?