Posted by Tal on September 28, 1999 at 09:24:46:
In Reply to: free will posted by johnmerrick on September 28, 1999 at 01:06:55:
: do you really think that i'm saying that humans in less fortunate living conditions have less of a free will? of course not!! they are no less human -- they simply have fewer options open to them. this is an unjust, cruel, imbalanced world. this is basic. this is a point that i can't believe even needs to be argued about.
I think your view of the 'imbalance' of the world is somewhat exaggerated. Obviously, there are tragedies and natural disasters and famines etc. etc. and this is a bad thing. But the difference between the west and the developing world isn't nearly as big as you think, in terms of the finality of human happiness. I spent 14 years in Kenya, so I know what I'm talking about here. Believe me, at the end of the day, there is much less difference than you think between an American and a Kenyan. It's almost sad just *how* relative happiness is. On many occasions I find that, rather than being happier for everything the west has, it actually loses a good deal of simplicity and misses out on a somewhat more natural view of life. Now I'm not saying if I were to be reincarnated I would rather come back as an African villager than a salesman in New York. But it'd merit some thought, and the decision probably wouldn't be as clear-cut as you might think.
Subjective happiness studies (where people are simply asked "how happy are you?") repeatedly show very little difference between nations. It's there, but on the whole, happiness is largely relative.
As to the point about choice etc. etc.... once again, you're looking at it from a purely idealistic point of view, and centering on a given individual. There is a certain point where you have to say "right, get yourself on your feet now." If you have ten people living in your house, and none of them are making an effort, you're only going to feed them for so long before you get tired of it and toss them out. This is analogous to the way African nations are run. The West supports the developing world in large part--I'm not pretending it doesn't do so for selfish political motives, but aid is aid--and most of the money is siphoned off into the pockets of people who *do* have choice, and the ability to improve the lot of their people. This is a situation that repeats itself: when I was in Kenya, every time the IMF pulled the plug on the money flow, the country went to shit. Then they'd crack down on corruption for two months, the money would flow back in, and it'd all start back up again.
I'm not saying we shouldn't help these people, and that a child born in a place where he doesn't have much food and stands to die of malaria by six is responsible for himself. There is, of course, a gradient of degree of freedom. You can (and should) give such children medication, and help them be fed, and so on. But ultimately, the fate of a nation, or of any group, rests in the hands of that group itself. You cannot support a nation from the outside. There are people in that nation who have choices to make; there are ways to improve the situation from within, much more so than from without.
You could just as easily look at North American society and think "this is a miserable way for people to live; very few people here are happy." You'd probably be right in a sense. And yet in this case, I'm sure you'd be quite prepared to place the responsibility of improvement on the shoulders of the American man in the street. What's the difference? Probably just the fact that there's no better society to compare us to at the moment. But you know, I suspect if tomorrow Europe went into a sudden golden age of humanity and people started being nice to each other, and everyone was happy, the average American Joe would be crying that he's miserable and it's not his fault and other people have it better. In fact, people *already* do it. How many times have you heard someone complain they don't have enough talent or opportunity or money (the last of which is really ridiculous) to be happy?
Happiness is mostly a relative phenomenon. You can bridge the gap by giving people food and medicine. Beyond that, there's nothing much you can do, and the difference in living conditions really won't necessarily make people any happier. Actually, when I think of all the Kenyans I knew and all the Canadians or Americans I know and compare them, it seems to me that the former are probably the happier bunch of people.
I don't think the world is 'unjust' or 'cruel' or 'imbalanced', if only because the people who have it good fail to appreciate it, and the people who have it bad don't realise it. On the whole I personally find nature tends to be incredibly symmetrical.