Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4629
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: January 29th, 2022, 3:51 am There are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.
Exactly. Why is this so difficult to see, I wonder? It seems obvious to me...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3671
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: January 29th, 2022, 3:51 am
I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.
Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.
GE Morton
Posts: 3671
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 3:03 pm
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.
Besides, it is possible to simply assert that loving and being loved promotes one's own well-being. So say the poets, anyway. So even from a selfish perspective agape may lead to a life well-lived.
Hasty generalization there. Though loving and being loved may well promote well-being, I'm sure those poets were speaking of "love" in the ordinary, emotionally-based sense, not of a behavioral simulation of it prompted by a religious dogma.

And of course, no such nonsense is necessary to morally justify charity. That is easy to justify. What is much more difficult to justify is forced "charity," which, BTW, not even (biblical) Christianity advocates.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4768
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:05 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 29th, 2022, 3:51 am
I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.
Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.
I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school. Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.
GE Morton
Posts: 3671
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 29th, 2022, 5:09 pm
I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school.
But it doesn't, Belindi. That is a superficial explanation based on a stereotype devised for ideological reasons. If the "lower class" is defined as "those whose incomes are below $X per year," then pointing out that Alfie is a member of that class tells you absolutely nothing about why Alfie's income is less than $X per year. You've explained nothing by pointing that out. To explain Alfie's low income requires information about many personal characteristics of Alfie, about which his "class membership" tells you nothing.
Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.
It doesn't do that, either. Helping kids who are having difficulty in school requires the same sort of personal information about each kid you're trying to help, which will differ from kid to kid.

The system most likely to address those problems is a free-market approach to education, wherein hundreds of competing privately-operated schools, following different educational philosophies, offering different curricula or emphases, catering to kids with different talents, interests, abilities, etc., may be chosen by parents according to their own judgment as to what is best for their kid.

Public education in the US (and many other places) resembles the State-operated restaurant system in the former Soviet Union: If you live in neighborhood X you dine in Restaurant #121, which will offer the same menu as every other restaurant in the city, at the same prices. If you don't like the 3 or 4 choices offered, or the quality thereof, you stay home.

An optimal system of childhood education requires the complete separation of school and State.
Ecurb
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:29 pm
Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 3:03 pm
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.
Only the most naive interpretation of the Golden Rule would suggest that it entitles suicidal people to become murderers. Kant's imperative is fine, too, but more legalistic.
Hasty generalization there. Though loving and being loved may well promote well-being, I'm sure those poets were speaking of "love" in the ordinary, emotionally-based sense, not of a behavioral simulation of it prompted by a religious dogma.
I doubt this was true of Saint Paul, who wrote ("love" is the translation of the Greek "agape"):
13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, [c]thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
User avatar
AgentSmith
Posts: 73
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by AgentSmith »

The predator-prey paradigm is fractal in nature. What Dr. Ghoulem Barrah sees at the global, continental level (Europe preying on Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas) plays out at the level of countries, communities, and families too. Look at the crime rates, the exploitation of people by their very own countrymen/countrywomen, and so on.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6485
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:05 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 29th, 2022, 3:51 am
I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.
Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.
I apologize, when I said "no such thing as groups", I meant: "no valuable conclusions to be drawn from the behavior of groups".
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4768
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

Belindi wrote:
I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school.
GEMorton wrote:
But it doesn't, Belindi. That is a superficial explanation based on a stereotype devised for ideological reasons. If the "lower class" is defined as "those whose incomes are below $X per year," then pointing out that Alfie is a member of that class tells you absolutely nothing about why Alfie's income is less than $X per year. You've explained nothing by pointing that out. To explain Alfie's low income requires information about many personal characteristics of Alfie, about which his "class membership" tells you nothing.
I agree that classification by income is superficial. My classification depends on comparisons of local cultures as much as it does on income, although actual hunger, cold,and debt enter my classification. Cultures are defined by their proclivity to spread judgments and evaluations. People who suffer from endemic poverty are open to the idea that their case is hopeless at least by legal means.People who suffer from endemic affluence are open to the idea that they are entitled.


B . wrote:
Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.
GEM replied:
It doesn't do that, either. Helping kids who are having difficulty in school requires the same sort of personal information about each kid you're trying to help, which will differ from kid to kid.

The system most likely to address those problems is a free-market approach to education, wherein hundreds of competing privately-operated schools, following different educational philosophies, offering different curricula or emphases, catering to kids with different talents, interests, abilities, etc., may be chosen by parents according to their own judgment as to what is best for their kid.

Public education in the US (and many other places) resembles the State-operated restaurant system in the former Soviet Union: If you live in neighborhood X you dine in Restaurant #121, which will offer the same menu as every other restaurant in the city, at the same prices. If you don't like the 3 or 4 choices offered, or the quality thereof, you stay home.

An optimal system of childhood education requires the complete separation of school and State.
Private schooling has been and to a significant extent is still being done in England. It works to cream off the more advantaged kids who have books and computers and great spaces to play. It also favours the people who pay the bills i.e. the parents.

A centralised school system that is paid for by taxation does not favour the parents it favours the politicians.

The best system is fiscally centralised but planned and maintained by experts i.e. educationists.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4629
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:05 pm I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary.
No, group membership is not usually "assigned"; its members chose to join. Societies, however, are different, as membership is not a choice. But in either case, the 'assignment' is not arbitrary.
Dictionary.com wrote:arbitrary
adjective
  • subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: "an arbitrary decision."
  • decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
  • having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: "an arbitrary government."
  • based on whim or personal preference, without reason or pattern; random: "This is an unusual encyclopedia, arranged by topics in a more or less arbitrary order."
  • Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: "an arbitrary constant."


Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 3:03 pm
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:29 pm I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.
The Golden Rule makes the point well, but its focus is mistaken. The real Golden Rule asks that one will treat others as they would wish to be treated. After all, what you might find to be beneficial treatment might be insufferably unpleasant to someone else.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3671
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 30th, 2022, 8:15 am
No, group membership is not usually "assigned"; its members chose to join. Societies, however, are different, as membership is not a choice. But in either case, the 'assignment' is not arbitrary.
Yes, groups can form voluntarily; they're often called "clubs." We were speaking of "social classes" and other groups defined by sociologists (and ideologues).

There are two routes for becoming a member of a group: by enlistment, or by definition. The latter is arbitrary, reflecting only the whim of the person doing the defining. Such "memberships" entail no obligations or other bonds between members.
Ecurb
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 30th, 2022, 12:40 pm

Yes, groups can form voluntarily; they're often called "clubs." We were speaking of "social classes" and other groups defined by sociologists (and ideologues).

There are two routes for becoming a member of a group: by enlistment, or by definition. The latter is arbitrary, reflecting only the whim of the person doing the defining. Such "memberships" entail no obligations or other bonds between members.
"Americans" never applied for membership (unless they are immigrants). Nonetheless, membership confers privileges and obligations.

"Social classes' were well defined in Europe (in the past). One could be dirt poor and remain an "aristocrat" (at least until one married an heir or heiress). The modern penchant for defining "class' based on wealth is a bit silly. Steel workers may make more money than college professors, but their status is not higher.

Defining group membership arbitrarily is as it does; sometimes it is a valuable and enlightening way to look at things -- sometimes it is not. Some vaccinated Covid sufferers die; some unvaccinated ones live. Still, it's reasonable to compare the "groups" and come to conclusions about the value of vaccines.
GE Morton
Posts: 3671
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 30th, 2022, 8:00 am
I agree that classification by income is superficial. My classification depends on comparisons of local cultures as much as it does on income, although actual hunger, cold,and debt enter my classification. Cultures are defined by their proclivity to spread judgments and evaluations. People who suffer from endemic poverty are open to the idea that their case is hopeless at least by legal means.People who suffer from endemic affluence are open to the idea that they are entitled.
That classification has no explanatory power either. I.e., it doesn't answer the question, "Why is Alfie cold, hungry, and in debt?"

There are no such things as "endemic" poverty or affluence, for individuals. Poverty is only "endemic" to some group because that group has been defined as "those who are poor." But the membership of that group changes constantly, with some entering that group and other leaving it. Who enters it or leaves is determined by the personal traits of the individuals involved.

BTW, an affluent person who acquired his wealth by legitimate means, e.g., by producing it, certainly is entitled to it.
The best system is fiscally centralised but planned and maintained by experts i.e. educationists.
Yikes! Shades of "Brave New World!" "Best" in whose judgment, that of the kids and their parents, or that of the technocrats? And, of course, Which technocrats?

There are no "experts" with respect to methods, content, or philosophy of education; there are only competing, and largely unfounded and ideologically-driven, theories. What is "best" for each kid depends on the kid.

(That issue, BTW, is currently a lively one in the US: Whose judgment should prevail concerning what is taught and how it should be taught in public schools, that of parents, or of school bureaucrats?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... -takeover/
Ecurb
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 30th, 2022, 8:15 am


Ecurb wrote: January 28th, 2022, 3:03 pm
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
GE Morton wrote: January 29th, 2022, 2:29 pm I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.
The Golden Rule makes the point well, but its focus is mistaken. The real Golden Rule asks that one will treat others as they would wish to be treated. After all, what you might find to be beneficial treatment might be insufferably unpleasant to someone else.
This version is subject to more objections than the original. Should a good-looking woman have sex with everyone who wants to bed her? Should we hand over all our cash to every beggar we see?

The Golden Rule assumes certain restrictions. If we want to die, we are not obligated to kill everyone else. Common sense requires us to blend the two rules (Pattern's and Jesus's).
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4768
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton wrote regarding child education:
There are no "experts" with respect to methods, content, or philosophy of education; there are only competing, and largely unfounded and ideologically-driven, theories. What is "best" for each kid depends on the kid.
Child- centred education is a theory of education with which I agree. Indeed it's ideal when each child has her education tailored to suit her. This is done to the utmost ability of every good teacher.
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021