India tests a new ICBM while 40% of its population remains under the poverty line

[brennan]

Correct. You defend yourself with the threat of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. As with buying them while some of your population are living in poverty, that's the way we did it.

 

[Silurian]

If India does not provide for its own defence who will.

From Wiki Sino-Indian War 1962

During the conflict, Nehru wrote two desperate letters to JFK, requesting 12 squadrons of fighter jets. These jets were necessary to beef up Indian air strength so that an air war could be initiated safely from the Indian perspective. This request was rejected. According to former Indian diplomat G Parthasarathy, "only after we got nothing from the US did arms supplies from the Soviet Union to India commence." [58] In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas.[59]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

 

[Antilogic]

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

Correct. You defend yourself with the threat of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. As with buying them while some of your population are living in poverty, that's the way we did it.

...but their rivals are right next door. Not like they need an ICBM to hit Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

 

[luiz]

...but their rivals are right next door. Not like they need an ICBM to hit Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

I'm guessing those ICBMs are actually aimed at Beijing and Shanghai...

 

[brennan]

It's apparently exactly what they need to hit Beijing, their biggest, scariest neighbour.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

That approach is too limited. Unless you want to deny India to play the global political game, that is where you have to look at. Not just Pakistan. And look, I am not saying that I applaud it if money is used for nukes which could be used to feed people. It's a freaking tragedy and travesty. But we aren't really discussing that. This is an issue of which the roots go deep, in depths way beyond the topic of development aid for India. Which is what we really discuss, or rather, how those nukes relate to development aid, what weight development aid has on this respectively.

Yes, you can.

If the UK gives a given amount of money, and the development of a new weapon system in India costs about the same, then you can very well claim that indirectly, the UK taxpayers just paid for a new missile or submarine in India. The money had to come from somewhere - in the absence of this aid, the Indian government would have to cut something else. It didn't have to due to the aid it received.

So what if India had cut some other budget than Defense? I see your line of argumentation fall down like the house of cards it is.

 

[lovett]

Completely backwards? It seems rather that you don't get it - it is the responsibility of the government of India to take care of its people. If it doesn't want to, why should any other nation care? India is a democracy, so you can't even claim that the people have no say in what's happening. By providing aid to India, countries like Britain are de facto allowing its government to free money for military/prestige projects. It's like giving money to an addict.

You should care because your moral obligations are not defeated by national borders. The mere fact that Indians are not citizens of your nation makes no difference in your moral obligations towards them. You have obligations towards them because of their status as rational, autonomous beings with the capacity to think and feel. It is not common citizenship, but common humanity, which determines your moral obligations. Moreover your moral obligations are also not defeated by the shortcomings of others. It is no defense of your shortcomings to point at another -India's government- and claim they also have moral shortcomings.

It costs us (Westerners, including western governments) next to nothing to save lives in countries like India. That is to say, the marginal reduction in your income is negligible compared to the great benefit thereby engendered (a life, saved!). It is the case the we are morally obligated to suffer negligible losses if the gains to others are inestimable (and how else would we describe the situation in which for the cost of a coffee I can save a life?). Hence, if you care about your moral obligations at all, you should care about the well-being of Indians.

But I suppose you do not agree. I suppose you think that national borders just might defeat your moral obligations, or that the shortcomings of others might do so. I doubt you can come up with a cohesive moral theory to explain why this would be so, but I shall not request one of you. These suppositions are absurd, and one can show that by example.

I shall assume that you do agree with the following moral judgement: if a child is drowning in a swimming pool you should jump in and save the child's life. You are obligated to. Note that this might actually come at not inconsiderable personal expense (you might ruin your new £200 suit). Nonetheless, compared to a life this expense is trivial. Your obligation holds.

Could it be that national borders could defeat this obligation? Let's see. Suppose that you are ten metres away from the swimming pool in which the child is drowning. In between you and the child, there is in fact an (open) national border. You know the child is a foreign citizen. Does that free you from your obligation to save the child's life? Surely not. In fact, it seems to matter not one iota to your obligation in this situation; you are morally obligated to jump into the swimming pool, suit be damned. If you did not, and tried to justify your reticence by saying that the child was a foreign citizen, you would be rightly scorned (imagine saying this to the child's parents: "Yes, usually I would save the life of a drowning child, but you see your daughter just didn't share citizenship with me. Indeed, she was on the wrong side of the national border, as it happens. I didn't feel I had any particular reason or obligation to help her at all, especially given I might ruin my nice new suit").

So it can't be that national borders or different citizenship defeat your moral obligations here. Could it be the shortcomings of others? Suppose that next to the swimming pool in which the child is drowning stands a man. He is quite aware that the child is drowning (you can tell) but is too busy with other things to save that child's life. Perhaps he is talking on his phone. Perhaps he is building an elaborate model ballistic missile to show off to his neighbours. Either way, does ths defeat your obligation to save the child? Again, surely not. You could not possibly defend your omission to act by saying: "Well, normally I'll accept that I should save drowning children, but this time there was someone else who could have done it as well. Maybe even easier. I know they didn't do it, and I could tell they weren't going to do it, but nonetheless I felt that their ommission freed me from any moral obligation. It kind of like, two wrong make a right, you know?". This defence would be unacceptable; other people's shortcomings do not justify your own.

It should not be hard to transfer this reasoning to the India case over which you are so incensed. Indians are foreign nationals separated from you by a national border (many, in fact). But as we have seen, this does not defeat your obligations to them. It is the responsibility of the Indian government to help Indians, and they have often failed to do so. But as we have seen, this does not defeat your obligation to them ('other people's shortcomings...'). I have assumed you accepted the judgement I state above. I shall further assume that this judgement holds because "we are morally obligated to suffer negligible losses if the gains to others are inestimable". In fact, in the cases discussed above your cost may be far greater than in cases concerning charitable giving: a life can be saved for a lot less than £200. So we can state clearly why you should care: You should care because you should care about your moral obligations.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I suspect Lovett may have brought this topic to an end by such a well-reasoned argument that gets to the root of the matter.

 

[wolfigor]

So it can't be that national borders or different citizenship defeat your moral obligations here. Could it be the shortcomings of others? Suppose that next to the swimming pool in which the child is drowning stands a man. He is quite aware that the child is drowning (you can tell) but is too busy with other things to save that child's life. Perhaps he is talking on his phone. Perhaps he is building an elaborate model ballistic missile to show off to his neighbours. Either way, does ths defeat your obligation to save the child? Again, surely not. You could not possibly defend your omission to act by saying: "Well, normally I'll accept that I should save drowning children, but this time there was someone else who could have done it as well. Maybe even easier. I know they didn't do it, and I could tell they weren't going to do it, but nonetheless I felt that their omission freed me from any moral obligation. It kind of like, two wrong make a right, you know?". This defense would be unacceptable; other people's shortcomings do not justify your own.

You comparison is quite accurate: The swimming pool is India, the children represents the Indian citizens, the man ignoring the problem while building ICBMs is the Indian government.
However the caveat here is that the Indian government is also the guardian of the swimming pool: By being distracted, he fails is duty and should be at least fired for negligence.
Withdrawing aid is the equivalent of firing the negligent guardian: funds will be reestablished once a better guardian is hired.


There is also another practical problem with your reasoning: you are comparing one-off intervention (e.g. saving a drawing child) with a long term ongoing activity (giving regular aid).

I would push the concept more: where does it stops your responsibility?
You know the government fail their citizens with wasted resources, corruption, etc, and as a consequence people die in misery (look at Africa).
If you believe you have a moral obligation to help, why limit yourself to sending aid that have little effect in the long term?
Why not taking over the guardianship?

In short: where do you draw the line about helping other countries?

 

[Winner]

I had no idea that ensuring that you can defend yourself from potentially aggressive, nuclear armed neighbours was just a game, thanks for informing me of this fact.

Are you doing this deliberately, or are you really so ignorant about military/defence matters?

ICBMs aren't the only thing India is actively developing. As I mentioned in this very thread, it also has an aircraft carrier programme (a part of India's robust naval build-up), nuclear submarine programme, and all kinds of other programmes which I call "military toys" because they're not necessary. The main threat India faces is Pakistan and islamic terrorism. You don't fight either with aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, or ICBMs.

What India is doing now is building up power projection capabilities, in other words it wants to develop means to intervene militarily abroad. I fail to say why should this be in any way, directly or indirectly, be supported by Western taxpayers' money. Period.

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

India is clearly pursuing prestige projects simply because it doesn't want to be seen trailing in China's shadow.

So what if India had cut some other budget than Defense? I see your line of argumentation fall down like the house of cards it is.

No, you're just not following it. If India had to cut something else, then it's government would have to justify it. If it receives bonus money from abroad, it doesn't have to - it is free to pursue its prestige hobby projects without having to cut something the voters would miss.

In other words, the West is enabling the kind of behaviour that is potentially self-destructive. It is assuming responsibility for things it should leave to the Indians to deal with on their own.

You should care because your moral obligations are not defeated by national borders. The mere fact that Indians are not citizens of your nation makes no difference in your moral obligations towards them. You have obligations towards them because of their status as rational, autonomous beings with the capacity to think and feel. It is not common citizenship, but common humanity, which determines your moral obligations. Moreover your moral obligations are also not defeated by the shortcomings of others. It is no defense of your shortcomings to point at another -India's government- and claim they also have moral shortcomings.

I had to stop reading right there. I am talking real world issues here, not some sort of international humanist utopia you are interested in. In other words, your view is so incompatible with mine that it makes no sense to even argue about it.

 

[brennan]

What India is doing now is building up power projection capabilities, in other words it wants to develop means to intervene militarily abroad. I fail to say why should this be in any way, directly or indirectly, be supported by Western taxpayers' money. Period.

Look, I see your point, but I happen not to agree with it, I think India has the same right any other state has to develop the military capabilities it feels it needs to be secure, anything else would be the most appalling hypocrisy from a Brit.

But your fundamental failure of logic is to assume that it is their military budget that we are propping up. If we stopped giving them aid, I am damn sure it isn't any of their 'prestige' projects that would be cut.

 

[Crezth]

If India does not provide for its own defence who will.

From Wiki Sino-Indian War 1962

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Supporting democracies? Leave that to the Soviets. We have a ton of puppet dictatorships in Central America to prop up, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No you're just not following it. If India had to cut something else, then it's government would have to justify it. If it receives bonus money from abroad, it doesn't have to - it is free to pursue its prestige hobby projects without having to cut something the voters would miss.

I asked: Would India actually cut defense? You answer this with fleshing out your hypothesis, but without actually reasoning why we should assume this hypothesis to be correct.
What exactly makes you think that India could not justify it defense budget without the aid, or that it would even have considerable trouble to do so without the aid? Simply because it would have to cut something else? Think, you can not possibly believe this to be sufficient ground. It just bloats your hypothesis.

 

[lovett]

Winner, the discussion you seem to want is ‘If we ignore the considerations of morality, then is there any reason for us to care about poor Indians?’ And if that were the discussion we should have, the case would be open and shut. There seems little self-interested reason to care about poor Indians, and if we shutter off moral reasons that means there is no reason at all. We shouldn’t care about poor Indians.

But to use this methodology in a discussion is absurd. It ignores the central, pivotal reason the plight of the poor is raised: moral considerations. It is akin to asking ‘If we ignore the fact that allowing genocide is wrong, do we have a reason to intervene in Darfur?’ or ‘if we ignore the theory of relativity, will a clock travelling near the speed of light go as fast as the one on my desk?’. In both cases we come perfectly valid conclusions: in the first we conclude that we have no reason to stop genocide, and in the second we conclude that the two clocks will tell the same time after an hour (in either reference frame). But in both cases these conclusions are useless; we have stipulated that one should ignore the central reason for the issue being raised. Once we acknowledge this reason, we can see that we do have a reason to intervene in Darfur and that the clocks in question won’t tell the same time after an hour.

You want to proceed by shuttering off the entire content of discussion: moral considerations. You want to proceed as if the entire reason the question ‘Should we care about poor Indians’ is relevant –those considerations- should not be mentioned. As seen, this approach will yield useless, empty conclusions. In reality moral considerations are not shuttered off; they should be heeded. And thus, in this discussion it is absurd to stipulate that they should be ignored. If you really want to discuss real world issues, take the most important factors into account.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well lovett, I am not sure you took into account that there can be good reasons to make use of aid which are not of a moral nature, but operate on the basis of rational self-interest. Removing the moral component will yield this and in deed seems to be the core of international politics or at least a crucial feature. As Winner speculated with regards to aid to India: It could be argued to be a way to "bribe" it. Nations have often and repeatedly used financial aids to other nations as a tool of bound ship and/or of pressure by threatening to withhold it. It's like accepting gifts from a mafia boss.

 

[Mise]

Well lovett, I am not sure you took into account that there can be good reasons to make use of aid which are not of a moral nature, but operate on the basis of rational self-interest. Removing the moral component will yield this and in deed seems to be the core of international politics or at least a crucial feature. As Winner speculated with regards to aid to India: It could be argued to be a way to "bribe" it. Nations have often and repeatedly used financial aids to other nations as a tool of bound ship and/or of pressure by threatening to withhold it. It's like accepting gifts from a mafia boss.

Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why? If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

Essentially, by eliminating the moral component of the argument, he makes his conclusion, that we should never give any aid at all, trivial. But therein lies the contradiction - why bring up India's 40% poverty rate, if we have been forbidden by Winner from considering moral obligations at all? Winner's framework for analysis forbids us from giving a damn about suffering in other countries, so who cares how many Indians are living in poverty? We should be completely indifferent between giving aid to a country with a 40% poverty and giving aid to a country with a 20% poverty rate.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As you can see, Westerners (I assume most of them are Brits) are quite understandably baffled by the fact that their governments are providing aid to a country which can afford such huge military build-up programmes. What do you think? Should rich countries help fund Indian military machine, or should they instead divert the aid money into projects that directly and measurably help... I don't know, their own taxpayers?

Discuss.

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

 

[civ_king]

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

I think you forgot "actively oppressing"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why? If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

That's a good question.

 

[Winner]

Look, I see your point, but I happen not to agree with it, I think India has the same right any other state has to develop the military capabilities it feels it needs to be secure, anything else would be the most appalling hypocrisy from a Brit.

Well, you clearly don't see my point. It isn't about the right of India to arm itself to the teeth, it is about whether Western taxpayers should support it. My answer to that is no.

But your fundamental failure of logic is to assume that it is their military budget that we are propping up. If we stopped giving them aid, I am damn sure it isn't any of their 'prestige' projects that would be cut.

Budget is just a huge pot of gold. We're adding coin into it, ergo we're indirectly (will you finally notice the word?) supporting everything the country does, good and bad. If India feels it is rich enough to afford ICBMs, a space programme, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines, then it clearly doesn't require aid from anyone.

Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why?

Because then we would at least know that India is doing all it can to help itself and thus the aid we provide isn't actually squandered on military toys.

If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

We are not indifferent, I never said we were or should be. I simply refuse lovett's utopistic view of "moral obligations" toward the whole world/humanity in general.

Essentially, I am willing to help countries that are fully committed to helping themselves, provided that the amount of aid sent isn't too much of a strain on the helping country's budget and that the receiving country actually follows the advice it has been given.

Example one:
Buranda, a TPLAC (tin-pot little African country) asks for EU aid. It implements all measures that it is asked to implement, keeps minimum defence force and actively combats corruption. The money is used to develop infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other things that promote economic development and thus combat poverty and overpopulation. The country also listens to the EU and takes steps to protects its environment.

-> In this case, I support it. It not only helps the people in this country, creates goodwill and increases prestige of the EU in the region, not to mention the good example it sets to other countries, but it also benefits the benefactor country in terms of future economic opportunities.

Example two:
Bananistan, a HRRC (human resource rich country, meaning it's grossly over-populated and begging for money) asks for EU aid. The government is locked in conflict with its neighbours Coffeestan and Diamondistan and spends a large fraction of its budget buying weapons from anybody who's willing to sell. The government refuses to stop, citing "security needs". It wants money, but refuses to implement any of the development goals the EU is asking for. Corruption in the government means aid money is often redirected into the pockets of officials, and even the money that actually helps people only frees more government money for the military.

-> In this case, forget about it. Not only will this be a colossal waste of money, time and effort, but it will also promote exactly the kind of behaviour we want to get rid of. Helping this country will release its government from its responsibility, which will only teach it to be more irresponsible in the future. End result: a disaster.

India is not in either of these extremes, but it is a big country which can take care of its own, without us indirectly funding their military.

Essentially, by eliminating the moral component of the argument, he makes his conclusion, that we should never give any aid at all, trivial. But therein lies the contradiction - why bring up India's 40% poverty rate, if we have been forbidden by Winner from considering moral obligations at all? Winner's framework for analysis forbids us from giving a damn about suffering in other countries, so who cares how many Indians are living in poverty?

He's right there, why don't you ask?

It's a simple matter of utility vs. cost - how much value can you get for a given amount of aid. I believe India's prestige projects prove the country has progressed enough to stand on its own legs. It is impractical as well as immoral to support it now, when the money could be used far better either at home, or in some more deserving country.

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

I mentioned that case in this very thread. Why don't you find the part and read it?