> First of all, there doesn't have to be a "who" -- if a 16 year old boy
> dies of cancer, we might consider that to be unfair, given that he
> didn't really even have a chance to reach adulthood. No one "caused"
> the unfairness -- it just seems unfair, in the cosmic sense. That
> sense of unfairness will be pronounced if I have a 16 year-old boy
> myself (i.e., why him and not my child?).
Some people certainly would consider that to be unfair. Those would be
people who mistakenly equate fairness with equality. Fairness entails
equality only when the rules of a particular game stipulate equality,
such as that laws apply equally to all persons. If a gummint violates
that rule then it has been unfair --- not because it has treated people
unequally *per se*, but because it has broken a rule in doing so.
A game is unfair if a player (or the umpire) has cheated, not because
the outcome was unequal. "Cosmic unfairness" is a meaningless term. Only
moral agents, or the actions of moral agents, can be meaningfully
described as fair or unfair. The random behavior of the universe is
neither; the term is inapplicable.
That a 16-year dies of cancer is tragic, but neither fair nor unfair.
> Second, there *is* a causal chain for the suffering children in
> Somalia, and it doesn't end with the "goon squads" you keep
> mentioning. Only in your black and white world where nothing is
> related to anything else can such isolation occur as if it were in a
> vacuum . . . a prime example of rationalization.
Everything is indeed related to everything else in one way or other. But
not all of those relationships are causal (my left hand is related to my
right hand, but one did not cause the other). Most are not even
relevant. Are you suggesting there is a causal chain linking your or my
behaviors in some way with the situation in Somalia? What link in this
causal chain do you think is more culpable for that situation than the
behaviors of the goon squads?
>>> Um, being born in Somalia does not offer the same odds for economic
>>> security as being born the USA, for example. Hardly makes a level
>>> playing field, does it?
>>
>> Those are two different playing fields.
>
> No -- there is one big playing field for humanity . . . it's called
> "earth". Your attempts at reduction and isolation are defense
> mechanisms.
Well, you are assuming that everyone on Earth is playing the same game.
That is obviously not the case. Different sets of players are playing
different games on different fields. You are imagining a unity, or a
commonality, which plainly does not exist and never will. Everyone on
Earth is human, but that is merely a biological commonality, and
therefore irrelevant. It is a mere physical fact. What matters morally
are interests, beliefs, and values. Those drive behaviors, and they vary
endlessly. Many are incompatible.
> Again, there is an interrelatedness among the actions of all nations
> that you keep ignoring, whether intentionally or as an attempt at
> rationalization. Obviously the actions and policies in this country
> affect the conditions in other nations.
I ignore many of the relationships between people and nations because
they are not causal. They are inconsequential. Perhaps you can outline
some causal chain you think has resulted in the current situation in
Somalia.
> Of course, that's not to say that people don't rise above the economic
> and environmental constraints that they were born into -- they do. But
> to presume that the child born into a one-parent home in the ghetto
> has the same opportunities for success as the child born into a middle
> class, two-parent home in the suburbs is delusional.
He sure doesn't, though his opportunties are still considerable. But
where do you propose to place the blame
--- on that single parent, who
has brought a child into the world whom she is unprepared to provide
for, or upon others who had no say in the matter and have never had
contact with either the parent or the child? Or is there another of
these hypothetical causal chains at work here?
