Is this morally justified?

[hmkpoker]

Let's say society eventually puts away its ills and becomes a utopia of sorts. War ends, technology is excellent, and the people are free, very wealthy and very happy.

You are a space traveller. You and a few teammates take your starship out into the galaxy looking to explore the universe. You eventually come upon a planet that is remarkably like Earth; similar atmospheric and geographic conditions. This planet is inhabited with intelligent humanoids (assume nearly identical biology) who are, unfortunately, a bit behind us in civilization. They have little better than bronze age technology, few rights, and widespread violence. Disease and famine is widespread, and poorly understood. Life expectancy is low, and luxury and happiness is even lower.

Due to their being at the top of the global food chain, and their reproductive success, however, these people consitute a massive population; twice as large as ours.

Using your universal translator, you make conversation with one of the more diplomatic inhabitants. You explain to him the history of your planet, he explains to you the history of his.

He then goes on to explain that it is morally unjustified that you are allowed to keep your wealth. Had you been born on his planet, you'd have inherited a life of misfortune; you only enjoy the good things of your life because you are lucky. The ensuing egalitarian tirade fills you with liberal guilt. He demands that you return to your planet, pull some strings, and get the government to forcibly redistribute wealth to those who need it. If you don't do this, you are exploiting them.

Is lobbying Earth into redistributng the majority of its wealth the right thing to do?

[Moose747]

Giving this planet a whole bunch of raw materials isn't going to help them that much. What it sounds like they need is new technologies and ideas about government--things we'd be able to give them without any cost to ourselves. It would be win-win, because by helping them to develop their economy, we'd put them in a better situation to develop new technologies that they could then share/trade with us.

[McBusto]

It is not your obligation.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
the people are free, very wealthy and very happy.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wealth is always relative. A USA carpenter lives as well as nobility in past centuries and would be the wealthiest man in town in most of the world today. Yet, he doesn't consider himself wealthy.
Happy isn't much different, past a certain level of misery we each have a certain level of happiness that doesn't change with circumstance.
So, lobby, but the bulk of the population will hold the aid down to some non-threatening level and it'll be enough to postpone the invasion for a few generations.
Hey, wouldn't we need guest workers for jobs us happy, wealthy ones don't want?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say society eventually puts away its ills and becomes a utopia of sorts. War ends, technology is excellent, and the people are free, very wealthy and very happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on this, I'd say we wouldn't be morally obligated, since we've gotten it right. It's mostly a choice of benevolence, I think. Apply how you would deal with a bratty younger sibling to the situation maybe?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
A USA carpenter lives as well as nobility in past centuries and would be the wealthiest man in town in most of the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on your standard of wealth. If you're using, say, total energy consumption as your standard, then even poor Americans are wealthier than some nations have been in the past.

But I don't think that's a realistic standard. I think measures pertaining more directly to quality of life are more important. Social dynamics are very closely intertwined with the concept of wealth, so it's hard to pull them apart. However, an American carpenter lacks many elements of economic "wealth" nobility had in the past. Security is one (perhaps the biggest one). Land and personal power are another (a carpenter living in a tiny home with his family isn't quite the same as a lord owning a castle). A variety of luxuries that may quantitatively seem "minor" but are qualitatively significant, including access to services which is always of value. The ability to maintain an income while living a life of leisure.

Your statement isn't accurate according to these standards.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Morality is what you believe it to be; there is no 'universal code of ethics'. Morality is not intrinsic it is assumed. That being said you have a duty to your species; don't give them anything and see if you can trade them firewater for furs.l

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Is lobbying Earth into redistributng the majority of its wealth the right thing to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not sure when you add the word majority, but redistribution of weath is morally justified. Government redistribution of weath is economically unfair, in can however be morally just, or morally unjust. As far as focibly goes, there are always some people who refuse to act civilized.

[Metric]

I didn't see a button for "implement standard rape 'n pillage policy" so I voted "Don't lobby."

[Darryl_P]

IMO this question should only be posed to the moorobots and others who believe in wealth redistribution from rich to poor as an automatic obligation for the rich here on earth. For the rest of us, it's a no-brainer.

Nice creative scenario, though!

[Zygote]

you dont need to get that imaginative to prove your point. Do any advocates of welfare/income suppliments really believe we should put our entire globe on welfare including Africa and the like - most defenders will usually drop their case at this point.

[Youre A Towel]

Agree that this is an interesting scenario. Obviously you have no "obligation" to the other planet, but helping them out a bit (if it wouldn't lead to a substantial sacrifice of Earth's standard of living) it would be a wonderful thing to do.

The fraternal bonds between countries on earth are a little tigheter than those between two random planets in the universe IMO, but I still believe you have no obligation to help the other countries, unless your country (or you) are somehow responsible for their poverty (and this can be argued for in some cases on our planet). In your example, earth has no responsibility for the other planet's poverty, so there is no argument to be made for any such obligation.

[mindflayer]

Think STAR TREK and
Follow the prime directive.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[evolvedForm]

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not without a boat and fishing gear.