So are vets, where’s your compassion for your own? Do you even care about your own country?
Got my answer to the question.
I am not sure that he will get the answer without some explaining.
The Good Samaritan was a parable of Jesus in reply to the question of “Who is my neighbor?” What that means is that your “good” is to be apportioned to those nearby – rather than going hither and yon looking for those to do “good” unto while completely overlooking those most in need nearby. This is otherwise known as the principle of subsidiarity.
In other words, this current situation is much like the Good Samaritan passing by the injured person he is near-to with the excuse that he must help those in the next country.
The problem, it seems to me, is that our globalized morality has completely overturned the principle of subsidiarity on the grounds that as long as you are doing “good” to someone, somewhere, you are a “good” and “moral” person – a “Good Samaritan,” even. This attained “goodness” justifies all manner of negligence and omission regarding those very near so long as the semblance of “goodness” done to someone, somewhere can be maintained.
Not to wander too far off topic, but Judith Jarvis Thompson effectively used the elective nature of the “Good Samaritan” to justify, for pregnant women, their right to dismember, kill and discard the “neighbor” residing closest to them – inside of them, in fact – because we can’t, obviously help everybody so we ought to be able to pick and choose who we want to help as we decide. Goodness becomes not a moral obligation, but an elective procedure, when you have the time and money.
The point of the principle of subsidiarity – and the Good Samaritan parable – is that we, all of us, are morally obligated to do good to those closest to us and not to go about parading or peddling our goodness around the globe until we carry out our local responsibility to our neighbor.
It might even be argued that the crisis currently occurring in the ME is the result of western nations peddling their views about goodness – abortion, permissive sexual behaviour, liberality and moral license, etc. – around the world and since we have such great difficulty taking proper care of our own there is a case to be made that such “goodness” is a hypocritical facade which doesn’t care an iota for its own so why should it be trusted to care about others?
Our house is in complete disarray and so dysfunctional we are unwilling to care for our own babies and our own vulnerable and, yet, here we are willing to invite those outside “our house” into it. To show them what, exactly? Our moral superiority? Our willingness to help? Or our willingness to be gullible fools, more like. That is what happens when “foolishness” dresses itself up as “wisdom,” and parades itself down the runway.
Islam, in this sense, has it essentially correct – we are a “house at war” with ourselves, but we think that a passing show of generosity will set everything right. We have no real commitment to anything “moral” except to demonstrate our moral superiority – let’s call it what it is: braggadocio selling itself. We have to humbly admit our own poverty before we go inflicting our moral superiority on the world. The honest commitment that Muslims have to Islam will soon show up our paltry commitment to our regnant “morality” for what it is – a house of smoke and mirrors. Are we to think they haven’t figured that out yet? We have to stop lying to ourselves.
Their commitment to their miscalculated theology far exceeds our commitment even to basic morality which is why they view it as a splendid opportunity, while we suppose, according to our self-righteousness, that we are bestowing our beneficent “goodness” upon them.
What are we, Klingons?