Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?

Zorbas · 06-02-2012 9:28pm

The latest GOAL scandal is that despite Mr O'Sheas repeated claims that no one was paid more than €100,000 the financial statements now released for 2010 show that two staff were paid in excess of this amount.
Its to be welcomed that the voice of Mr O'Shea on all things relating to development aid and how it should be improved has now been silenced. Whereas before he was never far from the radio / tv mike now it appears no media person can get hold of him.
Irish Aid are now clearly taking steps to make its aid more accountable and there are indications that it will not provide NGOs with money as if it was some sort of entitlement. They appear to be becoming more circumspect and are less naieve in thinking that because a gullible public support such NGOs that they have competence in relief and development.
It will be a good day when Irish Aid can be shown to have the impact and accountability to which people (donor and beneficiary) are entitled.
Pressure on NGOs to follow suit is essential.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/charity-plans-ahead-for-chiefs-successor-182714.html#ixzz1ldPnpt6D

walshb · 06-02-2012 11:06pm

And that 100 K is into the hand. I bet if one adds the expenses to this it's a whole lot more than 100k.

Yes, gobby John is strangely quiet. And GOALs chairman yesterday was putting it down to doctor's orders.:rolleyes:

lividduck · 19-02-2012 6:44pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Ireland Overseas Development Aid 2012
I think Ireland is spending too much money here.

Given the state of our economy relative to those ahead of us in OECD, Ireland is the most generous country in the world for this currently, IMO.

I think spending should be reduced to 150 million region(1996 levels), thus giving a saving of at least 450 millon next year.

(1)
We gave 636 million to Irish AID for ODA this year(2011)
That's about 2% of all taxes we took in.

(2)
Ireland ODA 1996-2011 trend
1996 142 million
1999 230 million
2003 455 million
2007 734 million
2010 671 million
2011 636 million
2012 Don't know
2013 Don't know
2014 500million (projected FF four year plan 2010)

Also
2012 1500 million (*projected in 2007 plan*) :rolleyes:

(3)
We are the eight most generous donor of ODA per captia in the OECD
Greece give 0.29% ODA/GNI (2009)
Germany gives 0.35% ODA/GNI (2009)
Ireland gives 0.54% ODA/GNI (2009)

links
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/whitepaper/assets/White%20Paper%20English.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/9/44981892.pdf
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Aid-Statistics/Statistic-on-International-Development-2010/SID-2010-Section-3-How-much-is-UK-expenditure-on-International-Development/

Discuss?
How much do you think we should give in 2012?

Nothing, nada, not a red cent.
We cannot afford to be giving money away and it is a disgrace that while we close hospital wards and cut services we are giving away hundreds of millions.

Zorbas · 19-02-2012 7:25pm

lividduck wrote: »

Nothing, nada, not a red cent.
We cannot afford to be giving money away and it is a disgrace that while we close hospital wards and cut services we are giving away hundreds of millions.

Irish Aid should be reduced during period of austerity and then restricted to existing programme commitments with conditionality such as :-

- only provided to implementors with a proven track record of impact success,
- only provided to NGOs on the basis of good governance, transparency and accountability,
- only provided where international standards are in place such as SPHERE, HAP, etc
- in compliance with the DAC 2005 Paris declaration and Millenium Development Goals.
- only provided to NGO programmes which are;- audited at local delivery level, designed / evaluated by end users, externally monitored and independently evaluated, supported by expertise,
- installment payments dependent on satisfactory reporting and accounting.
- following risk assessments to include corruption / integrity analysis.

If there is a move towards more responsible, accountable and impact orientated aid then the amount will necessarily be reduced by around 50% of last years spending. This would be more appropriate for a country of our size and with the realisation that our aid money is borrowed at around 8% interest.

lividduck · 19-02-2012 8:11pm

I would argue that it should be reduced to zero during austerity and stay at that level. We do not owe other nations a handout, we were not their colonisers.

Nodin · 19-02-2012 8:14pm

lividduck wrote: »

I would argue that it should be reduced to zero during austerity and stay at that level. We do not owe other nations a handout, we were not their colonisers.

We were likewise victims and are however, fellow human beings.

sarkozy · 21-02-2012 1:24am

Belfast wrote: »

Is this not the business of the governments in those countries to solve their own tax problems?

It is. But when those tax systems are undermined by multinational corporations (MNCs), the vast majority of which are based in the US and Europe, we can't wash our hands.

There is overwhelming evidence that MNCs use their power and government connections to practice 'transfer pricing'. In essence, 60% of global trade now takes place within companies between subsidiaries of MNCs. Transfer pricing is the price the corporation sets itself in order to purchase them internally, shifting goods in and out of countries.

This is not illegal, but 'transfer pricing abuse' is widespread - this is artificially setting internal prices for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes. Here are some figures. 69% of all foreign direct investment flows back to developed countries. This figure is very high and suggests significant abuse of tax systems in developing countries. MNCs also manipulate tax systems in order to illicitly repatriate profits. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a region containing the majority of Least Developed Countries, $148 billion flows out of the continent each year. To put that in perspective, the region receives around $24 billion in official aid each year. This is facilitated by tax havens. Did you know that the biggest tax haven is the US state of Delaware? It has 650,000 registered companies - one for every citizen, and the state's laws don't require companies to file detailed accounts or have anything other than a postbox there. Strange, eh?

With this mass theft of developing country revenues, it further exacerbates the practical challenges they have in collecting taxes. Because the WTO has pushed trade liberalisation on developing countries before they're ready, they have lost customs revenues; without the revenues to invest in improving tax collection on the domestic consumption of goods and the size of their informal economies, they find themselves highly constrained in doing so. It's a vicious circle.

So, I agree with you, it is the job of developing country governments to collect taxes through ordinary economic activities to develop themselves. Surveys of citizens in developing countries consistently make this point. But it does not help that the business models of MNCs are based on mass tax avoidance and evasion. And the products we enjoy every day are the culmination of this injustice.

AlekSmart · 21-02-2012 7:32am

Nodin wrote: »

We were likewise victims and are however, fellow human beings.

This is an interesting slant on the issue.

It is also appearing in many current "Economy Related" fora as a justification for all manner of reactions to given real-time situations.

It's an attitude which appears to presuppose a native individuality in matters repressive and/or colonoial,which I believe is distant from the truth.

Our supposed "Victim" status should not in any way be used to direct our attitude to disbursing significant amounts of borrowed money to a worldwide "Victim" co-operative simply because we feel a supposed empathy with them on that issue.

It's areas such as developing a robust trading environment with China,for example,that we need to direct funding into rather than offsetting misruled African States military spending budgets.

noodler · 21-02-2012 10:46am

sarkozy wrote: »

It is. But when those tax systems are undermined by multinational corporations (MNCs), the vast majority of which are based in the US and Europe, we can't wash our hands.

There is overwhelming evidence that MNCs use their power and government connections to practice 'transfer pricing'. In essence, 60% of global trade now takes place within companies between subsidiaries of MNCs. Transfer pricing is the price the corporation sets itself in order to purchase them internally, shifting goods in and out of countries.

This is not illegal, but 'transfer pricing abuse' is widespread - this is artificially setting internal prices for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes. Here are some figures. 69% of all foreign direct investment flows back to developed countries. This figure is very high and suggests significant abuse of tax systems in developing countries. MNCs also manipulate tax systems in order to illicitly repatriate profits. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a region containing the majority of Least Developed Countries, $148 billion flows out of the continent each year. To put that in perspective, the region receives around $24 billion in official aid each year. This is facilitated by tax havens. Did you know that the biggest tax haven is the US state of Delaware? It has 650,000 registered companies - one for every citizen, and the state's laws don't require companies to file detailed accounts or have anything other than a postbox there. Strange, eh?

With this mass theft of developing country revenues, it further exacerbates the practical challenges they have in collecting taxes. Because the WTO has pushed trade liberalisation on developing countries before they're ready, they have lost customs revenues; without the revenues to invest in improving tax collection on the domestic consumption of goods and the size of their informal economies, they find themselves highly constrained in doing so. It's a vicious circle.

So, I agree with you, it is the job of developing country governments to collect taxes through ordinary economic activities to develop themselves. Surveys of citizens in developing countries consistently make this point. But it does not help that the business models of MNCs are based on mass tax avoidance and evasion. And the products we enjoy every day are the culmination of this injustice.

Transfer Pricing, when visible, is very much illegal.

My understanding anyway.

Zorbas · 21-02-2012 11:53pm

sarkozy wrote: »

Because the WTO has pushed trade liberalisation on developing countries before they're ready, they have lost customs revenues; without the revenues to invest in improving tax collection on the domestic consumption of goods and the size of their informal economies, they find themselves highly constrained in doing so. It's a vicious circle.

.

Not sure if its fair to put blame on the WTO. Not sure its some conspiracy to deny developing countries of custome revenue. After all they can decide what import and export duties are to be levied.
The bigger problem in Africa is perhaps the lack of trade and commercial cooperation between countries in the continent itself.

"The new World Bank report states that red tape and trade barriers are costing Africa billions of dollars and depriving the region of new sources of economic growth.
With African leaders now calling for a continental-free trade area by 2017 to boost trade within the continent, a new World Bank report shows how African countries are losing out on billions of dollars in potential trade earnings annually.
This is because of high trade barriers with neighboring countries,
which makes it easier for Africa to trade with the rest of the world than with itself"

From http://allafrica.com/stories/201202140538.html

sarkozy · 22-02-2012 1:02am

Zorbas wrote: »

Not sure if its fair to put blame on the WTO. Not sure its some conspiracy to deny developing countries of custome revenue. After all they can decide what import and export duties are to be levied.
The bigger problem in Africa is perhaps the lack of trade and commercial cooperation between countries in the continent itself.

"The new World Bank report states that red tape and trade barriers are costing Africa billions of dollars and depriving the region of new sources of economic growth.
With African leaders now calling for a continental-free trade area by 2017 to boost trade within the continent, a new World Bank report shows how African countries are losing out on billions of dollars in potential trade earnings annually.
This is because of high trade barriers with neighboring countries,
which makes it easier for Africa to trade with the rest of the world than with itself"

From http://allafrica.com/stories/201202140538.html

OK, so I guess it must be African governments' faults that American and European multinational corporations are stealing their hard-earned wealth?

Yes, the development agenda among African states is to integrate trade and open up regionally. This makes sense for countries at relatively equal levels of development and, with well-regulated foreign investment, on developing countries terms, multinational corporations can play a role in their development.

Trade does not happen in a vacuum. Power always comes into play and your reflex comments may amount to - as usual - blaming poor people for being poor rather than addressing the causes. Very Victorian. As I said, developing countries have reduced their trade barriers before they have been ready (either due to very poor 'technical advice' or against their own best judgement).

Zorbas · 22-02-2012 2:22pm

sarkozy wrote: »

OK, so I guess it must be African governments' faults that American and European multinational corporations are stealing their hard-earned wealth?

Trade does not happen in a vacuum. Power always comes into play and your reflex comments may amount to - as usual - blaming poor people for being poor rather than addressing the causes. Very Victorian. As I said, developing countries have reduced their trade barriers before they have been ready (either due to very poor 'technical advice' or against their own best judgement).

You may have noticed that I quoted largely from the Zambia Times so was representing an "African opinion" as much as my own.

Am also a critic of Multinational Coorporations (MMCs), the WTO, World Bank and the big players that threaten our world. Important to try to understand them and what controls may be possible and by whom?
MNCs are always looking for lower costs. So there is an advantage to locating in countries with few regulations. Some poor countries are prey to corruption and bribery which means their few regulations are ineffective. India, for example, has excellent environmental protection laws but still suffered from the scandalous case of the US chemical business Union Carbide in Bhopal.
This is not about putting the blame on poor countries or of absolving rich countries of their regulatory obligations. Union Carbide’s operation in Bhopal was a disgrace to humanity but the Indian regulators have a lot to answer for which is often overlooked. The point is that while it is for us to try to hold MMCs to be socially accountable (see my comments for Masstock International), it is for developing countries to get and implement regulations to prevent exploitation. Of course with the power imbalances, this is difficult but its the cost of doing business in todays world and with MMCs. Some countries,after all, even design their tax, labour and commercial laws to attract MMCs.
MMCs employ their clever tax accountants to exploit the favourable tax and trading laws of different countries across the world and this is not confined just to developing countries. Transfer pricing is just one of many MMCs bag of tricks which one could focus on as it can affect us all. President Sarkozy is very unhappy with Irish Corporation Tax for example because MMCs may find Ireland “ more investible”.
We would not want to blame the US for our failure to control MMCs in Ireland so why blame us for developing countries failures in their control. To take all the blame as if developing countries can not do anything is in my opinion more of a Victorian paternalistic attitude which does not serve the poor.
The WTO’s trade liberalisation has worked against developing countries and they would have done well not to join such an organistion with inadequate representation but it was their decision.
The EU for us has given certain controls necessary for this world of globalisation. If African countries get round to having a similar common market then it may prove to be a major step to their managing globalisation and MMCs. So far they have not been able to find consensus on that way forward. The elites of developing countries continue to make the unfair deals and laws which work for them and against the poor while basking in the deflected blame game on others.
Aid in the main maintains the status quo and rarely addresses the imbalances in trade, agriculture and “cheque book” power while avoiding transparency and accountability here at home.

Cork boy 55 · 04-04-2012 5:16pm

Time Magazine March 2012 (adult edition)
has recognised your exceptionally generosity

A Tale of Two Donors: Cash-Strapped Ireland Outshines Germany in Humanitarian Aid

While there's no denying that the beleaguered country is in the middle of a financial slump, with unemployment hovering around 13% and young people emigrating en masse, the country has stood firm in one surprising area. According to a recent report, Ireland continues to be one of the world leaders when it comes to humanitarian aid.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2109903,00.html#ixzz1qoaj2pky

This is based on the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI )Complied by Spanish nonprofit group DARA

Ireland was fourth out of 23 countries in 2011
Second in 2010

HRI 2011 RANKING Donor Score Group

Number one
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Ireland
Netherlands
Switzerland
UK
Finland
Australia
France
Germany
Belgium
Canada
Spain
Japan
USA
Luxembourg
Italy
Portugal
Greece
Austria

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UK_DARAS-Humanitarian-Response-Index-HRI_Press_Release.pdf

We have a Nordic AID program with a PIIGS economy
We are either doing something very wrong or very right.
depending on your POV.

walshb · 05-04-2012 2:03pm

Pity we don't strive to be number one in other areas like health, education, policing etc; here in Ireland I mean.

walshb · 05-04-2012 2:05pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

[We have a Nordic AID program with a PIIGS economy
We are either doing something very wrong or very right.
depending on your POV.

Throwing hundreds of millions of euro per year to other countries is something wrong. No wonder folks are irritated to be paying taxes like the household charge when they look at the amount of money the government are squandering on the overseas aid racket.

They expect to make what, 100 million on the household charge? Why not cut the aid budget by 50 percent and they could make close on a half a billion euro saving!

sarkozy · 06-04-2012 1:43am

Figures out yesterday show a 3.1% cut in the Irish ODA budget in 2011 - or 0.52% of GNI - even though we're told the Government remains committed to spending 0.7% by 2015. Recent reports also rate Irish Aid as one of the most effective aid programmes in the world - what we spend is deemed very good value for money.

Actually, the Irish NGO umbrella body, Dochas, makes the point that we benefit enormously from our aid spend because by promoting a more stable and secure world through poverty alleviation and long-term development cooperation, we benefit from that stability and security. As an open, globalised economy, when the world prospers, we do, too.

It's erroneous to say that cancelling all our international development assistance will automatically mean more money for domestic public services. National budgeting just doesn't work like that. It's actually most likely that it would be used to service our odious debt on Anglo.

They expect to make what, 100 million on the household charge? Why not cut the aid budget by 50 percent and they could make close on a half a billion euro saving!

Actually, your maths is wrong. The 2011 aid spend was €659 million, down from around €930 million in 2008. Half of the 2011 aid budget would be €329.5 million. Hardly half a billion. The aid budget has already been slashed faster than the rate of the economic contraction and in real human terms these cuts are truly affecting poor people's lives as we speak. Is that something you want on your conscience. In global terms, accepting all the hardship we are going through, we are still a very rich country.

walshb · 06-04-2012 9:22am

sarkozy wrote: »

Actually, your maths is wrong. The 2011 aid spend was €659 million, down from around €930 million in 2008. Half of the 2011 aid budget would be €329.5 million. Hardly half a billion. The aid budget has already been slashed faster than the rate of the economic contraction and in real human terms these cuts are truly affecting poor people's lives as we speak. Is that something you want on your conscience. In global terms, accepting all the hardship we are going through, we are still a very rich country.

I was not entirely sure of the figure, but as you said, it was close on a billion a few years back. Simple: Get this house in order and then go saving the world with any left overs.

06-04-2012 10:39am

If you think that anyone, no matter who, deserves to die innocently of malnutrition or disease from unclean drinking water, so that little Johnny down the road can have a second pair of Nike Airs, then you are scum. Out and out scum.

And we all know what parties take this viewpoint. The ones who claim to look after the "poor". Hah. Scum.

walshb · 06-04-2012 12:14pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

If you think that anyone, no matter who, deserves to die innocently of malnutrition or disease from unclean drinking water, so that little Johnny down the road can have a second pair of Nike Airs, then you are scum. Out and out scum.

And we all know what parties take this viewpoint. The ones who claim to look after the "poor". Hah. Scum.

Who thinks that extreme and exaggerated view?

sarkozy · 06-04-2012 8:31pm

walshb wrote: »

I was not entirely sure of the figure, but as you said, it was close on a billion a few years back. Simple: Get this house in order and then go saving the world with any left overs.

Well then, get your facts straight. And you better stop all those people giving private donations to overseas charities, too! A disgrace that they're surrendering their own income on poor foreigners when they could be spending it right here in this country. How unpatriotic. How unpatriotic of all those people who make Ireland the one of the most generous private donors in the world.

I am a citizen, and as an elector, I want my Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. I voted for this to be in the programme for government, and it is. I only ask that our Government genuinely seeks to make our aid contributions as effective as possible at addressing the symptoms and causes of global poverty. A lot of people agree with me. A new survey out in a couple of months will show this.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're bucking the trend.

Eggy Baby! · 06-04-2012 10:51pm

Aid in reality gets wasted all over the place. The vast majority of overseas aid to Afghanistan, for example, gets returned to the donor countries eventually as the donor countries provide other services at inflated prices.

sarkozy · 07-04-2012 12:39am

You're talking about 'official development assistance' from the USA there. You can't say that of all donors. And if you look at this report, in 2009 Ireland provided the highest proportion of 'real aid' of all donors. The OECD had similar findings in 2010. This isn't to say there aren't efforts to be made in constantly improving the quality of that aid, but your observation isn't accurate in a general way.

walshb · 07-04-2012 8:12am

sarkozy wrote: »

Well then, get your facts straight. And you better stop all those people giving private donations to overseas charities, too! A disgrace that they're surrendering their own income on poor foreigners when they could be spending it right here in this country. How unpatriotic. How unpatriotic of all those people who make Ireland the one of the most generous private donors in the world.
.

I never claimed anything was a "fact." I didn't know the precise figure, and nor do you. I said it was close on a half a billion saving if they cut it by half. As for private donations. Away you go. Give give give.

sarkozy · 07-04-2012 10:51am

I do know the current figures. The 2011 budget was €659 million. The 2008 budget was €921 million. That's a cumulative cut of €262 million. Irish Aid still projects an aid spend of €639 million in 2012 (cumulative cut of €282 million since 2008). Overall, global aid was reduced by 3% in 2011.

Having previously worked in Irish Aid, I know where these figures come from.

AlekSmart · 07-04-2012 11:22am

I am also a citizen, and as an elector, I do not want my Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. I disagreed for this to be in the programme for government,but it is. I only ask that our Government genuinely seeks to make our aid contributions as relative as possible at addressing the symptoms and causes of Irish poverty. A lot of people agree with me. A new survey out in a couple of months will show this.

I'm presumably entitled to this opinion,although it may buck certain trends ?

walshb · 07-04-2012 11:28am

sarkozy wrote: »

Having previously worked in Irish Aid, I know where these figures come from.

Well, that explains your attitude to it. And your patronising reply. "Get your facts straight."

sarkozy · 07-04-2012 12:38pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

I am also a citizen, and as an elector, I do not want my Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. I disagreed for this to be in the programme for government,but it is. I only ask that our Government genuinely seeks to make our aid contributions as relative as possible at addressing the symptoms and causes of Irish poverty. A lot of people agree with me. A new survey out in a couple of months will show this.

I'm presumably entitled to this opinion,although it may buck certain trends ?

Of course you're entitled to your view! And as citizens in a democracy, our representatives seek compromise on public opinion. Logically, then, we will continue to have an aid programme until the balance of opinion changes decisively. Honestly, this is democracy, why get defensive?

walshb wrote:

Well, that explains your attitude to it. And your patronising reply. "Get your facts straight."

I didn't mean to sound patronising in the least, and I apologise if you felt like that. But you made a false assumption central to your own argument. You admitted you did not know the figures, even though they're publicly available. I helped you and corrected that assumption with reference to the facts.

As for my personal interest, yes, I admit it. In my long-considered view, I believe open, democratic dialogue - especially at times of crisis - begins with an honest admission of one's own interests. It's only from this starting point that political communities can fairly and rationally discuss ways forward for the key issues of our times.

In the context of the aid debate, I have already said that in exchange for continued public spending on ODA, we citizens should expect nothing but full commitment from those who use our money to spend it in ways that are transparent, accountable and, above all, effective at achieving its aim.

The whole point of overseas aid is for it to become obsolete as poor countries develop no longer requiring our money. That's what I want.

later12 · 07-04-2012 1:17pm

I would advise anyone who hasn't read Peter Singer's article on Famine, Affluence and Morality, and who is critical of Ireland's aid expenditure, that it is quite a compelling read.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

...if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. [...] This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important.[...] An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated is deceptive. If it were acted upon, even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed. For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. Secondly, the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position.

I do not think I need to say much in defense of the refusal to take proximity and distance into account. The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away. If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him). Admittedly, it is possible that we are in a better position to judge what needs to be done to help a person near to us than one far away, and perhaps also to provide the assistance we judge to be necessary. If this were the case, it would be a reason for helping those near to us first. This may once have been a justification for being more concerned with the poor in one's town than with famine victims in India. Unfortunately for those who like to keep their moral responsibilities limited, instant communication and swift transportation have changed the situation. From the moral point of view, the development of the world into a "global village" has made an important, though still unrecognized, difference to our moral situation. Expert observers and supervisors, sent out by famine relief organizations or permanently stationed in famine-prone areas, can direct our aid to a refugee in Bengal almost as effectively as we could get it to someone in our own block. There would seem, therefore, to be no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds.

Manach · 07-04-2012 1:45pm

Whilst I'd be in favour of some form Overseas aid (public/private), but Mr. Singer's article I'd disagree with. Each person have there own moral choices to make in certain action, and not have it imposed on them by the State. In this jurisdiction, there is no compulsion to rescue people form a pond - we are not liliable for others in peril or face criminal sanction from the State should we chose otherwise. By accepting Mr.Singer's argument in practice as well as principle, there is very little check on the State's action to help us be materially moral in the name of "impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever"

later12 · 07-04-2012 2:11pm

Manach wrote: »

WIn this jurisdiction, there is no compulsion to rescue people form a pond - we are not liliable for others in peril or face criminal sanction from the State should we chose otherwise.

But that wasn't the point he was making. The point he was making was that if we feel ourselves that there is an imperative to rescue a drowning child at the expense of our comfort, then that is a point of principle that appears to have no logical basis in exclusion with respect to nationality or geographical distance (especially in the context of the new 'global village').

The state doesn't have to come into it. Arguably, the policy of the state is the policy of the people. Surely the people, if accepting the drowning child principle, should be eager to help the 'drowning children' of the world with assistance at the expense of our own higher comforts.

Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?

Comments