I have always said that when people disagree on political issues, the differences of opinion lie not at the political level, but at more fundamental ones. For instance, when discussing whether the US intervention in Iraq was good or bad, the opponents would bring arguments from the economical (it kept the gas price low / it cost billions), social (it maintained stability / it put the Arabic community in a negative light), political (Saddam is a ruthless dictator / the US should have made Saddam an ally against Iran) levels, but neither dares to ask the question "What is the good and what is the bad"? and try to think and give an objective answer. They remain mostly at the political level, never admitting that it is in fact the moral level to which they should descend. It's like disputing the solution of an algebraic equation, without agreeing on how much is 2+2. But, since morality has been compromised by altruist philosophers a long time ago, the moral level is practically always avoided and the discussion ends more often than not with insults, only a natural way to end a "discussion" based on feelings, desires and passions. Fortunately enough, the branches of philosophy can be displayed in a simple hierarchy , which should make arguments a lot easier, but pinpointing the disagreement requires the toughest type of effort there is: intellectual. Here is the diagram:
As you can see, the discussion on whether the US intervention in Iraq was good or bad is doomed to failure if the opponents disagree on what is good and what is bad (Morality), what is the concept behind the word "intervention" (Epistemology), and what actually is and what isn't (Metaphysics).
Let's go back to the original issue: "So, what do we do with the hungry, the poor and the sick? We let them die?" This question is based on a fundamental error, which lies at the metaphysical level (metaphysics studies reality, in case you are wondering). This error is so bad, so widely committed, and has such devastating consequences, that it deserves to be studied, analyzed, explained in thousands of books, movies, lectures, etc., not just on one web page. But I'll do my share:
To 'let' is a metaphysical negative. It is not an action, it is an inaction. It is not something, it is a nothing, it simply isn't. If one says "Leave me alone, I am busy: I have to let billions of people live." he would be considered mentally insane, and yet nobody seems to be bothered by the association between "what do we do" with "we let" in the above question. To let is not something one does. Epistemologically, 'Let' is a concept of a negative kind, it refers to someone refraining from doing something . Morally, something which does not exist, does not have moral value. And this is precisely the trick: the question is always asked in a moral context, it tries to make people feel guilty of not-helping, not-feeding, not-healing, not-everything-else-there-is others. And most of the times it works, especially when the person asking the question is a skilled politician. So, here I am to say loud and clear: Don't feel guilty! You cannot be guilty of something you do not do. Inaction does not cause anything. You are not responsible for the effects your inaction has precisely because it has no effects. Think, before you feel!
Note: Don't try the escape route "Cool! I don't have to do anything from now on, I won't be guilty, it won't be my fault." This works only if the inaction is total in a particular situation. If you signed a contract, you are indeed responsible for fulfilling it. If you promised that you would heal a certain person, or a group, you must do it. If the hungry are your children, you have to feed them. Signing, promising, having sex are actions, they have many effects, they cannot be taken as isolated events, which would enable you to sing happily "I want to be / Consequence free". But, definitely, I am not responsible for feeding, healing or enriching a person in North Korea which I have never met and never had anything to do with his misfortune.
And here is another note: One might get confused about the fact that 'to let' sounds positive, sounds like something one does. Indeed, it only sounds positive, it is only semantically positive, not metaphysically. Also, one might say "Wait a second, if I kill someone, this is an action, therefore it is a positive, it represents the good." Wrong! Do not confuse a metaphysical positive with a moral one. Here is table with a few examples to help clear things up:
| Metaphysics | Semantics | Morality | |
|---|---|---|---|
| To help |  |
|
|
| To kill someone | |
|
 |
| To not let someone drown | |
|
|
| To not let someone breathe | |
|
|
| To let | |
|
N/A |
| To not help | |
|
N/A |
Observe that metaphysical negatives do not have moral value. To let someone starve and to let someone enjoy an ice cream, have the same moral value: none; they are neither good, nor bad, they simply aren't.
 |
 |
 |
