Well, if it's possible to distribute resources at a reasonable cost to promote world peace then it should be done. If it's decided that not all mistakes are fixable then it's morally necessary to know everything that will prevent mistakes before making an action. Though postponing an action is an action in itself which may be a mistake. I'm not sure what to do.

__________________
<---Click on it

Ahh, well defining "reasonable cost" is part of the issue. Is it reasonable to provide food to someone who you are currently at war with? How about technology? Is it reasonable for the U.N. to spend billions to build desalinization plants for a nation that spends all of its money on its military that it then uses to oppress its own people?
Its easy to say that it costs $2.00 USD to feed a person in a poor nation, but if we simply send $2.00 per person, per day, we have no assurances that the people will get the food. Even if we send the food, there are no assurances. In fact, in the past, it has been shown that many governments will appropriate money and food for their own "elite" class and allow the poor to continue starving. So the cost may be $2.00 in food, but there is also the organization needed to deliver the food to the appropriate people. This, of course, makes certain rulers very upset (because they don't get to steal all of the food or money), so they in turn refuse to allow the humanitarian aid in their countries. Now there's an even greater cost, the cost of removing that ruler (which may mean thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars).
Yes, everyone should be fed. During the cold war, the United States gave (not sold) thousands of tons of food to the USSR during their famine times. This allowed the USSR to survive during times when they couldn't feed their own people with their own resources and didn't have the hard currency to buy food. The U.S. and other nations still ship food and water all around the world to help with starvation. There are different groups worldwide who are trying to feed people regardless of politics, national boundaries, etc. Unfortunately, there are simply some national leaders of the neediest nations that are more interested in gathering their own power than in feeding their people. Until those governments are changed, there simply cannot be a solution to the hunger in those nations.
To give you an example of this, Live Aid, which was formed to help the starving in Ethiopia, raised over $200 million USD for famine relief. Most of this money was taken by the government of Ethiopia and relatively few people in Ethiopia received any food from this charity. The corruption in Ethiopia raised the "reasonable cost" of feeding Ethiopians to an unreasonable level.

As to making mistakes, they are called mistakes because they are unintended consequences of actions (or inactions). If they were intended, they wouldn't be called mistakes, they would be called something else (atrocities for example). If I'm driving and my car skids on black ice and slides into a pedestrian, that is a mistake or an accident. If I drive directly into the person intentionally, that is murder.
To prevent all mistakes, we'd need to be perfect, and none of us are. To prevent intentional acts, we'd need to be able to predict the future. In 1936, nobody really suspected what Adolph Hitler's Third Reich might be capable of, but if they had stopped him at the Rheinland in '36, then millions of lives wouldn't have been lost during the European portion of WWII. Instead, politicans believed that Hitler could be appeased with the Rheinland and weren't prepared for his long term strategy. This is simply because of one fact. We can't tell the future. It is easy to say we should have known, but how could we have known? What bit of evidence available in 1936 would have told us?
A morally responsible person tries to do his best. That is all that can be expected. Sometimes we'll make mistakes, even some mistakes that cannot be taken back. There are unintended consequences to most actions. We can try to anticipate them, but sometimes they are completely unexpected. When the unexpected happens, we simply have to try to deal with it as best we can. The morally responsible act is not necessarily to avoid all mistakes (because that is impossible), it is instead to take responsiblity for one's mistakes and do what can be done to right them.
A morally responsible person may also try to right the wrongs of others (both intended and unintended) depending on the resources available to that person. If a morally responsible person is in a position of great power, it may be his responsibility to use that power to right wrongs on a large scale. This is one of the things the Presidents of the United States (past, present and future) are supposed to do. Of course there will always be those who object to whatever actions anyone may take because they may disagree as to what is right and wrong, and as to methods.

-- Jeff

Did you have a specific issue that you are dealing with or are you just trying to determine a personal philosophy?

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

yeah, the issue is how should I live my life so I am trying to determine a personal philosophy, but I guess I'll have to wing it.

Why doesn't the U.S. or other humanitarian countries use their military money to train special soldiers to capture or assassinate the leaders of other countries who are refusing aid? Why isn't war being waged over starvation?

__________________
<---Click on it

Perhaps "wing it" is a poor choice of terms. You should really consider how you want to live and how you treat others. Also consider how you'd like to be treated if the roles were reversed. Consider how you and others would be affected if you chose a completely selifsh path. Consider how you and others would be affected if you chose a completely selfless path. Consider your responsibility (if any) to yourself. Consider your responsibility (if any) to society. Then consider how to balance that all together.

I suggest that we each have a responsiblity to take care of our own needs first and foremost (to not become a burden on society). In addition, we need to care for our family or those who depend on us (again, to not burden society). After that, our remaining resources can be split between personal enjoyment (we all need recreation), and giving to society (charity, public works, other selfless acts, etc.).

So here's the scenario. The U.S. should train assassins to kill or otherwise depose world leaders who refuse aid, right? Who is going to decide when and where to use these assassins? Should the U.S. President be able to assassinate world leaders? Currently it is against US policy to assassinate anyone either in the US or abroad, and it may even be against US law (not certain). Perhaps you'd want the UN to be in charge of this, but the UN is supposed to be a diplomatic group resolving matters through diplomacy, not assassination (some will argue that assassination is a tool of diplomacy, but that's a different thread).
Generally speaking, assassination is a Pandora's box that nobody wants opened. If it is legitimate for the US to assassinate leaders of other nations, then it is also legitimate for other nations to assassinate each other's leaders and the leaders of the US. While assassination attempts do occur between nations, they rarely succeed, and they often lead to all out war. Generally speaking nations agree to not use assassination as a sort of unspoken "gentlemens agreement". This allows negotiation to remain somewhat professional instead of becoming personal. Changing that would change how nations deal with each other. Sure the threat may cause someone to change their stance, but it is more likely that you'd end up with national leaders being killed and puppet governments being erected all over the world. This is something that I don't think anyone wants.
A slightly better solution would be a regular military operation to replace an uncooperative nation. Let's say that the US sent troops into a nation that allowed its people to starve. A huge portion of the world would likely be opposed to that action. You'd hear things like "American Imperialism" or "disregard for international law". You'd see the US vilified even more than it currently is.
Currently the world opinion is against the coalition for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq. We all know that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who killed thousands (maybe millions) of his people during his reign. He used chemical agents against some of his people. He instituted state sanctioned torture and rape. He buried his victims in mass graves without the dignity required by the Muslim faith. Many of his people lived in abject poverty while he lived in luxury and he refused to do anything to help his people, preferring instead to oppose the United Nations and toss out any relief efforts that were made. An overwhelming majority of the world is glad that he's out of power, not the least of which are the Iraqi people, and yet the coalition is vilified for removing him from power. World opinion still opposes the Iraq war regardless of the obvious good that it has produced and will continue to produce. Do you think that they'd be in favor of a war over starvation?
As sad as it seems, it comes down to costs. There is a significant cost to waging war or performing assassinations. The cost is both political and financial. Some would say that no matter how much the cost is, it pales in comparison to even one human life lost to starvation. Consider this then:
If the United States were to expend billions of dollars in a war and lose even more international support, it would risk boycotts and international power. If it loses that power, it loses the ability to help others in the future. Remember when we discussed selfishness and selflessness? I said that one must preserve himself as well as help others. If the US helps others, but loses its ability to preserve itself, then it has lost the balance needed for survival. On a very small scale, if I give so much of my income and time to helping others that I lose the ability to care for my own family, then I have negelected part of my responsibility as a human being and I may very well end up a burden to the very society that I was trying to help. If, instead, I take care of my own family first, and only give from what is left, then I have fulfilled my responsibility (that is to improve society overall). I may not be able to give as much, and not solve every ill, but I have helped somewhat and haven't become a burden to society at the same time. Currently, the US flirts with its world image being damaged. Certainly some people dislike the US, but the intellectually honest still admit that the US, even in invading Iraq, has done much good in Iraq. It is also pretty clear that the US is not doing this to plunder Iraq for its resources which aids its image somewhat. If the US were to start a widespread military campaign against starvation, many would see it as a thinly veiled attempt at empire building. We'd face sanctions and boycotts and the US would suffer, possibly to the point of its own ruin.
Even if the US simply tried to impose influence against another nation to get humanitarian aid to its people, it would be a government dealing with another government. Sovereign governments have several tools of diplomacy, but when governments are at odds, the tools are limited to: negotiations, embargoes, tarriffs, blockades, wars and covert acts. With the exception of negotiation, all of these carry some level of negative connotation and can appear as "bullying tactics" which hurts world opinion of the government in question. Negotiation is positive, but it can take decades to reach an agreement (during which people starve).

A far better solution (you knew I'd eventually get to one) would be to empower non-political groups to tackle humanitarian efforts. Charities (even and perhaps especially religious ones) are more than willing to go into every nation and help out, even in spite of dictators who oppose them. They also aren't going to be seen as an invasion or empire building. Of course charities are not (and cannot be) government funded, so they must be supported by donations. To really make that possible, the average person would have to have more disposable income to give to those charities. Right now, taxes in most nations are so high that charities are underfunded. Even in the US, with its relatively low (yet still too high) tax rates, people don't have the resources to give as much as is needed to charities. Now lower taxes have their own costs and we can get into that later, but the point is that a charity, if properly funded, can handle humanitarian crises much more effectively than a government can and without all of the negatives that government intervention would bring.

-- Jeff

ps We're into several issues now that really deserve their own threads. I'd be happy to see this broken out for more in depth coverage of each and even for more people to get involved with this with their own ideas (if you're reading this, post).

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

If you or anyone else wants to move any of the individual issues brought up here into thier own threads then go for it.

Why would a govt. leader who refuses humanitarian aid not refuse charities? Wouldn't they deny access of charitable organizataions & individuals just the same?
Since when did it become apart of international policy to allow governments to starve their citizens? What if a countries leaders refuse humanitarian aid decide to deny any possibility of diplomacy or negotiations?

If diplomacy is the preferred option to war then people should talk faster. Why would it take 10 years or longer to decide that the people starving in their country unnecessarily is unacceptable? If the leaders don't know that already then someone needs to tell them, if words aren't fast enough then maybe fists would be more expedient?

__________________
<---Click on it

Moved to a new thread.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

What you're complaining about is that everyone in the world doesn't have the same moral compass as you do. Society's values don't necessarily run in the same direction because society has different agendas.

Consider that some people are concerned with human rights. Others are concerned with our responsibility to humanity. These seem like the same thing, but they aren't necessarily. If I tell you that I have a right to free speech and free action, therefore I can say and do hateful, disgusting things, that is a focus on rights. A focus on responsibility would be me refraining from saying those things because even though I have the right to do so, it doesn't benefit society or humanity to say or do them.

Some people are concerned with peace while other are concerned with doing what is right. Sometimes doing what is right may mean going to war. I've heard people say that war never solved anything. To them I say that war stopped the Holocaust of the Third Reich. Sometimes peace leads to slavery and death.

Certainly human rights and peace are good things, but sometimes we have to do what is right instead of exercising our rights. Sometimes we have to set peace aside to help someone else.

You cannot expect all mankind to agree with your values, but you can find others who share similar values and work together with them for what you see as the betterment of mankind.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Everyone does have the same moral compass as me, some just don't care to follow it.

__________________
<---Click on it

Living on the expense on others would be selfishness except if they are fully depentant on the person because they have no other choice (i.e children not old enough to make money)

2. Depends on the situation that the person is in.

3. Not sure wat u are askin.

3. Collectivism vs. Individualism?

__________________
<---Click on it