Why the news covers Western terror attacks more extensively than in other areas

That about sums it up. It's always frustrating when people complain about this on Facebook or TSR or whatever and think they're making some kind of profound point. Why is there never as much media buzz about a bomb attack in the Middle East or Africa? Because it's like reporting on a fire in a furnace... A far away furnace that has little to do with us culturally, politically, or socially. Deaths in Afghanistan and Somalia or even India and Myanmar are an equal loss of human life, yes, but it doesn't resonate.

Menar du att västvärlden och vita liv betyder mer än andra länder och liv???

Translation: Are you saying that western countries and white lives more matter than other countries and lives ???

Ah, good old straw man arguments

But the problem is that the facts are evidence that building "a moral framework" up from them is likely impossible. We are absolutely hardwired to care more about things we have connections or are able to make connections with than those that we are less so able to, and I don't see any way in which that could change. You can call it unethical as much as you like, but it's never, ever going to change so I hardly see the point. It's like complaining that rocks are hard. Some changes are worth fighting for. Some changes are difficult, and may even require people evolving psychologically. But this goes far deeper than that. This is as fundamental as the fact that a leaf floating on a lake will shake more from the ripples of a falling stone the closer it is to it.

Excellent comment.

It's also strange that Islamic groups would complain about this given they claim that Muslims are uniquely sensitive to the suffering of all Muslims everywhere. They take a very strong interest in "oppression" and "indignities" that happen to people to whom they are connected by religion, even if they're never travelled to the country in question.

Most Western, English-speaking Muslims will care far more about a Palestinian being killed than an American being killed.

And yet they lecture us on the fact that the media understandably focuses more on events that are geographically closer to us, culturally closer to us and much rarer?

I mean, you're suggesting that it's not ethically right that we care more about people we have some kind of connection to, than those we don't. So, do you think it's wrong that people are more upset when someone in their family dies, than when some random Joe Bloggs dies? Is it wrong that you'd be more upset if your mom died, than if 10 people were killed in a terrorist attack in Pakistan?

Surely the existence of people such as myself and ChaoticButterfly demonstrates that your claim is too strong here. I know plenty of people - 10,000+ effective altruists and/or utilitarians, for instance - who have impartial and universal concern for every human being (and indeed every sentient being).

Perhaps not on an emotional level, but on a rational level. And, our actions - such as donating to the most effective charities that help those and save the lives of those in extreme poverty on the other side of the world - are based upon our rational understanding of the world.

I agree that the notion that we can get the majority of people to have universal and impartial concern for others is far-fetched, but I think the danger is that people will equate your facts, as ChaoticButterfly put it, to being what is morally right.

The media may not be too much at fault, in other words, but I think that individuals and governments could adopt a more impartial attitude.



Well, that's just an illogical appeal to hypocrisy! We should be telling English-speaking Muslims and English-speaking non-Muslims to try and adopt a more impartial attitude, surely. I have a Muslim friend who I've made the same points to as I've made on here, when I've detected his biases.



It's not wrong that you'd be more upset, but I would endorse the position that it would be wrong to save your mother instead of 10 strangers. This is the point I was making earlier: on an emotional level, it is virtually impossible to get rid of biases, but our System 2 - the rational side of our mind - can override our System 1 - the emotional intuitive side.

People might find this piece interesting. https://kirschnerskorner.com/2015/11/16/all-lives-dont-matter/

I brought you in here as I am to lazy/incompetent to make good arguments myself.

It's not wrong that you'd be more upset, but I would endorse the position that it would be wrong to save your mother instead of 10 strangers (if this is shocking to you, there would surely be some point at which you would save the lives of many, many more people instead of your mother's life). This is the point I was making earlier: on an emotional level, it is virtually impossible to get rid of biases, but our System 2 - the rational side of our mind - can override our System 1 - the emotional intuitive side.

People might find this piece interesting. https://kirschnerskorner.com/2015/11/16/all-lives-dont-matter/

Surely the existence of people such as myself and ChaoticButterfly demonstrates that your claim is too strong here. I know plenty of people - 10,000+ effective altruists and/or utilitarians, for instance - who have impartial and universal concern for every human being (and indeed every sentient being).

Perhaps not on an emotional level, but on a rational level. And, our actions - such as donating to the most effective charities that help those and save the lives of those in extreme poverty on the other side of the world - are based upon our rational understanding of the world.

I agree that the notion that we can get the majority of people to have universal and impartial concern for others is far-fetched, but I think the danger is that people will equate your facts, as ChaoticButterfly put it, to being what is morally right.

Well, on the surface that seems like a great thing. But to take such a rational view of how one should care surely requires one to be dispassionate, given that it goes against how one is actually hardwired to care. Is this a good idea?

Don't concede 'rationality' to such people. It's an absurd conceit that one can reason one's way to 'correct' moral positions, and it's not one that ought to be encouraged.

Every moral position is ultimately founded upon arbitrary starting points. It is not 'more rational' to ignore natural human inclinations in choosing them. If anything, in a social context at least, it is perverse to do so.

Well, on the surface that seems like a great thing. But to take such a rational view of how one should care surely requires one to be dispassionate, given that it goes against how one is actually hardwired to care. Is this a good idea?

Isn't there a danger that advocating that people care about things in a totally rational and unemotional way will ultimately lead people to try and think in an entirely computational manner which is simply incompatible with how the human mind naturally operates, and is therefore potentially maddening?

If you are really honest that you care about things completely impartially and entirely rationally, does that mean that before every action you try to figure out whether it will benefit or harm the greater good?

With every bit of money you get, do you assess whether someone else needs it more?

Are there not people around the world who would benefit from using your house as a shelter? Do you house as many of these people as your house can hold before it becomes less pleasant than their original conditions?

I don't believe people can think like that, I don't think it's healthy, and I don't think it works.

Can't we be glad that people care about as much as they do? It's pretty incredible.