You didn’t really answer, “it’s more complicated” is not an answer. You can say “I don’t have an answer” if you don’t, but I’d like to hear your opinion
I think due to artificially imposed hardships (in the case of Cuba, namely economic sanctions and active attempts at sabotage by the US government), the moral question is more difficult to answer, since citizens of one country have more privilege compared to citizens of a country with less fortune/global power. In terms of morality, it is more moral to treat those who are less fortunate, but at the same time, it is far from immoral to treat those with fortune, so long as you are not ignoring the less forunate.
I don’t think there is a clear answer in a society where power structures exist, of which our current global societal structure is certainly included.
I was able to answer the question more easilly when applied to a theoretical classless society, but I don’t think I can definitively answer that kind of philisophical question applied to our current society.
Well, I think personally choosing to become a doctor in Cuba, and staying there and caring for people who aren’t necessarily your immediate neighbours and community is a morally good form of serving a country. They’re suffering much worse living conditions knowingly just for the sake of the people of said country, who would otherwise get fucked even harder by the blockade
Note: when I say “neighbor”, I don’t mean it in the literal sense, but moreso in the Mr. Rogers sense, meaning “your fellow human” regardless of location or whether or not you have a personal connection with them.
I also find it interesting that you used the phrase “morally good form of serving a country”, focusing on the country, rather than focusing on the people, but still mentioning the larger scale of caring for people who aren’t in your immediate community. Medical doctors, generally speaking, care for people locally, with the exception of situations where remote care is feasible, for example with mental health. I think it would be of greater benefit to society if the licensing restrictions for something like mental health did not restrict the practice of that profession to a single country, but was expanded globally, but only if we also removed the profit motive from healthcare to avoid people everywhere only wanting to serve wealthy clients.
For cases where it is not feasible to care for people remotely, for example, if you are an anesthesiologist or if you work for any kind of in-patient medical care facility such as an old age home or a drug rehabilitation center (ignoring the fact that many drug rehab centers are corrupt, especially in the US given the profit motive), I don’t know how it would be possible to serve a community outside of your immediate location, which makes what you said about “serving a country” confusing to me.
It is also possible to help people globally in large numbers with research and development of new medicines and medical techniques without ever meeting them or talking to them. In fact, Cuban doctors and researchers (along with researchers in other countries) already do this and export that knowledge to the rest of the world, which benefits all of humanity.
This idea isn’t exclusive to medical care, either. For example, Canadian firefighters have fought fires across the border in the US in the past, since the area was close enough for them to be able to do so feasibly.
Another example of an idea that is nowhere near perfect in its implementation in its modern form, but has potential would be the ICC. If, for example, there were no borders, then it would be no problem for the ICC to arrest and try Netanyahu and Trump in an international court for war crimes, but since we have borders along with militaries and vast amounts of economic power inside those borders that protect their respective war criminal leaders, that has not been able to happen.
I also find it interesting that you used the phrase “morally good form of serving a country”, focusing on the country, rather than focusing on the people
Every doctor treats people. Cuban doctors in particular treat people in Cuba, so they’re serving an entire country’s worth of people. I don’t see the issue with this description.
Medical doctors, generally speaking, care for people locally
If I commute 45 minutes to work I’m no longer caring for people locally, most patients seen by doctors are people they don’t know or have heard about, all that many Cuban doctors know about most patients is that they’re in Cuba and they’re sick, so they get treatment.
I already explained the moral difference to me between a Cuban doctor choosing to move to Germany and make 5000€/month treating Germans, vs a Cuban doctor staying and Cuba and earning 500€/month treating Cubans (I’m making up the figures). I don’t need hypotheticals about outpatient clinics, or rehab centres, or Netanyahu, I’m describing a specific existing situation and judging its morality, I don’t see the need for imaginary alternative universes where the ICC works to explain how “doctor chooses to get a huge pay cut and treat people from their country” is, I believe, almost universally morally positive.
So they should just move out of Cuba and treat people somewhere else and that would be equivalently moral?
That depends on if you’re talking about a theoretical world without borders or the world as it exists today.
In a theoretical world without borders, yes.
In the world as it exists today, it’s more complicated than that since the artificially-imposed hardships do still exist.
No, I’m talking about today
I answered that in a ninja edit.
You didn’t really answer, “it’s more complicated” is not an answer. You can say “I don’t have an answer” if you don’t, but I’d like to hear your opinion
I think due to artificially imposed hardships (in the case of Cuba, namely economic sanctions and active attempts at sabotage by the US government), the moral question is more difficult to answer, since citizens of one country have more privilege compared to citizens of a country with less fortune/global power. In terms of morality, it is more moral to treat those who are less fortunate, but at the same time, it is far from immoral to treat those with fortune, so long as you are not ignoring the less forunate.
I don’t think there is a clear answer in a society where power structures exist, of which our current global societal structure is certainly included.
I was able to answer the question more easilly when applied to a theoretical classless society, but I don’t think I can definitively answer that kind of philisophical question applied to our current society.
Well, I think personally choosing to become a doctor in Cuba, and staying there and caring for people who aren’t necessarily your immediate neighbours and community is a morally good form of serving a country. They’re suffering much worse living conditions knowingly just for the sake of the people of said country, who would otherwise get fucked even harder by the blockade
Note: when I say “neighbor”, I don’t mean it in the literal sense, but moreso in the Mr. Rogers sense, meaning “your fellow human” regardless of location or whether or not you have a personal connection with them.
I also find it interesting that you used the phrase “morally good form of serving a country”, focusing on the country, rather than focusing on the people, but still mentioning the larger scale of caring for people who aren’t in your immediate community. Medical doctors, generally speaking, care for people locally, with the exception of situations where remote care is feasible, for example with mental health. I think it would be of greater benefit to society if the licensing restrictions for something like mental health did not restrict the practice of that profession to a single country, but was expanded globally, but only if we also removed the profit motive from healthcare to avoid people everywhere only wanting to serve wealthy clients.
For cases where it is not feasible to care for people remotely, for example, if you are an anesthesiologist or if you work for any kind of in-patient medical care facility such as an old age home or a drug rehabilitation center (ignoring the fact that many drug rehab centers are corrupt, especially in the US given the profit motive), I don’t know how it would be possible to serve a community outside of your immediate location, which makes what you said about “serving a country” confusing to me.
It is also possible to help people globally in large numbers with research and development of new medicines and medical techniques without ever meeting them or talking to them. In fact, Cuban doctors and researchers (along with researchers in other countries) already do this and export that knowledge to the rest of the world, which benefits all of humanity.
This idea isn’t exclusive to medical care, either. For example, Canadian firefighters have fought fires across the border in the US in the past, since the area was close enough for them to be able to do so feasibly.
Another example of an idea that is nowhere near perfect in its implementation in its modern form, but has potential would be the ICC. If, for example, there were no borders, then it would be no problem for the ICC to arrest and try Netanyahu and Trump in an international court for war crimes, but since we have borders along with militaries and vast amounts of economic power inside those borders that protect their respective war criminal leaders, that has not been able to happen.
Every doctor treats people. Cuban doctors in particular treat people in Cuba, so they’re serving an entire country’s worth of people. I don’t see the issue with this description.
If I commute 45 minutes to work I’m no longer caring for people locally, most patients seen by doctors are people they don’t know or have heard about, all that many Cuban doctors know about most patients is that they’re in Cuba and they’re sick, so they get treatment.
I already explained the moral difference to me between a Cuban doctor choosing to move to Germany and make 5000€/month treating Germans, vs a Cuban doctor staying and Cuba and earning 500€/month treating Cubans (I’m making up the figures). I don’t need hypotheticals about outpatient clinics, or rehab centres, or Netanyahu, I’m describing a specific existing situation and judging its morality, I don’t see the need for imaginary alternative universes where the ICC works to explain how “doctor chooses to get a huge pay cut and treat people from their country” is, I believe, almost universally morally positive.