This is not relativism, this is sanity

I try, generally, to be a good person. In my book, ‘being a good person’ is broadly utilitarian, with some overwhelming moral values of ‘not doing unspeakably appalling things that nominally meet utilitarian criteria’.

Taking kids from Africa and sending them to be adopted by couples in France (or anywhere in Western Europe) is in no sane way that anyone could possibly justify unspeakably appalling – no, seriously, try it – I’d be delighted to hear your stupid, moronic argument for why said children ought to be condemned to poverty and general nothingness.

Therefore, I’m glad that the French government appears to be backing up the aid workers who’ve been trying to rescue some kids from a lifetime of misery in Chad to be adopted in France. Unsurprisingly, the Chadian government, being a bunch of scumbags who feel guilty about their inability to provide a good life for said kids or indeed anyone else with the misfortune to be born under their rule, think the French aid workers are awful. But fuck them.

The best single thing that can happen to a child born to third-world parents is to be adopted by people in the developed world, and the clearest indication that people who run third-world countries are heinous scumbags is that most of them make such adoptions illegal (and vice versa from people who run developed countries and try and impose the same, mentalist restrictions).

If every childless Western couple could take a ‘would-otherwise-have-been-in-desperate-poverty’ baby from Africa or East Asia, the world would be a better place. And if you’re reading this and think otherwise, then I’d be fucking delighted to go back in time to your birth and swap you with a child in fucking Darfur, Chad, Sierra Leone or anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa who’d understand why the fuck I think you (and I) are so privileged.

4 thoughts on “This is not relativism, this is sanity

  1. Jim Bliss says:

    Taking kids from Africa and sending them to be adopted by couples in France (or anywhere in Western Europe) is in no sane way that anyone could possibly justify unspeakably appalling – no, seriously, try it – I’d be delighted to hear your stupid, moronic argument for why said children ought to be condemned to poverty and general nothingness.

    Well, there is the ecological argument. Children raised in France (or anywhere else in the industrialised world) will — by and large — become active consumer-capitalists. Children raised in Chad will not.

    If you believe that consumer-capitalism is essentially unsustainable, then the idea of “every childless Western couple” raising an African or East Asian child (as opposed to remaining childless) is a problematic one. Quite aside from anything else, the more western consumers there are, the worse it’ll be for Africa and East Asia in the long-term.

    Note: This is me being devil’s advocate. Basic human compassion often does — and often should — over-ride ideology. Yes, even a sound ideology.

  2. PDF says:

    Good effort, I like that one. Purely from a devil’s advocacy point, but I like it…

  3. A lot of that’s true, but “The best single thing that can happen to a child born to third-world parents is to be adopted by people in the developed world” writes off a few million excellent and successful “third world” parents whose kids have a lot better chance in life than many kids in Britain. I know Zambians whose parents I knew in the sixties who would be disturbed to be told that their children were severely disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth. The third world is not all one place.

  4. Codshead says:

    I have looked all over amazon and can’t find ‘being a good person’ by PDF.

    Who is your publisher?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>