If so, the below two points will cure you of this silly idea and any similar ones:
(A) if our money-making machine (our economy) is not well taken care of, such as by assuring its supply of skilled labor, it may deteriorate, leaving less money left over to donate to the worthy causes you want it donated to. If you don't take care of yourself first, you will be to weak to help others.
(B) The education system in the US is not lacking for money, it simply uses the given money poorly. It can be improved without spending more money.
Education is a capital investment, not a luxury consumable good.
For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality.
I believe that the decades long wave of software outsourcing to India has lifted the standard of living for many thousands of people there. I believe that the decades long wave of electronics outsourcing to China has created opportunities for rural residents there to attain upward economic mobility. I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale.
I rather agree. What I'm wondering is: if you're not trolling, why swallow Singer's premises, swallow his extrapolations, and then call it all questionable?
Because this is the position you're taking: that the United States has a moral obligation to invest its finite resources into immigration or outsourcing of jobs for skilled foreign workers over and above training and education for its native-born workers.
>I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale.
I don't think a clear-thinking individual can really be for such a blatant violation of basic democracy. If we want America to be accountable to the Indian and Chinese masses, we should give them passports and voting rights -- then see what they want for themselves. Likewise, if we're going to invest American resources in improving the well-being of India and China, why not demand an EU-style relationship of open borders, common standards for human well-being, and residency-based voting rights?
I don't think one can really have humanitarianism without solidarity, coexistence, and shared community. To do well by someone just is to expand each-other's (legal, economic, etc) communities to include each-other. A charity/tithe of 10% or something is both traditional and good, but I think it's wrong to expand charity to the point where you give to outsiders at the cost of community ties (both within your existing community and between your community and outsiders).
It's a reasonable, defensible, globalist stance.
And it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with such a stance and make the national well-being a priority over the comparatively greater struggles and sufferings of people outside our borders. But unfortunately I think we always use smoke and mirrors and avoid facing the issue head on.
I appreciate that you have a clear and we'll articulated position for your preferences for how your tax dollars should be spent. I hope that we as a society can have open discussions and debates that welcome and encourage opposing worldviews to our own, and that we can hold a default mindset to first understand our compatriot's views, rather than first defend our own positions.
Completely agree with (1).