If the ethics taught to us in the parable of the Good Samaritan transfer from the individual level to the global level, without any significant adjustments, then certain things follow. If my obligation to give a guy a sandwich transfers without adjustment to our obligation to give food to an entire nation, then other obligations transfer as well.
Not only do I have an obligation to feed the starving, I also have an individual obligation to protect someone who is being assaulted. This can be readily illustrated by adjusting the timing of the parable of the Good Samaritan. What would the obligations of the priest, Levite, and Samaritan have been had they showed up while the mugging was under way? They would have had a straightforward obligation to step in to defend the man being attacked. Right? Glad we agree.
Now where does that leave us with regard to Burma? The cyclone there has killed perhaps 100,000 people. The junta there is not allowing relief workers in. Some people have begun talking about a humanitarian invasion. Seriously.
Now it seems to me that the foundation for global ethics put forward by N.T. Wright requires that he add his voice to those who are calling for an invasion of Burma. If he is, I would like to hear it. If he is not, I would like to hear his reasons for abandoning the application of “Good Samaritan” ethics to the global situation. He can’t say that it is more complicated than an individual situation calling for mercy, because that is what I have been arguing.