[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Starting tomorrow the government of all wealthy countries asks their more well off citizens to endure the following scenario once a day. Participation is not mandatory.

Upon getting up in the morning they are shown a picture of a child from a third world country who for whatever reason is about to die a prolonged excruciating death. They can now press one of three buttons. If they press button one they will be given $500. If they press button two, they will be given $100 and the child will die painlessly. If they press button three, the child will be spared but they will lose $15. What is the moral choice for this daily dilemma?

[/ QUOTE ]This one is easy. The government is unethical as well as the people who encouraged the government. The government does not have a claim on the persons life.

Further, non participation is ethical, as well as option 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-participation is ok. Active opposition sounds right to me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Yes actively opposing your government is ethical. Supporting a government that would do such a thing is unethical.

What I was trying to get at was in the situation; those who support the govenrment in question are unethical, as well as the persons in the government.

The 2nd part of my response was more along the lines of is it ethical to do charity. Both charity and non charity are ethical. It is a choice. It is not ones respsonsiblity to go around the world helping people in need. It is ethical to be selfish, and it is ehtical to be charitable. Forced charity is unethical.