Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.

[mosquito]

[ 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 ]

Non-participation means you are allowing the possibility of someone else doing something unethical. You have the option to prevent this at least once, by participating.