Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

[ QUOTE ]
it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it is, but I was trying to see if DS thinks it is wrong

[fatdave]

I don't think you can make such an absolute argument as it being either about money or about dying children.

For example:

Which is the greater good:

A) Donating $12,000 to save 12 third-world children directly

B) Donating $12,000 to save 1 American child (not a life-time total; pretend it's an important medical bill that will save their life)

C) Donating $12,000 to a school

D) Adopting a child (of any nationality) and raising them to live up to their best potential, while staying within your monetary means.


I personally think that (D) is the "best" option, in regards to both the adult and child's humanity, internal value and respect. I also think that (C) runs a close second, because you are affecting a larger number of individuals over both the short-term (say, the school year) and long-term (their entire lives being affected by their educational experience).

Additionally, I don't think that paying money to help somebody stay "alive" is the same as helping them "live". I think you may need to consider the morality of helping somebody stay alive in a less-than-desirable environment, as opposed to helping them live in an environment where every aspect of their personality and well-being can flourish.

[Jim T]

"...other people's welfare is not our responsibility."

Pretty much agree with that. I am not OBLIGATED to act, though I may do so if I so wish.

If I or my family was starving, while I may WISH that some rich stranger from the other side of the world (or just down the street for that matter) would come and feed us, I certianly wouldn't attach any blame to such a person should they not choose to do so. I don't understand why anyone would.

PS A pretty convincing argument can be made that aid to Africa has been a net negative for the people there, so maybe you should try a different example.

[David Sklansky]

I agree with everything you said. But it is again off the subject. Which is that rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good. If there was a heaven their chance of making it there is about the same as guiding a camel through a needle or something like that.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
... rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good. If there was a heaven their chance of making it there is about the same as guiding a camel through a needle or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a real burden, isn't it?

Honestly, if being rich entailed having to give all my money and time away to other people so that you can feel that you are truly "good", then I'd much rather be poor.

Thankfully, I can enjoy the money I earn guilt free.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
No one's principles, can be internally self contradictory, if they expect anyone to take them seriously when they espouse them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you espouse the principles be applied. You may have one moral principle that says, "it is good to help other people" while also having a moral principle that says, "it is good to help yourself". Sklansky may be able to prove that it is not Logically Correct to have both. But the fact is that a lot of people do apply both, using their best judgement to balance the two.

PairTheBoard

[m1illion]

Dave, put the NyQuil down.

[andyfox]

"rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good."

Sandra Bullock, who most likely qualifies as a "rich" American, recently gave $1,000,000 to Tsunami relief. Assuming that she saved lives with that effort,or alleviated hunger or sickness, does she still have the same chance of going to heaven (assuming there is one) as the camel does of getting through the eye of the needle because she could have given $2,000,000? $1,000,000 probably did a lot of good and she probably had a lot of pull to try to make sure the money went where it would indeed to good.

Isn't there a sense where "richness" makes it easier to be called good, since even a small % of a rich person's income, donated to charity, does a lot of good, whereas a less well-off person's contributions to charity, necessarily must be smaller absolute amounts and thus can't do nearly as much good?

[ QUOTE ]
If a person does send the money he's doing it for the selfish reason to make himself feel good.
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If its an absolute moral truth the intentions are irrelevant.

"If he doesn't send the money he's not being logically correct in his application of the golden rule. "

Not following the golden rule equals not logicaly applying the golden rule but the point is that he is immoral by his own definition. If there is an absolute moral obligation to help someone when doing so is no more than an inconvienence, then thats the way it is. Someone posted a link in one of these threads where you could have donated money to vastly improve someones life in Africa. Donating to that link, providing you have some money to spare, is alot more convienant then it would be to save a child drowning that you see on your way to an important job interview.

Its kinda funny how only the two extremes seem to get this. If its Gods plan then all this human misery and such means nothing. I mean its sad and all, but what God does is absolutly right and who am I judge God. If Sklansky is right and there is no absolute morality, who cares, what does it change? Saying that there is nothing absolutly immoral about letting someone die is not to say that you should let that person die.

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't there a sense where "richness" makes it easier to be called good, since even a small % of a rich person's income, donated to charity, does a lot of good, whereas a less well-off person's contributions to charity, necessarily must be smaller absolute amounts and thus can't do nearly as much good?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible says no, and thats the point. Rich religious americans are kidding themselves if they think they are moral or good by their Gods definition.