Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

[doubleplus]

This is probably the most disturbing of your posts.

You posit that it would likely cost $20/month to preserve a life. Then you say that amounts to a "one time donation" of $1000 - but wouldn't that cover only two years?

Then you say what if it only costed $1 to "save a life"? Certainly we could come up with $20 to "save 20 lives"... What happened to the per-month? That's still $480/year, a more imposing figure than your twenty dollar bill.

Also, "...$20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate..."?? Where did that come from? What happened to proof and sound logic?

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say that it costs a cent per month to preserve a life. Then you could preserve 2,000 lives for $20 a month, when you might not preserve the one life for the same amount. Fine. I still don't agree with what you're saying. Your argument applies only to those who would agree to pay out a certain amount per month if the number of lives affected is significantly greater than one. And of the people who agree with those rules, your conclusion, "YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES," only applies to those who can actually afford to send $20 without depriving themselves of basic necessities. That's a very specific set or criteria, and, on the contrary, I think the majority of people would either donate the $20 anyway, or not donate at all regardless of the "consequences" for the non-recipients. I'm not referring to these groups by their philosophies, by the way, but by their behaviors - that's just how people are imho, regardless of the why.

I'm figuring that your point is that "other people's welfare is not our responsibility," and that your situation is supposed to prove that axiom in some way. As it only applies to a (small) subset of the population, and doesn't at all pose a problem to those who agree with the converse of your statement, "other people's welfare is absolutely and in all cases our responsibility," your goal hasn't been achieved.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm figuring that your point is that "other people's welfare is not our responsibility," and that your situation is supposed to prove that axiom in some way. As it only applies to a (small) subset of the population, and doesn't at all pose a problem to those who agree with the converse of your statement, "other people's welfare is absolutely and in all cases our responsibility," your goal hasn't been achieved.


[/ QUOTE ]

I may have completely misunderstood, but I think David is getting at something about absolutist morality, not collective responsibility - in other words, given that hardly anyone does what David describes (gives their money to literally save the lives of the poor - enough so that they themselves are living with just enough resources to sustain themselves) - it might have some rather disturbing implications for what we term as 'morality' - as in, considering our willingness to accept the preventable deaths of African children, there's probably some conclusion to be made about the validity of Kantian moral imperatives or fidelity to the Ten Commandments, etc.

Or I could be way out in left field.

[doubleplus]

[ QUOTE ]
...it might have some rather disturbing implications for what we term as 'morality' - as in, considering our willingness to accept the preventable deaths of African children, there's probably some conclusion to be made about the validity of Kantian moral imperatives or fidelity to the Ten Commandments, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not left field at all - I can see how that might be what he was going for. I chose in my response to take what he said at face value, and I took his opening and closing lines to be references to his intended topic.

Not that I believe in objective morality, but:

I don't agree with you (or did you mean him?) about the implications for our concepts of morality. He's talking about how people behave, and Kant's categorical imperative and the 10 Commandments are tools to be used for objectively distinguishing moral from immoral. What people actually do or think don't have any impact on the "validity" of those systems. Or, rather, it doesn't expose any flaws or contradictions. The rules are there - if people want to be selfish and ignore them, that's their choice.

[mosta]

you have are assuming the equation $N/mo = 1 life, is meaningful. I
don't think it is. That equals-sign is in fact a dark hole of
administration and politics. If I could drop a buck or two
in a magic box every day and 3 square meals would appear
in an African's hovel, I probably would do it. If I put a
check in the mail it's going to go through a chain of
questionable custody, and then at the terminus, even ignoring
the interceding problems, the money doesn't just turn into
food. it is invested in various programs of at best
speculative merit. not programs that are sustainable
indefinitely, but attempts to transform or reform that
more often than not fail--not to mention the ones that are
variously corrupt.

in summary. I find this abstract formulation to be of little
to no relevance.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason you don't contribute at the higher price is that YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES. Period. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct! I believe that life is unfair. I also believe that this planet cannot support an ever growing human population and if someone has to die it better be "them" instead of "us".

All of this reminds me of an episode of Twillight Zone. Would you press a button to kill an unknown person, if someone gave you a million dollars for it?

The answer is: "Only if an unknown person doesn't have the chance to do the same with me".

Until the CONTINENT of AFRICA has a unified central government, there will ALWAYS BE STARVING/DYING PEOPLE IN ETHIOPIA AND SOMALIA!

Everyone knows that Mississippi is the poorest state in the Union. Everyone also should be able to deduct that Mississippi benefits far more due to the simple fact that it is a member of a unified government, which constitutes 49 additional richer states!

SAME EXACT THING!

End of debate! Ethiopia and Somalia are not the US's problem, it is the CONTINENT OF AFRICA's. Granted, there are not typically "Continental Governments", perhaps Australia has one, but I'm not quite sure. However, in this case, Africa should be a Continental Government, such that, East Africa benefits from South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, and other wealthier African nations.

[David Sklansky]

"End of debate! Ethiopia and Somalia are not the US's problem"

Yet another example of a post that is ignorantly off the subject. My original post related to those who would pay x but not y to save an African. It didn't relate to those who wouldn't pay anything.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]

All of this reminds me of an episode of Twillight Zone. Would you press a button to kill an unknown person, if someone gave you a million dollars for it?

The answer is: "Only if an unknown person doesn't have the chance to do the same with me".

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the right answer ( I mean as a logical proposition not the answer given by the programme)?

If there is that someone who is going to be given the same chance (to kill you for a $million)then you probably should kill him to stop him doing it to you. If there isn't such a person you can make a "free" "moral" choice in the matter.

[mmmmmbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of the Christian Children's fund ? They advertise on tv and do exactly the charity that you are talking about in your original post. They have millions of members.

[/ QUOTE ]

off topic but with these type of organizations less that 10% of the money actually see the benifactors. the christian one itself is horrible since it only helps children whoes familys convert and practice christianity. which makes a village of poor familys into a village of pour familys with two or three have to abandon their religion to survive.

on topic, people are not willing to help strangers, and what is more strange than a blank face accross at least an ocean, if not on the other side of the world. the only reason charitable organizations exist is because of peoples guilt.

[gunt]

would a rich african pay $20 a day to save lives in the US?
it is not our responsibility as americans to throw money at every problem in other countries.
half the world hates us anyway and would just assume we all die anyway.