|
|
#71
10-07-2005, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quick and Dirty
Simply yes. I don't care much about the lives of people I'll never interact with in any way shape or form. If I were to give money to save those lives (or in a bizarre fictional scenario not be given money, if I were say offered $1, $5, or $1000 for each child I allowed to die) it would be because of some whim and some desire to feel better about myself (I still weigh saving a life as a good act, I just don't weigh the acts very heavily where there's such a distance, compared to making myself, friends, and family more comfortable) but not because of a carefully thought out structure for what I'm supposed to do in this situation.
What my morality says I'm 'supposed' to do is that which will make/keep me happiest in the long run - so avoiding guilt is big, but so's not impoverishing or even inconveniencing myself unduly. But of course that's your point. I'm just letting you know that not all of us are trying to fool ourselves 
|
|
#72
11-25-2005, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
I think that roughly everyone is guilty of valuing conveinance over that of human life. Including Sandra Bullock's cheap ass.
Example: Suppose I need some shoes because mine are busted. Let's say I buy some kicks for around $30. Considering I could of purchased $2 shoes at a salvation army, and sent that $28 to an African child/Homless guy/etc., therein I make the statement to the world that I care more about the style of shoes than people's lives. The same principle of course applies to Bullock. She donated $1mil to charity, but I doudt she'll be showing up to the Oscars in a Salvation Army dress.
|
|
#73
11-25-2005, 05:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
David you are going to HELL.
|
|
#74
11-25-2005, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
I'd rather save for my kids college funds and feed and clothe the homeless in my own community then save a strangers life unless it cost literally pennies. Not ashamed of it either.
|
|
#75
11-25-2005, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that roughly everyone is guilty of valuing conveinance over that of human life. Including Sandra Bullock's cheap ass. Example: Suppose I need some shoes because mine are busted. Let's say I buy some kicks for around $30. Considering I could of purchased $2 shoes at a salvation army, and sent that $28 to an African child/Homless guy/etc., therein I make the statement to the world that I care more about the style of shoes than people's lives. The same principle of course applies to Bullock. She donated $1mil to charity, but I doudt she'll be showing up to the Oscars in a Salvation Army dress. [/ QUOTE ] So I assume you've taken a complete vow of poverty, eat only bread crust and water, give tirelessly to charity, and never spend anything on something you enjoy. Right?
|
|
#76
11-28-2005, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think that roughly everyone is guilty of valuing conveinance over that of human life. Including Sandra Bullock's cheap ass. Example: Suppose I need some shoes because mine are busted. Let's say I buy some kicks for around $30. Considering I could of purchased $2 shoes at a salvation army, and sent that $28 to an African child/Homless guy/etc., therein I make the statement to the world that I care more about the style of shoes than people's lives. The same principle of course applies to Bullock. She donated $1mil to charity, but I doudt she'll be showing up to the Oscars in a Salvation Army dress. [/ QUOTE ] So I assume you've taken a complete vow of poverty, eat only bread crust and water, give tirelessly to charity, and never spend anything on something you enjoy. Right? [/ QUOTE ]Show me where in my post I specified that I'm somehow not inclusive of "everyone". I even used myself as an example, I don't wear $2 shoes and I don't always take the thrift store sale/donate excess to charity option. If I was the person you assume I assume I was, I couldn't even justify the purchase of those $2 come to think of it, why do I deserve shoes when that $2 could go to keep the impoverished african child alive for a week?
|
|
#77
11-28-2005, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
When you boil down to it, all actions are determined by what economists call "utility". People make decisions to maximize their utility. If I choose to buy a $3 Whopper instead of a $3 Big Mac, it means the Whopper is for whatever reason, more valuable to me than both the Big Mac and my $3. If I continued to lower the price of the Big Mac, there will eventually be a price to which you will be indifferent to buying the Big Mac or the Whopper. If I raise the price of both the Big Mac and Whopper, there will be some price to which I will be indifferent between the Whopper and the money I would have to pay. At that level of indifference the alternatives are said to have equal utilities.
Also, after you've eaten 1 Whopper you'll start to feel full, so maybe you won't pay as much for a second Whopper, or a third, until finally you won't pay ANYTHING for a Whopper (assuming you can't resell it). This point is called the point of zero utility (or even negative, where you'd have to pay ME to for me to eat another Whopper). This is the Law of Diminishing Returns, that the next item you consume will generate less utility than the previous one. The same thing can be be applied to this question. There will be some price to which saving a life is "worth" more to you than your money, so you will pay so save a life. However, as the price goes up to save a life, or after you have paid to save X amount of lives, you will be indifferent to saving another life or keeping the money. This is just the nature of humans, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The generous people will just get more "utility" (as opposed to keeping the money) than the less generous will, so they will pay to save more.
|
|
#78
12-05-2005, 08:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
What exactly happens when you "save a life" anyway? They get enough food and medicine to stave off death temporarily so they can continue their productive life of being eaten by flies and lying in dirt roads surrounded by the rotting corpses of dead dogs only to die of AIDS anyway a week later? Is this what my dollar is buying me? If so, I'll pass.
This issue assumes that death is a bad thing. Usually that is a safe assumption, but I think you have to take quality of life into account. It's like not saving your 23 year old, blind, three legged cat after you accidentally run over him with a lawnmower. Sure it's medically possible, but what's the point? I agree with the other posters who say that saving starving african children is pointless until their system changes to one that has a chance of stopping this endless cycle of poverty.
|
|
#79
12-05-2005, 09:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
I think when you are talking about lack of condom use in africa you need to look long and hard at the catholic church. I know some people that went over to africa for a few weeks to build a school there (the old school was built of mud/dung and had fallen apart so they built one out of brick). And the catholic missions were providing a lot of aid to the people there, however they would not provide condoms, even though that could really put a dent into the AIDS epidemic.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
