What's a good man to do?

[hmkpoker]

It is analogous in a way, as I see it. We are equally responsible for non-action as action. The fellow in the street needs help, as do the masses of poor people in the businessman's case. Both the (good?) Samaritan and the businessmen are aware of suffering and given an option to exert effort and aid it. The businessman choosing not to spend his money in Vegas is therefore analogous to the passerby leaving the beaten man to the vultures.

(Yes, I know that I'm playing devil's advocate here ^_^)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not a good analogy at all.

An equivalent analogy would be taking the beat-up guy to the ER vs. paying for his rehabilitation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

We are equally responsible for non-action as action.

We absolutely are not. Yours is a very dangerous philosophy. It assumes that we exist not as an end in itself, but solely as a means to the ends of others.

*note to self* watch last episodes of Seinfeld and post conclusion when finished

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
We are equally responsible for non-action as action.

We absolutely are not. Yours is a very dangerous philosophy. It assumes that we exist not as an end in itself, but solely as a means to the ends of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that as if I claim that there is some responsibility for action [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

We are responsible, in the end, for ourselves. The only difference in analogical terms between passing the beaten man and blowing the money in Vegas is a quantitative one; aiding the beaten man is a much more immediate and simple course of action.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it wrong for him to choose A?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he would be just as happy doing A and B, then he should choose B. If he would be very unhappy doing B, when he could be doing A, then B might not be realistic, whereas A is, and he should choose A. If it's something in between, he should flip a coin. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it wrong for him to choose A?


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's his time and money, why would it be wrong to chose A?

[RJT]

Not to nit pick, but I think a better A) is - He can donate a large portion to charity, and living modestly off the rest, making ends meet in a life of leisure/retirement.

I say this only because you ask the “Is it wrong” part; because the answer to this question seems to be easily answered no it is not wrong to choose A. Who would “fault” a person for slowing down so to speak? If you look at the story of Martha and Mary in the Bible, even Jesus chastised Martha for not taking some down time.

Btw, I think the person in question is really going to have a harder time if he chooses A rather than B. Good honest business folk like the man in question generally will get frustrated knowing that he could run the charitable organization better than whoever is doing the job, or start one himself and run it the way he sees fit. It just isn’t in most folk like him to not be a catalyst.

If this is a real life question (I seem to remember you talking about your dad a while back - perhaps I am confusing you with another poster) I would want to know how much volunteer work he has done in the past. If his experience is limited I would suggest he get some first hand knowledge of volunteer work before donating any monies away. The first committee meeting he attends will pretty much answer whether he is capable of plan A. He will either a) bang his head against the wall b)stay with A, but eventually take on a more leadership role in the group or c) revert to plan B.