Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

[David Sklansky]

Be prepared to feel uncomfortable. But the fact is that those who don't espouse the clearcut philosphy, that other people's welfare is not our responsibility, will have difficulty responding to something I just thought of. The only other people who this won't apply to are the mega generous or the ones who argue that they are accumulating wealth now mainly for the ultimate benefit of others. And of course those sickies who might prefer Africans to die.

This leaves, I think, the majority of people. People who use the excuse that "you just can't help everybody" when in fact I believe that the real truth is that a strangers LIFE is worth less to them than a tiny bit of convenience.

To show this you need only to answer the following question honestly. HONESTLY.

To actually keep someone in Africa from dying costs maybe $20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate. That translates to perhaps a one time donation of $1000. Certainly everyone on this forum is pretty sure it is between $300 and $3000. Let's all agree on that. So here is the question: Suppose it only cost One dollar to save a life? Plus a few postage stamps. Wouldn't you spend some time and money to save at least a few dozen people? You might even spend more than the thousand dollars you opted not to spend to save one person. Even if you didn't spend that much how many of you, not including those who were philosphically opposed to the whole concept, would honestly say they wouldn't go for a twenty dollar bill to save 20 lives?

But wait. At the same time you are acknowledging that you will pay $20 because you want to do some good you are therefore admitting that your unwillingness to pay or help pay for one life is based solely on the fact that you want to keep the money. It ISN'T because of some pseudo philosophical thought "one can only do so much". (unless you are already not well off or again, if the money is eventually earmarked for others, or if you are giving it to another charity where the money goes farther.) If that was true you wouldn't contribute at the cut rate price either. 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.

[JackWhite]

Don't the people in those countries have to do something for themselves eventually? Hasn't a lot of aid money over the past 30 years gone to dictators and warlords? Don't many African men consider a condom to be a unmanly? As long as tribal warfare and unprotected sex continue, they are going to have problems, no matter how much money I give.

[microbet]

I thought about addressing some practical issues about donating to Africa, but I think he's trying to make a pretty general point. Plus, I didn't want my comments to be called stupid.

The thing I wanted to mention is that African war and famine are partially caused by aid. The OP could always stipulate that you found efficient, effective ways to give aid that promoted African self-reliance.

[David Sklansky]

Off the subject. Switch the argument to differnt dying children if you must.

[JackWhite]

David, are you asking how much is a human life worth? Would you give away all your money if it meant a million children wouldn't die? Tough thing to ask someone to do.

[PairTheBoard]

If a person does send the money he's doing it for the selfish reason to make himself feel good. If he doesn't send the money he's not being logically correct in his application of the golden rule.

So far I have not been too impressed with the absolute validity of Sklansky Logical Correctness. I think I will continue to apply moral principles by my lights, not yours David.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
And of course those sickies who might prefer Africans to die.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound like it is wrong for some one to enjoy other peoples death

[KidPokerX]

David
The answer lies in our society. The majority of us, atleast by the age of 18, know that $20/day has the power to save lives in a different country. The fact is, most of us choose not to donate - partly due to the majority of us wanting to keep our cash - but also for the same reason a single person tends to aid someone in need (such as a car accident, violent act on the streets,) while a group of individuals are less likely to step forward. I think you can boil your analysis further into the deepest, darkest caverns of human nature.

[KidPokerX]

it is.

[David Sklansky]

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