I'd like to see my results for family relatedness if the survey asked about my guinea pigs instead of my brother or cousin.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Weatherlight What does policing the location you're in have to do with humans vs nature? *confused* |
I'm sleeping in my house in the middle of the night, and some kid decides to take an evening dip in the lake about 20 miles north of where I live and tragically drowns, I have no responsibility in that. My hands are clean. You asked about proximity in terms of feet; I was thinking in terms of miles. You're complicating matters by lumping accidents together with intentional atrocities committed by humans.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Weatherlight consequences are that matter, because they're all that exist. |
That kid might drown by accident, or might have been held down under the water by another person. Either way, the consequence is the same - the kid is dead. And either way, my hands are clean. It's just not possible to lay any blame on me for this. Am I wrong?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Weatherlight How do you reconcile that with this? |
Your entire argument really is that if I have the opportunity to prevent an injustice and fail to seize that opportunity, it's the same as committing it myself. If there's a clear opportunity to intervene and prevent an intentional human atrocity from being committed and someone passes up that opportunity, it MAY constitute complicity with the atrocity. The question of whether such opportunity exists will virtually always be a gray area and up for debate. The reasons someone might pass up such an opportunity, assuming it's existence isn't disputed, can vary greatly, and then you're going to have to be a mind reader and determine someone's intent. Did I not save the girl from being drowned by the murderous necrophiliac pedophile because I thought it would be cool to see her die at the hands of an evil villain, or did I have legitimate concern and fear for my own safety? How significant do the risk and fear have to grow before I'm justified in NOT taking action? You're diving into a subjective debate that has no concrete answers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Weatherlight |
I have now, unfortunately. The more I learn about this guy, the less I like him. Does the 20% of his income that he donates to feed starving people go to pay for them to eat animals or animal products? If that's the case, then his donations are no better than giving money to fund cancer research that tests on animals. He might actually be committing an injustice through his action, while someone who never gives to charity is actually avoiding injustice through inaction, at least as it relates to this specific example. I realize there are plenty of charitable organizations that have been approved by the Caring Consumer website.
This article is a great condemnation of materialism and capitalism. Why should anyone work hard to make $100,000 or more since everyone is capped at $30,000 for necessities? I'm no fan of capitalism myself for the same reasons Singer doesn't like it, but his utilitarianism is very irritating, and his guilt-tripping is ridiculously overblown. The whole set-up of Bob and the Bugatti was faulty, because he set up a situation in which Bob's entire financial net worth was concentrated in this automobile that he, of course, didn't insure! To save the kid on the train tracks, Bob wouldn't have had to give a reasonable PORTION of his money away while keeping enough to cover his essential necessities - he'd have to give up EVERYTHING.
About the only paragraph I found genuine is the one in which Singer acknowledges and addresses how ridiculous this example is:
:"Hypothetical examples can easily become farcical. Consider Bob. How far past losing the Bugatti should he go? Imagine that Bob had got his foot stuck in the track of the siding, and if he diverted the train, then before it rammed the car it would also amputate his big toe. Should he still throw the switch? What if it would amputate his foot? His entire leg?"