[CF#5]

And if you knew this kid, who told you hir plan to sneak out and do that, you were aware that this lake is dangerous, yet you didn't warn the ignorant, naive child, nor alert the parents or anyone else, I would say you have some responsibility.

Again, this brings me back to the simple question that has a different answer in every individual unique situation: WHAT CONSTITUTES OPPORTUNITY?

In that respect, it doesn't matter whether you're choosing to drown a child, choosing to stop someone who is drowning a child, or choosing to pull out a child who slipped.

If I'm drowning the child, then I am responsible. That's really clear. If someone witnesses me drowning the child and chooses to not intervene, WHY did that person not intervene? The outcome is the same - the child is dead. Since you only judge consequences, are the thoughts and perceptions of the witness meaningless? If the witness was sleeping, does he share culpability for the child's death? What if the witness was afraid of me? What if he didn't realize what I was doing and thought nothing unusual was happening until it was too late? Do you still pass the same judgment on him as if he was lazy or fearful or in need of psychiatric evaluation? Is he "MORALLY RESPONSIBLE" to the same degree, regardless of his intent, thoughts, and perception, simply because the outcome was the same? You say you won't judge him badly for being evil, but you do judge the outcome. We're talking about INACTION. Of course you're judging him for not intervening. To say otherwise is like what Judge Judy called her book, Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining.

If the kid slipped, then nature (or perhaps more accurately, "the randomness of life") was responsible. Maybe the witness was too far away to PERCEIVE trouble. Maybe the witness had a broken leg and couldn't get there fast enough on crutches. Maybe the witness didn't care. Same judgment?

Another fallacy here is that during this entire discussion, we've been assuming that the "right" thing to do is to try to save the person in danger and the "wrong" thing to do is to kill that person or to not intervene when that person is being killed. Well maybe the world would be better off with fewer people in it? There are thousands of kids starving in Africa right now who I've been guilt-tripped into donating money to by Peter Singer and by you. WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet. IF THEY CAN'T FEED THEIR CHILDREN, WHY ARE THEY STILL BREEDING? Are they really so dumb as to not realize that heterosexual intercourse leads to pregnancy? Are they simply unable to control themselves? Are their cultures so primitive that they are unable to adjust to current conditions? As recently as 160 years ago IN THE UNITED STATES, children were thought of as assets because they could be used for their labor on the farm. Now, they're looked at as financial burdens because they cost a lot of money. It's time for people in third and fourth world countries to start making that same mental adjustment and STOP BREEDING. It's not my fault someone else decided to create this hunger problem by bringing more and more people into the world. The problem is their responsibility, not mine. Maybe instead of feeding these people and giving them the opportunity to continue breeding, we should let the most hungry die out. Maybe that would be the most morally correct choice, because that would minimize the total suffering to those who are currently alive, and those yet to be born would never suffer because they'd never exist. Kind of makes you wonder, maybe? Why is there seemingly so much agreement on an issue that's so subjective? I stopped agreeing a long time ago.

You have to keep in mind that I believe in the abolitionist approach not only when it comes to domesticated animals, but also when it comes to all humans. I believe humans have failed to create a just society, and humans have failed to overcome the inherent lack of fairness in nature. Whatever chance humans may have had due to superior intellect was squashed by human shortcomings and imperfections. Combined with my existentialistic beliefs, I think it's time to give up. In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world. We should have mandatory sterilization for all newborn male babies STARTING TODAY. Within 110 years, there won't be a human being still alive on the face of the earth, and all these "problems" will have disappeared.

How so?

Because the analogy doesn't fit! If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!

So are you saying Bob should just protect his car?

No, I'm saying Singer has a responsibility to keep his analogies free of logical fallacies as well as give them some semblance of reality if he's going to try to tug on his readers' heartstrings and guilt them into sending money to starving children whose parents were too selfish to give them the consideration and respect they deserve by OMITTING to bring them into the world. You want to talk about action vs. inaction - did the parents act by bringing a starving child into the world, or did they fail to act by not preventing what should have been an unwanted pregnancy?

Are you starting to see where my animosity towards humans is coming from? You said you used to hate humans too, but you don't anymore. Was your hatred similar to mine? How'd you overcome it? Should I try to overcome it? Why would I even want to?

If I give 20% am I still allowed to accumulate money to live on after I stop working? Bob didn't have that opportunity in Singer's silly hypothetical example, because his entire future was based on selling the investment he'd made in the car, whose value could only increase... yeah... that's realistic. And not having insurance on it when his entire livelihood depended on keeping it in pristine condition... sounds like Bob is a smart guy.

And most important of all, why should I send money to Africa to feed starving children whose parents are much more responsible for their hunger than I'll ever be (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I'm in a position to feed them while the parents are not), when I can take that same money and donate it to a local guinea pig rescue that works to feed hungry domesticated guinea pigs who are the victims of human exploitation? Is one cause more important than the other? I certainly think so.

If we feed those children, surely some of them will survive and will reproduce like their parents did, prolonging the problem. Since guinea pig rescues don't allow breeding, their cause is a lot more consistent with the abolitionist approach that I find to be morally superior to any other philosophy.