No. One. Is. Forcing. Anyone. To. Do. Anything.
Why can’t you understand this?
Suggesting. That. People. Have. To. Behave. In. Certain. Ways. Can. Lead. To. Unintended. And. Unpleasant. Results.
Why can’t you understand this?
I can’t see any difference. Why wouldn’t you have to prove that performing an action is unethical while you would have to prove that not performing an action is unethical?
For instance, don’t you have to prove that eating babies is unethical? Doesn’t a vegetarian has to prove that eating a cow is unethical?
Whether we’re speaking about an action or abstaining from an action, the situation is the same.
And once again, there’s no objective way to prove that an action (or lack thereof) is unethical, even though there’s an overwhelming agreement about some of them (like killing babies for food).
And for instance, I think there could be also an overwhelming outcry if someone posted in the pit a story about someone abstaining from acting in some circumstances. Say “yes, we all knew he was beating/raping his children. No we didn’t bother to call the police. that was none of our business. And do not dare to say it was unethical! We just absained from acting. That can’t be unethical.”
An hypocrite? Why so? I’m not pretending to do what I don’t. And I already said so much in a previous post. I wrote that I thought I was acting in an unethical way. And that we are were, in my opinion. If someday, hopefully, these issues are solved, I’d rather not have my grandchildren asking “Is it true that there were people starving/ dying from lack of cheap drugs/ being massacred by the hutus were you were young?” “Did you know about it?” “What did you do?” and have to answer : “Yes. Yes. I bought a new bed so that i could sleep better”
IOW, no. I don’t feel comfortable.
It’s difficult to draw a line, and such a line will always be arbitrary. But everybody draws a line. For instance, few people would state that it’s not unethical not to call the police in the child beater/rapist case, though you could want to use your time playing poker rather than calling the police. Another poster mentionned that she gave enough to feel comfortable. Someone that there might be such an ethical obligation towards people living in one’s own country, and so on.
And it’s true for any ethical/moral issue you can think of. What makes this one special?
Also, suggesting that people have to behave in certain ways can also lead to intended and pleasant results.
Not in the eyes of the law, thank God. Any system, ethical or legal, that viewed ommision that same as commission would be terrible. It would be an invitation to arrest or prosecute anyone at any time for anything they didn’t do.
I wouldn’t call it unethical, given only those details. There are other negative descriptors, but I don’t see an ethical violation. A moral one, perhaps. In any case, is what would happen in the Pit supposed to prove something?
Well, then you’re unethical, by the standard you’ve described, unless you want to claim you’ve never bought a luxury good.
That’s your right, but not my concern.
No problem. Tell children they have to behave calmly and quietly in restaurants and airplanes. Tell people they have to speak quietly in libraries. Tell people the have to rewind videotapes before returning them. These are suggestions that people, as they go through their lives, not make life unpleasant for others. But saying they have to choose to help the poor… that’s just comical, and clearly a point on which we’ll have to agree to disagree.
As often happens toward the ends of threads, we seem to be losing sight of the big picture, and in some cases the original question. So, in the interest of continuing what I think has been an interesting, if depressing, discussion, I’d like to sum up by way of offering a new, slightly altered OP:
Question: Does a person have a positive moral obligation to help save someone in imminent danger of dying if it is in his or her power, the dying person is not responsible for their situation, and the only moral cost is the potential happiness of spending that money on a luxury item?
Arguments for an obligation:
-
You are rich because you are lucky. The difference between a middle/lower-class American and an upper-class American may be hard work and merit, but the difference between the wealth level of an American and a poor Indian is the luck of having been born in America (true of UK, etc.). As with many priviledges, this one comes with an obligation: to help those who are less lucky. Hence, the source of your obligation is your priviledge of having been born wealthy (in a relative sense).
-
Thought experiments like this one from Peter Unger…
Bob’s Bugatti: On a rural road near the garage where it’s kept, Bob’s gone for a careful drive in his Bugatti. At a certain point, he spies a shiny object. To inspect it, Bob parks his car ten yards beyond a trolley track. When Bob walks over to the shiny object, he finds it’s a switch that can be set in two ways. And, as Bob observes, there’s a trolley up the line that’s barreling toward the switch’s fork. As the shiny switch is set, the trolley will go down the fork’s opposite side, not the branch leading to Bob’s Bugatti. But, as Bob sees, on that side there’s a young child trapped on the track. As he knows, Bob has two options: if he does nothing about the situation, the child will be killed, but he’ll enjoy a comfortable retirement [given the rising value of the car]. If he changes the switch’s setting, then, while nobody’s killed…the trolley will totally destroy Bob’s uninsurable Bugatti, wiping out his entire retirement fund. Bob chooses the first option and, while the child is killed, he has a comfortable retirement. Was Bob ethical?
Saving a life is every bit as straightforward as flipping a switch. There are organizations which will guarantee that your money will, with %90 success rate, save the life of someone.
Cite
Cite
Since this is a discussion of ethics, it might be worth seeing if we agree to even the most basic meta-ethical propositions:
*There is no “right for you” and “right for me.” The right action might depend on the situation, but it isn’t relative to the person. (Otherwise there is little point in debating ethics, so I assume we all agree to this).
*The way we determine what is and what is not ethical is through thought experiments. We ask ourselves what our moral intuition is in a given situation, and then try to show how the unknown situation is similar. (Again, this is standard in contemporary philosophy, I can’t think of any philosopher off the top of my head that disagrees with this (though I’m sure they exist)).
*Ethics is about what we ought to do. It isn’t about what we should be forced to do, or what we “have” to do. Indeed, if an action weren’t voluntary, it would probably be amoral since no choice would be associated with it.
If your arguments from above are not addressed in this post (and I know there are some), please succinctly re-state them so we can look at them anew.
If the only difference between being born an American or an Indian is luck, isn’t it then beholden on the Indians to emulate the Americans so their children will be as “lucky?”
What kind of idiot parks on trolley tracks? He deserves to lose his Bugatti. Schmuck. But he’s not unethical if he doesn’t change the switch, though. He may be a bit dumb for not walking over to the child and yanking him out of the way, though.
In any case, to answer your question (which is rather poorly stated): No.
So, then doesn’t this make you even more unethical than those you’ve looked down upon in this thread?
I mean, I think the economic reasons that spending some extra money on luxuries helps the economy and the generation of the total wealth, thus creating a bigger pool of money. A bigger pool of money means that even if the same amount of money is donated, there is more to donate. In other words, I’ve come to grips with my luxury spending, and have no qualms about the ethics behind it.
I will try again simply. I bought a satellite radio, admittedly a luxury. It makes me happy on my commute to work. I get to work happier and work harder. I work harder and I earn more money. I earn more money and I donate the same percentage (or higher) to various charities. This is not a thought exercise, this is not pseudo rationalization. This is real.
You seem to think luxury spending is unethical, yet you do it anyway?
The reason people are getting upset is that you are trying to stand on moral high ground that you haven’t earned, and pee on those beneath you for being uncaring and greedy.
You could have stopped after the third sentence and that’d be okey-dokey.
That would have been more of an IMHO post on XM vs. Sirius!
To add to my post though, let’s say my radio cost about 100 bucks. Would it have simply been more ethical (better for the world) had I just given that 100 bucks to UNICEF? If my happiness were the only issue, the answer is probably it would have been more ethical to cut a check. However, my purchase helped employ engineers to design it, truck drivers to deliver it and salesmen to sell it. As a whole, my purchase created wealth for a bunch of people, and helps them stay off charity. Now the 100 bucks that I DO give to charity can go to other people.
Plus I get to listen to 20 stations of rock music.
It’s win freaking win.
What exactly do you think the people do with the money that you donate?
I would imagine that the money that I give to the animal shelter goes toward cat food, while the money that goes to the college fund goes toward scholarships cause if they mess that up and have cats going to graduate school and qualified students eating cat food, I’m gonna be pissed.
Ok and do you think cat food and colleges magically congeal? Of course not they employee engineers to design the machinery, salesmen to sell and truck drivers to deliver it.
Great, so if it’s ethically the same thing to donate vs. buy a luxury in the long run, I’d just as soon go the route where I get a luxury at the same time.
Win freaking win.
I can see that the time for reasonable debate on this topic has ended.
I’m not impressed by snootiness. I’m impressed by thoughtful debate.
**Treis ** actually made me think with his above line of reasoning, and to be honest gave me stuff to further think about. You’re making me realize that you started this OP to look down on people.
According to your argument its the same. According to my argument donating to charity is better becuase you reduce the suffering of people.
Seriously, I see what you’re saying and I agree with you (I had a “blast him for foiling me” moment above, until I thought about it more. I also had a joke about cat food and congealing, but I couldn’t quite phrase it right.). If I have 200 bucks and I give all 200 away to an animal shelter I have not only helped cats, but I have helped cat food manufacturers. I think we’re actually making the same argument: putting money into the system, whether by buying luxuries or by giving to charity, generates wealth.
But, if I give 100 bucks to the animal shelter and spend 100 bucks buying doodads, I’ve still helped cats and cat food manufacturers (though half as much), but, in addition I’ve also helped doodad manufactureres and doodad engineers and doodad transporteres, in the same way as I’ve helped cat food manufacturers. Plus, I get to play with my new doodad, which makes me feel pretty good, work harder and maybe inspire others to be in a position to buy doodads.
I’m not saying that I buy the doodad for entirely unselfish reasons, but the result of doodad buying is beneficial to the generation of wealth across the board.
How is the statement arrogant? Start everyone off at $15,000 and Bill Gates is still a genius, Tom Brady can still throw a football, and Christopher Walken can still act whereas Joe Crackhead is still just a highschool dropout with more cash than he knows what to do with. Common sense dictates that Joe is going to be the longshot at not only becoming rich, but maintaining the median level of wealth.
Property itself isn’t natural. Otherwise butterflys and elk and porpoises would own cars and stocks and things.
Okay, I’m kidding about animals owning/not owning human possessions, but I truly believe that property is not natural. It is manmade and is one of the single biggest factors of humankind’s downfall. And BTW, no, I don’t think that everyone should be stripped of all there property this instant or ever, for that matter. I just think that if humans had stayed communal (not Communist), and had never learned the “I got mine” philosophy that is rotting our culture, we’d be a lot better off.