kytnism
Bluelight Crew
^agreed.
a suit compared to a life?
there is no comparison.
...kytnism...
a suit compared to a life?
there is no comparison.
...kytnism...

Do you feel that way 'bout 'Amnesty', Cap'?
what is false in western point of view regarding tiananmen ?we were raised on the tiannamin square and tibetan western propaganda (including twin peaks), well, my wife was fed another and having had perspectives of both, i can tell that both stories are greatly exaggerated
you said it all, mate.
i would love to help out those in third world nations, but i do feel that that ability is beyond my reach. i don't trust sponsorship foundations. many have a political, religious or financial agenda, and i can't tell them apart.
where would one research information that is not directly from the organisations themselves. i am all ears.
btw: i donate a few bucks every pay (automatically) for some dude in my organisation (interstate, i don't know him) cuz his kid has leukemia. i may be skeptical and a little cynical but i am not cold hearted.
I would like to pose a question that everyone should answer truthfully (mods, if you could make it a poll that would be sweet). Hopefully we can make some progress in finding an answer to the question of a universal ethical code's existence.
If you are wearing an extremely expensive suit and come upon a child drowning in a lake, would you ruin the suit in order to save the child? (For the purposes of this experiment, YOU are the only hope that this child has for survival and that if you save the child the suit will be ruined). Annnnd GO!
What if it was your only suit? And you needed the suit for a job interview the next day, and you had no money to get another one? And you needed the job to feed your family.
This sounds like Unger's thought experiment.
Q: Would you ruin an expensive suit to save a drowning child?
A: Of course! Only a moral monster wouldn't!
Q: Is there any moral difference between the case of the drowning child and the case of our not giving very small amounts of money that would (with similar probability) save starving and diseased children in Africa?
A: Of course there's a relevant moral difference! I just can't think of a single one...
In the drowning child example, the child's life is solely in your hands. And you are an individual. In the starving Africans example, the children's lives lie solely in the hands of society. And society is a group.
To make the first question more similar to the second, you'd have to ask something like "If you were a cheap-suit-wearing individual in a crowd of cheap-suit-wearers, would YOU muscle your way through the crowd, so that YOU would be the one to ruin your cheap suit and save a drowning child?"