If so many are so charitable, why does this man have a shack and rice in the first place? — Lif3r
there isn't a clear cut moral answer that we would all agree on, — Lif3r
Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped. — Judaka
not quite. As you can see different people have different views — Lif3r
Has anyone actually done this experiment, or is there any anecdotal evidence of how actual people have acted in such situation? — baker
what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. — Judaka
Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene. — Judaka
Why not? — Benkei
What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated. — Judaka
Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient. — Judaka
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.