(September 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I meant the starving people in them, not the country itself.
So did I.
(September 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Holding on to them when they could save a life if you gave more of them away is immoral.
And your justification for this bare assertion is....?
(September 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Im thinking basic morality like it is wrong to hurt people because one enjoys it. If someone doesn't agree this moral rule I submit that there is something mentally wrong with them.
That says nothing about letting someone suffer out of indifference, i.e. neither hurting them nor alleviating their hurt, being immoral.
(September 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: You are totally misunderstanding my point. I do actually give quite a bit.
You are the one missing the point. The question is not if you give a bit, it is why should we give a shit.
(September 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: There are lots of refugees in camps, for example, whose lives could be saved by better medical care care which could be provided if we donated more money.
And we should do that because...?
