The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we as good as we think? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Nobody really does enough unless your life's work is doing it. I believe most people would get their car off the tracks rather than save another person but that is my experience.

As for donating until it hurts, what happened when the US went in to Somalia? What happened when all that money and food was sent to Ethiopia? What is the real problem in Darfur? What was the cause of the famines? It is very easy to say everyone should donate but exactly what they should donate is debatable.

I suggest anyone wanting to do more or indicating others need to should first lead by example and dedicate their life to public service either in their country's civil service corps, military or elected office. Kind of put up or be quiet. My opinion.

By the way, I served and now continue to find a way to serve. Then again, I don't fault anyone else with their level of giving. In the west, we do live in free societies, after all.

Yes, I am as good as I think but that isn't any better than anyone else.
Robert Apodaca
View Profile
Special user
504 Posts

Profile of Robert Apodaca
James, how do substantiate the claim that we have a moral obligation to feed the starving people?

Furthermore you spoke of how can we buy the CD when people are starving. Well where does one draw the line? Most are able to communicate here on the Café because we have multi hundred dollar computers? Does that make us evil capitalist?
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
Singer is free to desire anything he wishes, but an insurmountable problem arises when he attempts to burden others with his brand of "morality."

To extend the hypothetical seal pup scenario:

Singer: These seal pups may be killed so long as they do not suffer pain and their population is replenished.

Seal pup skinner: The only good seal is a dead seal. We believe these are vile animals and have committed ourselves to their hominid-induced extinction, using the most painful means available to prevent their re-establishment. I and my fellow skinners are familiar with gravity, inertia, electro-chemical reactions, and other natural phenomena, but have no knowledge of any material process or substance constituting a universal code of conduct that would require us to end our mission. On what naturalistic, logically necessary basis should YOUR opinion take precedence over OUR opinion regarding seal skinning?

Singer: [silence]...

(No actual seal pups were harmed during the course of this hypothetical construct.)
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
Suppo:

I agree with you that no one has the right to tell others what to donate or how much to give should they decide to do so. Further, as an unrepentant capitalist and fiscal conservative, it is my view that government does not belong in the charity business. [In my locale, government can't end traffic snarls -- I doubt their ability to make headway with ending poverty.]

That being said, it seems to me that James is posing a reasonable question: How much needless stuff do we have to acquire before the genuine needs of others begin to make a dent in our greed? Reading James' posts, he appears to be the sort that would "practise what he preaches." Would you disagree?

Leland
evolve629
View Profile
Inner circle
A stack of
3838 Posts

Profile of evolve629
Club sandwiches not seal Smile
One hundred percent of the shots you don't take don't go in - Wayne Gretzky
My favorite part is putting the gaffs in the spectators hands...it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling inside! - Bob Kohler
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Big Guy (like the website btw), everyone comes across as sincere over the internet. Cannot agree or disagree.

Needless stuff... I still suggest if anyone wants to discuss giving more, they should enter into public service. The biggest amount you can give is you. The rest is greed. Remember, some have, are, and will give all.

That said, I do not fault anyone for any decision they make, it is theirs to make.

The whole thing sounds like Stalin talking in the 21st century, at least to me. Then again, I, admittedly, have never read the author.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Just read up on this academian. couldn't edit the post above. I definitely stand by my original and disagree strongly with his positions.

James found an earlier idea that someone would sacrifice the little boy over the car to be deplorable. This same author also advocates a position that euthanizing disabled infants to allow families to have healthy children is morally acceptable. So, if the child about to be hit by the train is disabled, that would be ok.

Just so we know the person whose ideas we are discussing.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2006-12-28 22:27, Suppo wrote:

James found an earlier idea that someone would sacrifice the little boy over the car to be deplorable. This same author also advocates a position that euthanizing disabled infants to allow families to have healthy children is morally acceptable. So, if the child about to be hit by the train is disabled, that would be ok.

Your conclusion is illogical, and does not follow from what James' said. He never said or implied it was okay to sacrifice a disabled child in order to save a car. That is your own spin or misinterpretation of his writings.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Quote:
On 2006-12-28 23:19, balducci wrote:
Your conclusion is illogical, and does not follow from what James' said. He never said or implied it was okay to sacrifice a disabled child in order to save a car. That is your own spin or misinterpretation of his writings.


Quote:
On 2006-12-25 22:07, James F wrote:
I must honestly say, that claiming Bob was morally ok with letting the child die, you have become a monster in my eyes.


Ok, follow me on this. This is all from the same person, namely Singer.

1. It is not ok to let a child die to protect your car.
2. It is ok to kill a disabled child.
3. It would then logically follow it is ok to let a disabled child die to protect
your car.

Suggest you re-read my previous. Singer has advocated those first two positions. The third is the logical conclusion of the first two. No misquotes, no misinterpretation, no illogical conclusion, no spin. The thread is about the theories of a Princeton professor named Singer.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
The Monster is amused to learn that Singer is O.K. with disposing of a disabled child.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
A correction...

The car example was from Peter Unger not Singer. Singer has still advocated the position that a disabled child is not worth as much as a healthy child and parents should have the right to dispose of the disabled child. James combined the two into his position. My mistake. I should have been more careful in reading the ideas despite the need for better spacing.

Singer also advocates that if you spend lavishly on a meal out on the town rather than give to help people dying of starvation you are guilty of murder. As well, Unger, from James' example, says money should be given to treat a child of an easily treatable disease. This is distinct from a child with a disease that is not easily treatable and would require much more money. That distinction, based on Singer's position is important. The two are peers.

In my opinion, Jerrine isn't the monster, Singer is.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2006-12-29 00:55, Suppo wrote:

Ok, follow me on this. This is all from the same person, namely Singer.

1. It is not ok to let a child die to protect your car.
2. It is ok to kill a disabled child.
3. It would then logically follow it is ok to let a disabled child die to protect
your car.

Regardless of who said what, (3) does not logically follow from (1) and (2). I'm sorry you cannot see that.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Suppo: Disregard my post above. I didn't say quite what I meant to say, and it is too late for me to reedit it.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Understood
rossmacrae
View Profile
Inner circle
Arlington, Virginia
2447 Posts

Profile of rossmacrae
BAM! BAM! BAM!

...Now that I've stopped pounding my head against my desk with great force, in dizzying disbelief watching the course this thread has taken, let me say this:

One of the things you achieve, upon reaching the age of majority, is the right to make your own decisions and to be your own moral arbiter. The community will always do some scrutinizing and tut-tutting, but you can ignore that if you please (I've never quite understood people who run their lives because 'what will people say if...') If one believes in an ultimate spiritual judgement, at least it's possible to say 'that's strictly between the Lord and me.' Every now and then I'm asked 'how can you call yourself a [fill in the blank: Christian, liberal, American, whatever] and still believe what you believe?' and my only response is that I owe nobody any details.

I know it's hard to tolerate what values some people choose to live by ... we make laws to protect our communities against those whose values are hazardous to others (I've also never understood making laws to protect our communities against those whose valuies are merely offensive to others). And we can entertain ourselves all we want, around the water cooler or by the family hearth, or (sometimes) on this forum, talking about how dreadful we think those people are.

But I can sleep easy with my values, and I don't really understand why we're spending so much intellectual and emotional energy worrying about what Singer, Unger, and James F think we ought to believe ... I am unbelievably grateful that I don't have to live according to any of 'em's judgement.

Payne, if ever we meet, I owe you a drink.
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
Ok, a few things. First of all, Singer NEVER says it is ok to kill disabled babies. In fact, this is something Singer discusses in a lot of his books: Nobody actually READS articles and books he puts out. Instead they read comments on his work or quotes out of context. I own and have read ALL of Animal Liberation (the book where he talks about the disabled baby) Here is what Singer says: Singer, as already stated, believes in equal consideration for all animals (that includes humans), especially on the topic of pain. All animals can feel pain, and pain is bad. We should avoid pain whenever possible. Now, take a chimp and a disabled baby. Singer is simply saying that there is no significant difference between them and there is no difference in how they feel pain. Therefore, when it comes to pain, they should have equal consideration. So, if you are willing to subdue the chimp to un needed pain (electric shock used in testing perhaps), then you must also be willing to subdue the baby to this pain as well. Saying this is wrong is specieism. Much the same as racism or sexism, it is an ARBITRARY difference between then two. Singer does NOT mean it is ok to use babies in experiments using electric shock with this conclusion. What he DOES mean is that it is not ok to use animals either.

Also, I never said it was Singer's example. In the part of the article I typed up Singer himself says it is an example from Unger and that he is paraphrasing it. I don't know if I referred to it as Singer's argument, but if I did, I meant to his paraphrased version.

Also, someone asked at what point can you stop giving? I already answered this and so did someone else, but basically untill giving more will cause you to be as impoverished as those you are trying to help. Of course, we know no one will do that, so Singer just suggests a reasonable percent. He never names a percent, but he himself gives about 20% of his income away. (again, as already stated)

Ross,

You say when you get older that you become your own moral arbiter. I think this can be considered a "cop out." Perhaps that's just an excuse to not have to do things we think may be morally demanded from us.

I think if this board had been around during the time of many other controversial issues and someone posted about them, many of the responses would be the same. "It demands too much" , "I don't think that's immoral, its ok to do that" , "Society doesn't tell me what is moral and what isn't" , "Im my own moral arbiter" ...But now we look back at those things and cant imagine how people could have thought those things were ok. I can GUARANTEE you that this will be the exact same. People are going to look back and wonder why we thought it was right that people on the other side of the world were starving and we were buying PS3's and going on cruises. Mark Singer's words.

James
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
I agree with Ross and did what I wished to do by ensuring the real Singer was discussed. The rest is Bovine Scatology.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
The Monster states clearly that he is not equal with animals and is a firm believer in specieism, if I understand the term correctly. If every fire ant in the entire world world died a horrible death I would not shed a tear. True, an ant is not an animal by definition, but none the less death to them all.

Gotta love the "You'll be sorry." ending. Even with a GUARANTEE.

Still waiting for that legal schmegal update, 5 days and counting. That one was stated pretty boldly too.

"Bovine Scatology" heheheheheh Smile
rossmacrae
View Profile
Inner circle
Arlington, Virginia
2447 Posts

Profile of rossmacrae
Is it okay if I stop torturing animals myself and hire a disabled baby to do it for me?
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
Jerrine,

Someone in the earlier thread mentioned the law I am speaking of and even gave us the name of it. I will attempt to research this further as soon as I am done with this post. I will report back either way, right or wrong.

Also, Singer does NOT claim "all animals are equal." Again, you're taking his beliefs and views out of context. Its ok, everyone does it. As stated before, Singer believes that all animals capable of feeling pain should have equal consideration when dealing with pain. In other words, if two animals can feel pain, they should get EQUAL consideration about when and how pain is inflicted upon them. Singer says that a dog should not be subdued to pain just as a human shouldn't be. Singer NEVER EVER EVER says that all animals are equal. He specifically points out in his book that he does believe some animals LIVES may be more important, but that does not mean they deserve to have unneeded pain. He spells this out very specifically. I would give the example, but that really isn't the key point here.

Ross,

No. lol.

I think a lot of people in this thread should pick up some of Singer's writings. It seems almost all of your "criticisms" are exactly what I was speaking of when I said you will all have these criticisms but they are all addressed. I will admit, Im hardly an expert on any of the topics we are speaking about. Singer's book "Animal Liberation" is over 300 pages long. Its a long and complex argument. Just shrugging it off as "Bovine Scatology" seems a bit foolish. His works on world poverty are also long and complex. I hope at least some people on this thread will read it and maybe even discuss it with people. Sometimes people come to logical conclusions that we really SHOULD agree with...But we are so set in our ways that we cant bring ourselves to do it. Besides, you don't have to agree with everything your read, but at least you will know where Singer is coming from.

James
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we as good as we think? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL