mrswdk wrote:I'd probably go and help it, because it's not like it's any hassle to do so and I'd want people to do the same for a child of mine (assuming my child ever found itself abandoned in a pond). If I ruined my shoes doing so then I'd be pissed off.
Yes, and that's really the point behind moral systems (see the other thread we discussed). The world is just a better place if we help drowning toddlers out of ponds, because it fosters a reciprocating system where people do the right thing.
If I see a video of someone else ignoring some other toddler online then whatever. I don't know what was going through that person's head, so how can I make a judgement about what sort of person they are?
I am not asking you to judge what kind of person they are, I am asking you if they did the right thing. I point this out because I don't think a moral discussion has to be about saying "is this person bad" or "is this person good." People are more complex than that. Sometimes people do good things, sometimes they do bad things.
Yeah yeah, we all know this story. Who are we to judge? A lot of bystander incidents like this in China supposedly spring from the bystanders' fear of being taken to the cleaners by a victim/family who see an opportunity to extort a Good Samaritan. It's happened plenty of times before - person helps old lady off the pavement, takes her to hospital, is accused of pushing her down and successfully sued. If you're scared of the same thing happening to you then refraining from going over to help seems like a rational move.
Hopefully we can agree that the existence of such a situation -- where one is scared to help a girl that may be dying -- is absurd, to put it mildly?
My bad. But merely lifting those people out of absolute poverty still leaves them at a massive disadvantage both in pure financial terms and in terms of access to opportunity and power, which I thought was a violation of your notion of moral fairness.
No. I apologize if I have been unclear. I believe that the moral obligation to give wealth to the poor exists when the poor don't have enough to have a reasonable standard living, as judged by the basic things that all humans need to live a dignified life (clean water, food, a roof over their heads, etc.). I don't believe in wealth redistribution until the point where everyone has the same amount of luxuries, because if you want to work to earn more than the basic amount you need to live, you should be able to. If we got to the point where all collectively agreed that the world's poor are only poor in relative terms, but actually live quite comfortable lives in absolute terms, then I don't think the rich are obligated to give money to the poor. However, we would still have to be on guard in that situation against the possibility that the exorbitant wealth of the rich is not to used to oppress the basic rights of the poor.
I don't really know where one would stop, precisely. What some Americans would insist is necessary to live a dignified life is probably much different from what some Kenyans would insist is necessary. So I don't know if the category of things that all people ought to have includes things like broadband internet connections. It might. We'll have to ask that of ourselves when we get there. But when we're talking about the lack of access to toilets and running water in many places, there are huge strides we can make without even breaking a sweat.
) goods (ie. exclude booze, cigs, gambling, etc.)
