Moral Question

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

If I was in to only having stuff essential to my survival, I'd not work and be able to donate nothing. However, this is a modification of your initial proposition, better known as an ad hoc.

whatever makes you sleep better at night man.

 

[ZackyBoy]

We are massively overpopulated. As long as they aren't my family, the 1000 can die. Yeah, I am selfish; so what?

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by odoreater

whatever makes you sleep better at night man.

Oh dood, I've taken active participation in people dying. Nothing disturbs my sleep but my P&L. Come back and talk to me when your direct actions stop a heart.

 

[emptym]

^Have you thought of how other people are loved like you love yours?

 

[MiloX]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I voted "no."

I think of Cardinal Newman's famous dictum to the effect that it has always been the Church's position that it would be better for the entire population of the world to die in agony than for one individual to commit the least venial sin.

That may be a bit extreme, but I would not take the sin of wilful murder on my head.

+1, but without all the Catholic gobbledy-****.

 

[Larry Lean]

Originally Posted by odoreater

You guys are so full of ****. There are probably a million situations in the world right now where you might be able to save the lives of 1000 people doing less than sacrificing your own life or killing someone, yet you don't do that. The cost of one pair of Edward Greens can probably save the lives of 1000 people in Africa, yet I don't see you shipping the $1400 (or whatever EGs cost) to Africa for food and medicine.


I sense the Strength of Odoreater in being able to reject the grammar of the quesiton.

Perhaps we can coordinate a group buy of EG for a village in Bangladesh. If enough villagers wear EG, I sense a good blog entry for someone. Maybe some sponsorship.

 

[odoreater]

That was so hilarious.