Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt depends how much you need the money.
Suppose there were a button, generally available for pressing by anyone who cared to press it.
This button is attached to a machine, with lots of whirring parts, and has a very long cable attached, that recedes into the distance...
Everytime you press the button, a £1 coin comes out of the slot below it. This is for you to keep. You can press the ...[text shortened]... the innocent victims get dispatched.
Question: Is it morally permissible to press the button?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeMorality doesn't come into it. The answer you're obviously seeking is 'No'. If that were the 'right' answer, everybody who didn't give all their spare cash to ameliorating the condition of the suffering poor would be morally remiss.
Okay, let's suppose it's not moral.
Now, suppose that it costs $1 more to buy fairtrade coffee than normally traded coffee, and the result is that, for every million, or other very large number, of coffees sold, a poor peasant farmer dies prematurately, who otherwise would not have.
Is it moral to buy normally traded coffee?
Not every decsion can be judged in terms of morality. If you feel strongly about fair trade cofee, then I guess it would be a moral lapse *in your terms* to buy non-fair trade coffee. If you don't give a toss either way, there's no moral decision.
Originally posted by ivangriceIf a psychopath murders someone, and isn't concerned about the morality of doing so, does that mean that his act cannot be judged by others to be moral or immoral?
Morality doesn't come into it. The answer you're obviously seeking is 'No'. If that were the 'right' answer, everybody who didn't give all their spare cash to ameliorating the condition of the suffering poor would be morally remiss.
Not every decsion can be judged in terms of morality. If you feel strongly about fair trade cofee, then I guess ...[text shortened]... to buy non-fair trade coffee. If you don't give a toss either way, there's no moral decision.
Or would you opine that morality doesn't come into this either?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholelet's NOT buy ANY coffee, then he can die REALLY prematurely.
Okay, let's suppose it's not moral.
Now, suppose that it costs $1 more to buy fairtrade coffee than normally traded coffee, and the result is that, for every million, or other very large number, of coffees sold, a poor peasant farmer dies prematurately, who otherwise would not have.
Is it moral to buy normally traded coffee?
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeNo it's not morally acceptable just because you're in the mood for chocolate.
Let's suppose I don't need it (i.e., to buy a crust to survive) but I want it (i.e., to buy myself a bar of chocolate).
Now, suppose that it costs $1 more to buy fairtrade coffee than normally traded coffee, and the result is that, for every million, or other very large number, of coffees sold, a poor peasant farmer dies prematurately, who otherwise would not have.
Is it moral to buy normally traded coffee?
Again, it depends on how much you need to conserve money. I'd need to know more specifics of how and why that farmer would die prematurely as well.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe overall point I am trying to make is that, although most people would feel that pressing the button was very wrong, few would feel that buying nonfairtrade coffee was wrong, even though the cases are in many relevant respects analogous. In particular, in both cases a person is given the opportunity of choosing to gain or forego a small personal advantage at the cost of contributing in a very minor way to a very serious evil affecting another.
No it's not morally acceptable just because you're in the mood for chocolate.
[b]Now, suppose that it costs $1 more to buy fairtrade coffee than normally traded coffee, and the result is that, for every million, or other very large number, of coffees sold, a poor peasant farmer dies prematurately, who otherwise would not have.
Is it moral to ...[text shortened]... ney. I'd need to know more specifics of how and why that farmer would die prematurely as well.
I am honest.
If there is this button and I will not be prosecuted in any way and I do not know any of the victims (mark: there are no innocent any more !) I would generate a machine and wait for my 10 Million clicks (minimum !) to be finished.
As I do not know them and live on the back of the third world anyway I do not give a sh...
Brutal but honest.
Suppose there were a button, generally available for pressing by anyone who cared to press it.
This button is attached to a machine, with lots of whirring parts.
Everytime you press the button, a cup of coffee comes out of the slot below it. This is for you to keep. You can press the button as many times as you want.
There is a complication however.
Every time you push the button it asks you to put in $1.
That's right, it's a vending machine.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhen you bring psychopaths into the equation, you also bring in the concept of 'amorality'.
If a psychopath murders someone, and isn't concerned about the morality of doing so, does that mean that his act cannot be judged by others to be moral or immoral?
Or would you opine that morality doesn't come into this either?
I repeat: morality doesn't come into it.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI'll be OK though right?
Further scenario modification:
The "attached" victims are not captive, but are citizens chosen at random by the machine, by a high-tech mechanism using GPS technology and death rays.
Question: is it moral to push the button?
If this is the case, I'll be leaning on that button for all its worth, literally.
Originally posted by RochadeWell, you can't be accused of inconsistency!
I am honest.
If there is this button and I will not be prosecuted in any way and I do not know any of the victims (mark: there are no innocent any more !) I would generate a machine and wait for my 10 Million clicks (minimum !) to be finished.
As I do not know them and live on the back of the third world anyway I do not give a sh...
Brutal but honest.
It seems to me that many economic transactions that people in the First World engage in are very analagous to the far-fetched button scenario I described. This scenario distrubs us, but these transactions do not, at least, not to the same degree. I think the reason for the discrepancy is that, in the imaginary scenario, the payoffs are paid bare, whereas in everyday economic transactions, they are hidden; however, I would say that this difference is of no moral significance.