Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is it you claim I refuse to do? Anyone is welcome to criticize my moral choices. And robbie, for instance, is welcome to state what he thinks a moral action is with regard to what - in the scenario that has been raised in this thread - would be his refusal to save another human's life because of his superstition. I don't have to agree with him that it would be a morally justifiable decision on his part. Is that what you want me to do: to say that his failure to prevent the unnecessary loss of another's life would be a morally justified action on his part?
So why do you refuse when it comes to yourself?
Originally posted by FMFFor a start, I did not say give blood to people in Africa and India, I asked what you were doing about the starving people in those countries.
No I think my answer is in the same spirit as your question: you asked me about people in Africa and in India. So, I would give blood to everybody anywhere and everywhere you care to mention if I had enough of it to donate. How can you call that a lie?
And you didn't say "I would give blood if I had enough", you said
.... I will be very soon because it will make you think I understand morality'.
An outright lie. You have no intention of helping them in any way.
Reality is different though.
Different from what? Different from reality? Different from the imaginary world in which you actually do what you say you will do?
What is your moral analysis of the fact that I feel a moral obligation to donate blood so that others may be treated and cured of their illnesses?
I think what you are doing is morally good (which I am sure you knew).
Now, without lying about it, and without going into all sorts of nonsense about 'its all hypothetical', answer my question:
Are you morally wrong to be doing nothing about the starving people in Africa? If not, why not?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn reality it is not possible for me to live in Africa and in India and in Indonesia all at the same time. Is there a moral dimension to my 'failure' to do so? It is you who has attempted to conjure up an "imaginary world" where I am asked why I don't work to alleviate poverty in three different parts of the world. I do what I do where I live. Africa and India can and presumably do benefit to some degree from the work done by international organizations that I have in turn helped by way of my work here, along with charitable donations that I have made over the years. What me moving to Ethiopia - or to any other part of the world that you choose to list - has to to do with the moral justification for letting a human being die for want of a blood transfusion is unclear to me.
Different from what? Different from reality? Different from the imaginary world in which you actually do what you say you will do?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell I don't think I am doing "nothing" about people in Africa. Is there anything specific you personally want me to be doing so that you can decide whether I act in a morally wrong or morally right way with regard to Africa? Can you be specific?
Are you morally wrong to be doing nothing about the starving people in Africa? If not, why not?
Originally posted by FMFThen why not say so the first time? Why lie about it?
In reality it is not possible for me to live in Africa and in India and in Indonesia all at the same time.
Is there a moral dimension to my 'failure' to do so?
Of course there is. Why else would I be asking? I am trying to establish where moral responsibility starts and ends.
It is you who has attempted to conjure up an "imaginary world" where I am asked why I don't work to alleviate poverty in three different parts of the world.
There is absolutely nothing imaginary about people starving in Africa. Nothing whatsoever. My question as to why you don't work to alleviate poverty is not imaginary either, its right there in black and white in this thread. The only imagination here is yours when you claim that its all hypothetical and that you would actually do something.
What me moving to Ethiopia - or to any other part of the world that you choose to list - has to to do with the moral justification for letting a human being die for want of a blood transfusion is unclear to me.
Whether it is clear to you or not is no excuse for lying about it or deliberately trying to avoid answering honestly. What are you so afraid of?
Originally posted by FMFI don't want you do do anything (with regards to helping people in Africa). I want you to honestly state why you don't currently do anything about them and whether you feel morally obliged to help or not. I am not deciding whether you are morally wrong or not, I am asking your what your opinion is.
Well I don't think I am doing "nothing" about people in Africa. Is there anything specific you personally want me to be doing so that you can decide whether I act in a morally wrong or morally right way with regard to Africa? Can you be specific?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut I do work to alleviate poverty. Why are you saying I don't?
There is absolutely nothing imaginary about people starving in Africa. Nothing whatsoever. My question as to why you don't work to alleviate poverty is not imaginary either, its right there in black and white in this thread.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you claim I don't currently do anything about people in Africa?
I don't want you do do anything (with regards to helping people in Africa). I want you to honestly state why you don't currently do anything about them and whether you feel morally obliged to help or not.
I am not deciding whether you are morally wrong or not, I am asking your what your opinion is.
My opinion is that I am not "morally wrong" although you are free to disagree.