We should help this person out. But giving him money clearly is not the best way, in fact it may seem like giving him money is only enabling his bad lifestyle choices.
> People are selfish; if they make a big investment and you're about to reduce its value, they will fight tooth and nail. Any conversation about 'right', 'wrong', 'moral', it all goes out the window.
I disagree with the tone. Everyone is selfish. Everyone wants either their own benefit or their own benefit. Everyone is grasping. Moral, wrong or right can't correct that behavior, even if you could agree to it. Thats why the moral, wrong or right decisions dont have to be about what people want, but what you allow people to do or not do.
> You are saying that profits should come before everything else.
I very deliberately expressed no opinion in that regard.
Not expressing an opinion within a moral argument is political only with regards for the motive of inaction. Taken to a greater extreme people are not necessarily expressing politics by not agreeing with your opinion.
The value calculus of something always seems to be heavily dependent on who gets the bill.
> even if it is in their own best interest.
I'm one of those people blessed with knowing what's best for other people, but I restrict my efforts to giving them unwanted advice. I don't care to force it on them.
> from personal experience I can tell that I used to be taught by both my peasant Eastern-European grand-mothers to never accept free stuff from our neighbors (like going to eat at their place or something similar), the reasoning being that those neighbors would most certainly want something in return at some point in the future.
Isn't this essentially antisocial advice? That is: society is literally built out of these types of exchanges. I help you in your need, you help me in my need later. I do something nice for you, you do something nice for someone else, someone-{n}-else does something nice for me.
Gifts stop being gifts when strings get attached explicitly.
> Womeone is paying me to do a thing. Therefore, what I'm doing must, at least on average and over the long term, be so valuable to some number of people that it's worth continuing those payments.
I feel that is not a logical conclusion. What if someone paid a hitman to kill their boss because they got into a fight with them and they aren't emotionally stable enough to have a discussion?
Yes, an extreme example, but consider this: not every increase in perceived value is necessarily good.
> > For some people this money could be incredibly important.
> That's exactly the problem.
I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent.
If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically?
This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off?
As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade.
Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).
It may be because of reasons other than selfishness, outside of one's control.
Don't assume somebody is as insensitive jackass as you with such statements.
>The majority of society would say it is your ethical duty to help a person in such a circumstance, even at moderate inconvenience to yourself.
A stranger man knocks on the door of a single mother with a young daughter (yes, I am piggy backing on stereotypical social norms). Does she have an ethical duty to put both herself and her child at potentially great risk (which is probably largely overblown by 24 hours news and crime based TV shows)?
>but in general, most people would frown on your choice of a fancier car or a European vacation over someone else's life, in this kind of local, specific scenario.
The difficulty is when they enjoyed their European vacation in the past while you saved up for yours now.
Or to put in a more generalized term, the ethical obligation to share wealth even with those who are themselves responsible for not having wealth encourages one to never save up wealth to begin with (not in an all or none sense, but as a pressure which can be increased or decreased).
> They are under no obligation to give out something for free just because others think they should
In the same vein, they are under no obligation to _not_ give it away from free. Their actions are purely a choice, free from obligation. That said, lack of obligation does not act as a shield from criticism. Quite the opposite.
> which have been biased by money. How does anyone consider this ethical?
Money itself is just a tool, it cant be (un)ethical. Best to focus on the human agents and incentives.
> should not be biased by monetary influence.
Influence will exist because it's part of human nature. Take away monetary incentives and you 'll have political influence, religious influence etc. We 've learned that from history.
Nobody needs to offer his own money, though. You give a moral answer to a social conflict. You miss the point.
reply