20% Tension, Its good in theory, and the analysis of conflicting pairs is quite interesting, but it stops allowing for grey areas, everything is a bit too black and white, whereas sometimes I might agree with something, and sometimes I might be willing to make the sacrifice for something.
The one thing that annoyed me though was:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world
Was because as much as I do feel bad and would want to help the people in third world companies, the government sharply increasing taxes would be bad for alot of people, quite possibly putting them into debt and poverty. While it would be all well and good for my money to go and help Jojo in Kenya, I will be sitting in squalor, granted not as bad as them, but in the grand scheme of things, much higher taxes for charity, or me living a comfortable life, I'm going to have to choose me, because a sharp tax increase would be detrimental to mine and a lot of other peoples lives, I know that sounds selfish, but while I'm all for helping charity, I don't want my life to go down the shitter at the same time.
See I assumed that the first question wasn't on about charity and stuff, but rather individual situation, not a collective 3rd world.
Ultimately the questions are too complex to be simply answered yes or no.