MorphingDragon said:
TiefBlau said:
MorphingDragon said:
TiefBlau said:
That's clearly a logical contradiction and a source of ethical tension. You're saying that financial matters shouldn't matter if you're saving lives, and then you say that you don't want to help out third-world countries if it makes people poor. This cannot stand. It may feel like the right thing to say, but it's not logically sound.
Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.
Assumptions and False Dilemma.
It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?
I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.
5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.
For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means.
No, you don't. What the fuck are you reading?
The existence of an alternative is
irrelevant. If you agree that people should save lives regardless of financial situation, as 5 says, then you must agree that taxes, regardless of magnitude, are a small price to pay for saving such lives. This is a
logical necessity, whether or not something else can be done.
MorphingDragon said:
I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.
I don't care what you think about poor people.
No one was arguing ethics. This is
logic. It's like saying 2+2 does not make 5. You can say that adding another one could make the difference between life and death, and I couldn't care less, because 2+2 still doesn't equal 5. Honestly.