As a thought experiment:
- Person A, Person B and Person C are all (close?) friends.
- A's house is broken into and many valuables are taken.
- A did their due diligence to keep their house secure.
Now then:
- A is not wealthy and the lost belongings will be very difficult to replace as a result. A is not in danger of death or anything overly severe, but the losses are very substantial in A's life.
- B is wealthy (financially assisting would be trivial for B).
- B does not financially assist A at all for A's loss.
- C is not wealthy and cannot help financially.
It seems that B does not have an obligation to financially (or otherwise) assist A. Doing so would be a praiseworthy act of kindness but it seems it is not obligatory.
Now for the interesting part:
- C is angry at B for not helping. In other words, C thinks B is being an asshole.
Is C justified in being angry? What exactly is C wanting to call B out on?
I want to say yes, the anger is justified but I am not sure on what grounds the anger could be justified.
If I make a claim about justice and wealth distribution then it seems that I'm committed to saying that B is obligated to financially help A, which doesn't seem right.
If I make a claim about friendships and the nature of this friendship then it still seems I end up back to committing to the claim that B is obligated to financially help, which is also problematic.
I'm trying to break down exactly what I mean when I say that C is angry at B without claiming that "C believes B ought to have helped" or something like that, which seems to imply obligation.
Is there a way to say "C believes B ought to have helped" without implying obligation to B? In what sense can C argue that B is being an asshole?
It seems that what C is doing is committing himself to something like "If I were in B's shoes, I would help, therefore since B is in B's shoes and he is not helping, he is acting like an asshole."
It seems that C is offloading his morality to B. Perhaps something like "I would do the praiseworthy thing in your position and you didn't, therefore I am morally superior (or rather, therefore you are morally inferior) and this is why I am angry. I am angry at your moral inferiority to me."?
It doesn't seem as though C's anger is justified if this is what's ha
... keep reading on reddit ➡To the beautiful, femme (so femme I would have never known you were wlw), fun, cute and sweet flight attendant today on flight 810...thank you. I woke up early, tired, barely showered, threw my hair in a hat and wore no makeup - did not feel "hot, sexy or good-looking" today, nor was I trying. I was just trying to get from one state to another for work. Was a day of practicality. I was escorting two employees and we were truly enjoying each other's company. I hadn't noticed you until the item you gave me fell between the seats and my co-worker asked you for another for me. You started playfully teasing me, gave me two in case I lost one again, and started flirting with me mercilessly in front of my co-workers. I pride myself on being unflappable. And...you literally made me lose my composure and blush. To the point that my co-workers started playfully egging me on a bit and hours later, are still teasing me (its a fun, playful tease...good intentions). Then you came back with some alcohol to put in my drink as a "gift" from you...and you kept flirting. You were sweet, kind and so you know....you're amazingly beautiful, a natural beauty. You actually stunned me. I could not get any words out to reply. That might be a first for me. I'm a professional speaker, leader, and a business owner. I'm well-versed in performing under pressure (so I thought) and then...you threw my game today. Congratulations and thank you for humbling me and for the wonderful surprise. I just want you to know how great this made me feel. I'm honored you flirted with me like this. And I'm sorry I didn't respond in kind - I was just...awe-struck. And too busy blushing. And...I'm sure you thought those were some buddies of mine sitting next to me but they were my employees and while they know I'm Bi...to be hit on so clearly in front of them felt unusual (wouldn't have mattered if a woman or a man did this - while I'm open about my orientation, I don't bring my private life to work in a literal sense so I haven't had this experience before). And then my employees stated the obvious as soon as you left, "She's hitting on you! She likes you! Ask her out!" Them saying this so obviously also threw me off because them saying this did not allow me to...go into the "was she really flirting? Maybe she was just being nice, maybe...". I had to face the truth - You. Were. Flirting. With Me. Hard. Well...I tried to find you after that and you disappeared and I'm afraid my employees in their unbrid
... keep reading on reddit ➡First off, of I would like to preface this by stating that I am not a zealot — I just have an intuition that something is here. Perhaps my premise is poorly worded, or I am operating under a flawed base assumption. Regardless, I want assistance parsing this.
Before I detail my premise, I would like to establish a firm foundation on which to discuss it. I am aware this might color be me verbose or pretentious — that is not my intent. Rather, I just want to make sure we are not talking sideways at each other.
Ethics is a complex area of philosophy. I have seen various attempts to create a taxonomy — my favorite uses three broad categories: Consequential, Duty, and Virtue.
Consequential models are grounded in maximizing good, Duty models are grounded in the intention portending action, and Virtue models are grounded in values we should curate and develop within ourselves: our character.
That said, I do not believe that these models are mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary they are interdependent related. Each posits an important question that is foundational to must be considered in any ethical framework (independent of which may be seen as primary). This table clearly demonstrates the difference:
| Consequential | Duty | Virtue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberative Process | What kind of outcomes should I produce (or try to produce)? | What are my obligations in this situation, and what are the things I should never do? | What kind of person should I be (or try to be), and what will my actions show about my character? |
| Focus | Directs attention to the future effects of an action, for all people who will be directly or indirectly affected by the action. | Directs attention to the duties that exist prior to the situation and determines obligations. | Attempts to discern character traits (virtues and vices) that are, or could be, motivating the people involved in the situation. |
| Definition of Ethical Conduct | Ethical conduct is the action that will achieve the best consequences. | Ethical conduct involves always doing the right thing: never failing to do one's duty. | Ethical conduct is whatever a fully virtuous person would do in the circumstances. |
| Motivation | Aim is to produce the most good. | Aim is to perform the right action. | Aim is to develop one’s character. |
Source: Brown University Ethics Page
Second, I would like to address the th
... keep reading on reddit ➡The reason why this is unpopular is because I am saying that people who make over $1 million a year or have as of now more than $10 million in the bank, should in fact donate, not loan, to small businesses to keep them up. And no, I am not a communist. That is why it is a MORAL obligation, not a legal one. However, it would behoove them to heed to history lessons' pearl of wisdom that if they don't start sharing more, to keep the economy from collapsing due to inflation, the poor are gonna get hungry.... and far less "civil" when asking for help.
About a year ago I've made the choice to distance myself from any mainstream news outlet and instead subscribe to youtube channels/subreddits/etc. focused on good news only. The dilemma I have is that this made me a lot more happy, optimistic, and productive, but only because i got there through willful ignorance so I'm having second thoughts about this.
Same feeling i have with veganism. I eat meat, but i don't think i would eat a steak if I had front row seats for every step of its production until it's on my plate.
My final example would be from the movie Parasite wich depicts this problem pretty well. The rich family is obviously privileged and oblivious to the struggles of the lower class. The class system is at fault but does their ignorance make them bad people regardless?
Individually, facing away from reality and putting on rose tinted glasses can lead to a better life. But if everyone does it it just leaves room for evil people to exploit that. So what's the best course of action?
I come across this counterargument by natalists a lot and it really grinds my gears. It doesn't convince me but at the same time, I dont really have a philosophically articulate rebuttal to this.
Is there a rebuttal for this?
I posted a similar question yesterday, but really used the wrong word - responsibility. I did get a lot of interesting replies. Thanks to all, it gave me much to think about.
As sifted through those replies I kept asking deeper questions. Questions probably better asked in a different sub., but this is where I’ve landed at the moment.
At the end I realized we, the human race, exist because of natural selection which has instilled in us an instinctive will to survive, protect our offspring, and continue the human species into the future. Those that don’t have these traits will eventually be cast off from the species because they are unsustainable or humanity will fold.
So with that in mind, we do have an obligation to ourselves, our children, and the human race - all in varying degrees. Without that sense of obligation to at least one of those things is to be a cause of unsustainablity and must eventually be cast off.
This is a more than my shot glass of a brain can hold, so I may have spilled a little.
>I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.
The whole premise of this implies that if you see a child drowning, you are obligated to save it. Is there any philosophical work that talks about how people are not obligated to save or help anyone?
My friend says that because the grandpa is the legal owner he could take me to small claims court if something else goes wrong with the car and that I need to fully disclose the problems to the grandpa who will be the legal owner. Is this true? Even if it is a small oil leak?
Comedy is about the least defensible reason to stuff a bunch of people in close proximity during a global epidemic. Sure there will be people who will attend shows and comics willing to perform but only out of ignorance, denial, negligence, or all of the above.
COVID-19 should be taken seriously and social distancing is an effective and important strategy to not only prevent the infection from spreading but to slow the spread in hopes that the rate of infection will remain below the threshold of what a given community's medical system can handle. Short of a vaccine, social distancing and hand washing are the only tools currently at our disposal to mitigate the spread of this disease.
There is simply no justifiable reason to continue to provide a platform, much less solicit, for a circumstance where large numbers of people are stuffed into a dank basement with cramped seating just to get a hot take on the virus they're about to contract. Not to mention comics shaking hands when going on and off stage, or sharing the microphone, which has got to be the most disease-ridden object on this planet to begin with. And then there's air travel.
Maybe if you're in a small town with no cases you can delay cancelling your shows and mics for a little while but preemptively cancelling shows will be alot more effective than waiting until there is a confirmed case in your community already.
And if you're in a large city like NYC, LA, London etc, there is simply no way to balance the risk/reward here. On top of that, this thing is likely going to get worse before it gets better (especially in the U.S.), it may very well be the case that cancelling of all shows will become unavoidable anyway.
It's really on the bookers and club owners to make the right decision here. Comics, being notoriously desperate and apprehensive about canceling spots out of fear of falling out of favor with the booker or losing spots, will continue to keep showing up despite the risk. And as I already mentioned, audience members run the gamut of uninformed to dismissive of the epidemiology. Thus, bookers and club owner are doing a great disservice to everyone involved (and even those not involved) by continuing to run shows, and they should frankly be called on it. Cancel that shit, bitch!
Follow me on Instagram @tomhanks
I just saw a post where people were talking about all the cheap flights they're buying. Because "I don't wanna live in fear" and "what are the chances it will gappen to me". If you wanna risk your life, fine, but make sure you don't condem us to "living in the moment" upon your return.
I'm off to stock my bunker with more hand sanitizer, the end is nigh!
What is derived from act-consequentialist reasoning? Having read the Stanford Encyclopedia's article, I know that consequentialism determines what is right and wrong but duties or obligations are not mentioned once.
