Ethical thought experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lives are not being lost because some man buys a Porsche. Every dollar not spent on mosquito nets does not equal direct killing of men, women, and children. The way you are arguing, you are saying that if we aren’t all living off basic necessities like monks then we are actively killing random people around the world.

Your lottery winner could equally buy a Porsche AND mosquito nets
 
We aren’t actively killing, we are allowing death/harm when it is well-within our abilities to prevent it from happening (assuming everyone here is relatively better off). Is that wrong?
 
I remember reading somewhat recently where a Bishop in Africa said people needed to stop sending clothes to Africa as it was swamping the market and destroying the ability of Africans to manufacture and sell clothes for themselves. It was an angle of charity I had not thought about in that light before.
 
In and of itself, no, it is not intrinsically wrong. As you said earlier (which I only just saw after having replied), the principle of double effect addresses this.

I was just saying that if your position is that anything that does not directly help someone less fortunate makes you morally accountable for their plight, then by that logic we are probably all going to hell.
 
Apologies - I haven’t read all of the replies.

I take Christ very seriously when he says that a camel can pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man can get into Heaven. I don’t think this is because God will condemn the rich just for being rich, but that the rich are in danger of condemning themselves. I can’t say that being rich in and of itself is sinful; it just presents a dangerous slippery slope for Christians.

Even a one-time prestigious purchase - particularly at the expense of those whose lives could be saved by that money - can get us wrapped up in what Aquinas called out as the four false sources of happiness - pleasure, power, money, and honor/acceptance.

I know my Dark Side; driving that bad boy would make me feel pretty full of myself. 😎 I can’t be the only one . . .
 
I am not completely satisfied with principle of double effect however.

imagine a variation of the trolley problem: a runaway trolley is headed towards an unaware child playing on the tracks. Bob is too far away to be of any help, but there is a nearby switch that allows him to divert the trolley on to another track, however, Bob has parked his brand new Porsche at the end of that track. The Porsche will be wrecked if he diverts the trolley. Bob does nothing and allows the child to die because he would like to enjoy driving around in his Porsche for longer.

most people would say Bob is selfish and immoral, but how is it different from allowing children in poverty to die of malaria for the sake of your new car (first scenario)?
 
Because simply purchasing a nice car is not a trade off for letting people die of malaria and does not give one agency in their deaths. You have probably made several purchases in the last week or so that were not strictly necessary and were only for you convenience or comfort. Maybe you bought a latte at Starbucks. Maybe at some point you bought a TV. Maybe you simply bought food that brought variety to your diet but was not necessary to keep you and your family alive and was more expensive than the basics. Any of the money spent on any number of items could have instead bought a Malaria net for people in Africa. Are you now morally culpable for their deaths? Where is the line between spending money on yourself and spending money on others?

Buying a car is morally neutral. Buying mosquito nets to prevent malaria is morally virtuous. I’d also say that saving a drowning child is directly saving a life. Buying malaria nets only potentially saves lives in theory.

Are you reading a lot of Peter Singer lately or something?
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
I take Christ very seriously when he says that a camel can pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man can get into Heaven. I don’t think this is because God will condemn the rich just for being rich, but that the rich are in danger of condemning themselves. I can’t say that being rich in and of itself is sinful; it just presents a dangerous slippery slope for Christians.
Click to expand...
Define “rich”.

Wealth is relative, especially when you’re comparing the US to the rest of the world, where even some of our poorest citizens are considered “wealthy” by the standards of many. (Before someone does it, don’t jump on me for that - that’s simply a statement of fact, not that it makes it okay here. Again - it’s relative.)
blackforest said:
Even a one-time prestigious purchase - particularly at the expense of those whose lives could be saved by that money - can get us wrapped up in what Aquinas called out as the four false sources of happiness - pleasure, power, money, and honor/acceptance.
Click to expand...
Then I guess a new pair of shoes - no matter the price - has never made you or a child of yours happy. That’s not wrong, blackforest. It’s okay for things to make you happy. Yes, there is a limit, but it’s okay. Prestige is in the eye of the beholder. To some a car is just a car no matter the badge. And to some if you drive a car less than five years old, you’re being ostentatious.

Much of this is relative.
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
I remember reading somewhat recently where a Bishop in Africa said people needed to stop sending clothes to Africa as it was swamping the market and destroying the ability of Africans to manufacture and sell clothes for themselves. It was an angle of charity I had not thought about in that light before.
Click to expand...
Very recently, in fact.

www.dw.com

East Africa pushes second-hand clothing ban – DW – 02/26/2018

Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda plan to ban all imports of second-hand clothing in order to strengthen their textile industry. But with the US threatening consequences, EAC leaders have agreed to a small compromise.
www.dw.com www.dw.com

www.bbc.com

Why East Africa wants to ban second-hand clothes

East African countries a ban on imports of used clothes and second-hand cars, but what is behind the clampdown?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
Are you reading a lot of Peter Singer lately or something?
Click to expand...
Yeah Peter Singer is my lecturer, he believes that we have an obligation to give to charity because not giving is morally comparable to letting a child drown in front of you. He is an advocate of effective altruism, I don’t think it’s a bad idea, at least he practices what he preaches.
Anyway thanks for your answer
 
Which has nothing to do with a person who can afford it buying a Porsche. Or a bigger house, or a nice pair of shoes, or a nice bag…or anything, really.

One can buy what one can afford and still be generous with what they have. Owning an expensive whatever doesn’t brand them with some sort of mark.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
I take Christ very seriously when he says that a camel can pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man can get into Heaven. I don’t think this is because God will condemn the rich just for being rich, but that the rich are in danger of condemning themselves. I can’t say that being rich in and of itself is sinful; it just presents a dangerous slippery slope for Christians.

Even a one-time prestigious purchase - particularly at the expense of those whose lives could be saved by that money - can get us wrapped up in what Aquinas called out as the four false sources of happiness - pleasure, power, money, and honor/acceptance.
Click to expand...
We should take Christ very seriously. But we shouldn’t take his words to mean something they don’t. Otherwise you end up with ugliness. Beauty is something that is not part of the strictly utilitarian outlook.

Going down this path you end up with the hideous Churches of recent times. Compare these to the grand Churches that were built in the past. Some of them took generations to build and were definitely expensive. People connect with God through beauty. The goal of life isn’t simply to live but to be close to God.
 
The best charity is a good job, as indicated by these articles.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure that I can compare a car, which depreciates in value just by driving it, to a church built to give glory to God. 😇

And in no way am I defending radical asceticism or eschewing beauty.

The Gospels simply provide a precautionary tale about where lusting for wealth and materialism can take us if we’re not careful.
 
Generally the only thing that doesn’t depreciate is real estate - and even that isn’t a hard and fast. It’s why I shop at thrift stores - I can’t justify $40 for a shirt that I know I can probably find for $6.99 somewhere else.

What someone drives or how they live shouldn’t automatically brand them as a bad or unfeeling person nor cause others to assume they’re not close to God.
 
There’s nothing immoral about being wealthy or buying a great car. The scientist who finally solves the mosquito problem in Africa will likely become wealthy too. Maybe he’ll buy a new Porche with his earnings. Will that be wrong?
 
Last edited:
I’ve been shying away from engaging you because I never know if my time investment is worth it - i.e. whether you’re going to leave and mute a thread.

But my words are getting really twisted and misrepresented, so I’ll clarify them for the lurkers.
Pup7 said:
Define “rich”.
Click to expand...
I can’t. Like you said, it’s relative. It’s our responsibility as Christians to be discerning. If wealth accumulation is causing a person to become selfish, distance themselves from God, and neglect the Corporal Works of Mercy, then they need to step back.
Pup7 said:
Then I guess a new pair of shoes - no matter the price - has never made you or a child of yours happy. That’s not wrong, blackforest. It’s okay for things to make you happy.
Click to expand...
I went out of my way to word my post to say things like “can [not will]” and “slippery slope.” Not - OMG you’re evil and selfish and doomed if you buy nice things.
 
blackforest said:
I’ve been shying away from engaging you because I never know if my time investment is worth it - i.e. whether you’re going to leave and mute a thread.
Click to expand...
What in the world?

Seriously. I’ll mute a thread if I see fit - not because someone does or doesn’t respond.

I think I’ve muted two, maybe three threads the entire time I’ve been here.

My muting a thread isn’t a reflection on anyone. You make it sound as though I mute every thread I partake in. Most of them I just ignore if I’m done with the conversation. Like I said, I think I’ve muted a max of three. And that’s to keep me out of the conversation because I feel I’m losing my cool or it’s just becoming rinse, repeat on some level.
 
Last edited:
Not to derail the thread, but Peter Singer supports infanticide and euthanasia. His ideas are dangerous. He is persona non grata to Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top