For me it was interesting what others wrote, because we have very different approaches to it.
And personally I feel, it's good to rethink such terms and dogmata from time to time , even you already have.
Often we need to discuss them often until a new understanding or even a way of thinking about things takes over.
I'm kinda new to EA and this forum, maybe for some of you others it's maybe kind of boring, when one has had these thoughts or discussions already years ago, of course they are.
But I feel it's a very divers community in many ways like are, schooling, social enviroment. So its maybe useful to get everyone to a point where more elabourate discussions and thoughts can go on....
In short, never underestimate getting the basics straight...over and over again for new arrivals.
Well, I see a very big flaw throughout this explanation and the possibilities one seemingly has.
First of all there is no defining the parameters.
The death of a child has no fixed value.
We could find a number for that in many different ways fE even in money like an insurance would do. Even IF we try to do that in "terms of morals" it simply hasn't the same worth for every human.
We could maybe define kind of a minimum value but wouldn't that be a strange discussion?
And what about people who doesn't pull the child out inspite of that? Is this no longer a decend human being? Under any circumstances?
(I think, this is kind of the crucial part in the original argument.
For me it doesn't work out, in our reality everyone has to find that number (value of a living child) for themselves, so you simply can't deduct any obligations but your own.
Second thing I would suggest is a distinction between giving a share of your belongings/ sacrificing a certain amount of what you have
and drowining children knowingly for adding up value/making money.
Not buying one products because of slave labour doesnt automatically mean not getting the product at all, but making a concious decision about the buying per se.
It's very different thing making a concious decision of talking an action you absolutely know the consequences will harm others while you earn with through it.
(In any case its not easy for me seeing the imperative obligation that's allegedly inherent...but lets ignore that for a moment)
This thought would lead us to an obligation thats more effektive and also maybe more practically useful and (and that's important) it shifts "the blame" or shows responsibilities in a more acurate way.
Because, honestly? It seems we have to make people/companies stopp throwing children overboard for profit not making one another miserable for not doing everything in our power not saving them. That's just draining power out of people that are willing to sacrifice something for a greater good/ benefits for not only themselves but others in one very inefficiant way...that's drying it up.
Just what comes up in my mind as I read the original Posting...
For me it was interesting what others wrote, because we have very different approaches to it. And personally I feel, it's good to rethink such terms and dogmata from time to time , even you already have.
Often we need to discuss them often until a new understanding or even a way of thinking about things takes over.
I'm kinda new to EA and this forum, maybe for some of you others it's maybe kind of boring, when one has had these thoughts or discussions already years ago, of course they are.
But I feel it's a very divers community in many ways like are, schooling, social enviroment. So its maybe useful to get everyone to a point where more elabourate discussions and thoughts can go on....
In short, never underestimate getting the basics straight...over and over again for new arrivals.
Well, I see a very big flaw throughout this explanation and the possibilities one seemingly has.
First of all there is no defining the parameters. The death of a child has no fixed value.
We could find a number for that in many different ways fE even in money like an insurance would do. Even IF we try to do that in "terms of morals" it simply hasn't the same worth for every human.
We could maybe define kind of a minimum value but wouldn't that be a strange discussion? And what about people who doesn't pull the child out inspite of that? Is this no longer a decend human being? Under any circumstances?
(I think, this is kind of the crucial part in the original argument. For me it doesn't work out, in our reality everyone has to find that number (value of a living child) for themselves, so you simply can't deduct any obligations but your own.
Second thing I would suggest is a distinction between giving a share of your belongings/ sacrificing a certain amount of what you have and drowining children knowingly for adding up value/making money.
Not buying one products because of slave labour doesnt automatically mean not getting the product at all, but making a concious decision about the buying per se.
It's very different thing making a concious decision of talking an action you absolutely know the consequences will harm others while you earn with through it.
(In any case its not easy for me seeing the imperative obligation that's allegedly inherent...but lets ignore that for a moment)
This thought would lead us to an obligation thats more effektive and also maybe more practically useful and (and that's important) it shifts "the blame" or shows responsibilities in a more acurate way.
Because, honestly? It seems we have to make people/companies stopp throwing children overboard for profit not making one another miserable for not doing everything in our power not saving them. That's just draining power out of people that are willing to sacrifice something for a greater good/ benefits for not only themselves but others in one very inefficiant way...that's drying it up.
Just what comes up in my mind as I read the original Posting...