My family adopted an abused dog so we have no obligation to animal charities. we get our dogs from a sanctuary.
We're all Terrible People
- Thread starter Markness
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That depends on the actions. Being in a gang does not necessarily mean that you are a bad person, it's whether you actually commit crimes, what sort of crimes, and the circumstances behind them that determines that. Are you a murderer? If so, no, questioning that would not be contemptible.Markness said:
I did not say "ignore suffering". I said that the average person is only capable of absorbing so much suffering before it becomes too difficult to bear. Being depressed every minute of every day because you're carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders solves nothing.Markness said:
You can argue which causes are more worthy as much as you want, but don't try to tell me that the only way to be properly moral is to stop enjoying my own life and be miserable for everyone. I am not capable of doing that, because, I admit, I am not a perfect. But my imperfection does not make me the terrible, selfish person you seem to see me as, nor does the imperfection of humanity justify the claim that it is hopelessly immoral as a whole.
In your scenario of the baby on the train tracks, that allowed direct intervention. When the ability to directly intervene is available, not doing so would be immoral, yes. But the analogy is inexact, because when I donate money to a charity, I am not directly intervening in anything. I am giving money to someone to give to someone else, and once it leaves my hands I have no control over what is done with it.
When I jump to save the baby, assuming I am in a position where it appears possible for me to save it, I know what results of my action will be. But when I donate the money I can't be sure if what I intend to do will actually ever happen. When there is good reason to believe that action will achieve nothing, why should I take action anyway? If the baby I see on the tracks is actually on the other side of the world and I am watching on a TV, is it wrong for me to just stand there?
The guy I quoted said that I was comtemptible for questioning the actions of everyone around me, including myself. I said it is not comtempible. It seems you agree with you, at least that's how I understand the above post.SlowShootinPete said:
You don't have to "absorb" suffering to do something about it.
If we can go back to the child on the train tracks analogy. You admit, that saving the child would be the moral choice. How much you would have to sacrifice before it's no longer moral. If someone had to choose between a child and an icecream that they didn't want to melt, and choose the ice-cream, would that be alright? What about if their car was also in the path of another train, and it was either the child or the car? You might expect that someone who chose the car would face an extremely unpleasant reception from the members of the community. I'm asking, how is this circumstance different from the choice between a new car, or giving that money to charity?
I'm pretty sure some charities give you the option to sponser individual children, and you can recieve correspondance from them as they grow up with an education. You are directly intervening in that child's life and it's alot cheaper than leaving a car to be crushed by a train with the exact same cost if you don't do it.
While I agree that some things are more important than others, all of these things need to be done. Giving to charity to do something that is necessary is good in all cases. To complain about which charities a person chooses to give to is, in my opinion, exceedingly immature on the part of the speaker.
I don't know what dictionary you're using, but condoning something does not entail paying for it.Markness said:
Pointing it out is all well and good, but it's a bit disingenuous if you're not actually going to do anything about it. Abe Lincoln once said: "He has the right to criticize, who has the heart to help"
I may have gotten the definite and indefinite articles a bit off, but you get the idea. If you wish to comment negatively on the situation, please make an effort towards changing it.
Okay, this particular statement really irked me. How can you objectively say that we're all terrible people? Surely no human can be objective on these matters?Markness said:
(Unless you're a robot, in which case I retract my statement)
Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh on you there.Markness said:
So you're saying inaction is okay if I can't feasibly act to help others? Like I've been saying this entire conversation?Markness said:
Not donating to charity does not make me a bad person, and phasing out the suffering of people I can't help is just something I do. I feel for them, but I can't change the situation. I'll sign petitions, and I'll vote for aiding others, but I can't help people living in horrific conditions in Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq, and other countries in a state of turmoil.
It is the responsibility of our leaders to initiate large-scale change. I'm no leader.
I'll do my best to affect the world positively, but that's all that can be asked of me.
Also, people are not inherently bad. We're capable of great altruism, and that's not something an inherently evil being would do.
I'll second this sentiment. If you're genuinely cynical about the world, you don't go around telling the world.Outright Villainy said:
Hell, I don't think I'm even cynical. I think the world's in a right mess, but that's just common sense talking.
Good point, then give me all your money and I swear to destroy humans with it. *evil laugh* [/sarcasm]Iron Criterion said:
I donate to both charities that help humans, and ones that help animals. I don't see why it should be one or the other. And do I think donating money to charity makes me a better person? No. I do it because even small gestures still make a difference. And hey, maybe I never get recognized for it. Big deal. At least I did something other then sit on my ass.
A: that's what i said
B: technically the blind don't need dogs, they have canes and stuff
C: i believe in natural selection and weeding out the people who are stupid and stuff (like someone playing with a penny in a light socket, if he lives he knows not to do that again)
Yes i agree animals need more help becuase it not natural to be tied up and just left. they can't save them selves WE have to.
B: technically the blind don't need dogs, they have canes and stuff
C: i believe in natural selection and weeding out the people who are stupid and stuff (like someone playing with a penny in a light socket, if he lives he knows not to do that again)
Yes i agree animals need more help becuase it not natural to be tied up and just left. they can't save them selves WE have to.
This, this, this, A MILLION TIMES THIS. He should be glad there are still charitable people in the world. It's not about who or what you donate or even how much, it's about giving to a good cause. Period.Internet Kraken said:
It's time like this I'm glad I just hate everyone. I don't give to charity (maybe a letter-bomb if I were named Theodore (cookie for the reference), I don't give to homeless people (unless you count beatings), and I'm just a general psycho misanthrope. Makes life easier.
Im sure you agree that i gladly kill you to make dog happier since i hate human being since you have no regard for life. There's a point that you do not reallize the values of other human being but yourself makes you a narcistsic bastard. If you really love animals would you sacrifice yourself or believe the value of yourself.
Im sure you agree that i gladly kill you to make dog happier since i hate human being since you have no regard for life. There's a point that you do not reallize the values of other human being but yourself makes you a narcistsic bastard. If you really love animals would you sacrifice yourself or believe the value of yourself.CORRODED SIN said:
