|
Re: A moral question
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Structural Integrity
If is indeed the case that with funding you could in theory save everyone, that would void the whole "dilemma" part. The dilemma is that you can make a personal sacrifice in order to save another person and the question is how far you would go. It's exactly the same as the age-old dillemma, but with other words: "if you had to die to save 10 other lives, would you do it? 100 then? or 1000?". The funding bit would change THAT dilemma to something like "if you could save the world, and didn't have to die, would you do it?"
So if there is no personal sacrifice to be made then there is no dilemma like stated in the original post.
Another kind of dilemma would pop up though; "is this the right thing to do? What would the consequences be?".
So, let me change the topic of this thread a bit: if you could make everyone on this planet live forever, would you do it? Would that be the right thing to do?
|
It was to see how big a drop in living tandards you would take, which is a very real personal sacrifice.
Quote:
|
Nope, no evidence... I made it up. Thought you must admit it sounds plausible, no?
|
No.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|