onefunnybunny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#1
As people, we feel our moral obligation weaken with physical as well as emotional distance from individuals in need. For example, you’re more likely to help someone dying of hunger at your feet than someone dying of hunger in another country. How does this human trait of morality dependent on distance shape our world?
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 18
#2
Report 9 months ago
#2
i'm not entirely sure i understand your question but i'll bite.

everything comes down to survival, yes? so who is more likely to help you live or help you die: the person at your feet or the one on the other side of the planet?

(short answer, dead bodies are a cost on society, literally. a rotting corpse spreads disease; the less people you have in your village, the less protection you have from enemies; less chance your village will procreate and survive, etc.)

but i don't understand the 'shape your world' part. taking care of your neighbour and not someone in another country has always been, so you would have to say it's 'shaped our world' since the beginning of time. except i would argue it's easier to help someone in another country these days, now that we have internet and you can send money almost instantaneously. we also have global news so we know (somewhat) what's happening around the world, or at least we can find out. couldn't do that for most of history.
0
reply
username3081694
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 months ago
#3
I have nothing to contribute.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 months ago
#4
There's a pretty wild Peter Singer paper somewhere that argues that this concept of distance doesn't make any sense in the modern world and thusly concludes that we should give vast amounts of our income to charity and not have nice things.

https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

Makes you do a big thoncc

(Original post by Joleee)
but i don't understand the 'shape your world' part.
I think my man was just trying really hard to not end his post with "Discuss." but couldn't think of a question that made any sense.
0
reply
Asazycat
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 months ago
#5
(Original post by anghaard)
I have nothing to contribute.
Then you should've not said anything.
0
reply
username3081694
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 months ago
#6
(Original post by Asazycat)
Then you should've not said anything.
being honest, I needed to post in this section to get a badge... very sad.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 months ago
#7
"you’re more likely to help someone dying of hunger at your feet than someone dying of hunger in another country".

I disgaree that you are more likely to do that. There are probably more charities sending aid abroad than aid this country.
And feeding people in the UK probably isn't even covered by charity. So it depends on vigilant, caring, neighbours committed to where they live who are increasingly in shorter supply.

So I propose that many people who contribute to charities aiding people abroad might be living next door to someone who wouldn't have died if it wasn't for their neighbour not showing persistent concern for them.
It probably won't be much out of hunger but could be out of alcoholism or suicide or accident after a long period of profound sadness.
Last edited by Picnic1; 9 months ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (183)
23.83%
Pop (187)
24.35%
Jazz (30)
3.91%
Classical (46)
5.99%
Hip-Hop (145)
18.88%
Electronic (50)
6.51%
Indie (127)
16.54%

Watched Threads

View All