02-11-2003 00:07									#1
	Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty? Increase Your PM Length

I have always believed that when people do not do something and someone dies when the first person could have done something it is immorally wrong. When someone murdrers another person, what they did (stabbing, beating, shooting, whatever) caused another human being to die. When someone sees the murder taking place but doesn't call 911 to stop, their actions (doing nothing) caused that person to die. I do believe that in this situation the murderer is worse than the witness, I still believe that the witness acted immorally.

I am also a supporter of this philosophy becase it supports us helping out one another. Many people believe in the 'don't cause harm but think for yourself' philosohpy, but it makes the world a worse place. First off, it encourages people to go out and try to gain as much they can and step on other people if they have to. Even if the person does believe that they shouldn't harm others, the focus of the belief is to help themselves and they do just that even if it means hurting others, and then they'll rationalize their behavior. Another reason is that if we all think for ourselves, we won't help other people. This is awful because most of the world lives very poorly. If we all accepted this philosophy, the oppressed would get no help to get out of their situation, even if all they needed was a little helping hand. But if we accept my philosophy, helping others will be the main focus, and if we do that we will always be helping people and looking out for them, and it would make the world a better place. I gurantee that pretty much every single problem on this planet would not have occurred if we all had been thinking of other people when we made our decisions.

Recently, I've been pondering and I've come at a conclusion that makes me feel horrible. If my philosophy is true, every single person on Apolyton and probably 99% of the population of wealthy nations act very immorally. Now for someone on Apolyton, they have cars, clothes, many luxuries that people of poor nations couldn't dream of, and computers. They could sell everything they have, work a lot, and donate everything they earn to people in third world countries that are dying of malnutrition or lack of medicine. If they did this, they'd be saving lives. However, no one does this. So that means because of our inaction, people are dying. Children in India would beg people in the United States do to this, but we wouldn't because we're thinking of ourselves. Every person that dies of malnutrition or of a disease that could've been cured, that person could've been saved if we would've donated more money to third world countries. But we didn't. What we did (not giving them money which we would use to buy something useless, but they would've used for food and to save a life) caused that person to die.

So shouldn't every person here feel guilty?

	02-11-2003 00:10									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

short term solution for long term world.

	02-11-2003 00:15									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: When someone sees the murder taking place but doesn't call 911 to stop, their actions (doing nothing) caused that person to die.

WRONG! Their actions did NOT cause that person's death. It was the action of the murderer that caused the person's death. Otherwise, it is EVERYONE's fault when someone dies, because our inaction "caused that person's death".

There are three types of "actions" (also includes lack of action). There is Bad, Neutral, and Good.

Bad is actually causing harm to another person, that sort of thing. It is the wrong thing to do.

Neutral action is the broadest range. All inaction (except in a certain type of circumstance I'll detail below) is neutral. All actions that have no moral implications are neutral (picking up a rock and putting it back down). Neutral actions carry no blame, but also no praise.

Good action is doing the RIGHT thing to do. Helping the person bleeding to death in front of you, giving money to charity. An important distinction is that not doing the right thing isn't WRONG, it is neutral. No one is under obligation to do the RIGHT thing - it is your responsibility, but not your duty. Just like voting is your responsibility, whereas paying taxes is your duty.

The circumstance is in something like paying your taxes. When performing an action is your DUTY, not performing it is WRONG. However, helping a dying person isn't your DUTY, and it would be a violation of your freedoms to make it so.

	02-11-2003 00:20									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You raise a very strong question, jcml. Even if a couple of thousands of people did this we could help lots of people. But personally, I think that a better idea would be that each one would help a bit. We must be egalitarian, right?

skywalker: and what is duty, and what isn't?

	02-11-2003 00:21									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I tend to agree with John, but I really don't want to think about it since the logical conclusion of his thoughts is that everyone starves because they're trying to throw food at each other and won't take the survival minimum for themselves.

	02-11-2003 00:23									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Duty - duty is when not doing something is the wrong thing. Doing your duty is not something to be commended for, but not doing it is something for which you should be punished. The entire system I described explains what is wrong with religious (and other) fanatics - they assume that it is your DUTY to do the RIGHT thing, which is untrue.

	02-11-2003 00:23									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Neutral act

Attachment: neutral.jpg
This has been downloaded 182 time(s).

	02-11-2003 00:24									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Here they go bomb poor people what are you talking about lol

	02-11-2003 00:24									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell I tend to agree with John, but I really don't want to think about it since the logical conclusion of his thoughts is that everyone starves because they're trying to throw food at each other and won't take the survival minimum for themselves.

The logical conclusion of his argument flies in face of logic, because it says we MUST do something that will only hurt EVERYONE. Thus, the underlying premises must be wrong.

	02-11-2003 00:25									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid Neutral act

Yep. It's neutral. It isn't commendable, but it is the WRONG thing to punish it.

	02-11-2003 00:26									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Duty - duty is when not doing something is the wrong thing.

Oh, Gee, thanks for telling me that. now it's all so clear.

	02-11-2003 00:26									#12
	Support Apolyton

But I don't believe it should be required to act good.

If you do act good, more power to ya, man. If you act neutral or don't act, well, that's okay too. (If you're evil, shove it up your ass, ****er. )

	02-11-2003 00:28									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Let me try and clarifying - for the good of the community, you are required to perform certain actions - like pay your taxes, sign up for the draft, etc. Some of these duties (most notably the draft) are in fact contested, and not all believe they are your duty. Duty consists largely of your legal obligations. Again, the most significant example is paying taxes.

	02-11-2003 00:29									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell But I don't believe it should be required to act good. If you do act good, more power to ya, man. If you act neutral or don't act, well, that's okay too. (If you're evil, shove it up your ass, ****er. )

EXACTLY! Someone understood me!

	02-11-2003 00:36									#15
	Support Apolyton

I would give money to hepl the poor people of the world (incl;uding my money for my computer and everything else), if it woudl help them

but I don't tihnk it would, becuase it would not get to them

instead it would be siphoned off a long the way

also, I don't know how to help personally

so basically I do nothing

and I do feel guilty, but I don't know what to do?

(I do try and help those in the US I see)

Jon Miller

	02-11-2003 00:37									#16
	Got spare money?

quote: Let me try and clarifying - for the good of the community, you are required to perform certain actions - like pay your taxes, sign up for the draft, etc. Some of these duties (most notably the draft) are in fact contested, and not all believe they are your duty. Duty consists largely of your legal obligations. Again, the most significant example is paying taxes.

For the good of your community, you're also required to stop criminals, aka "Good samaritan law". and for the good of your community, you're paying for welfare, with your taxes.

See where I am going with this?

	02-11-2003 00:40									#17
	Re: Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

No.

	02-11-2003 00:42									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I agree. The people who should feel guilty are the mods.

	02-11-2003 00:43									#19
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Azazel For the good of your community, you're also required to stop criminals, aka "Good samaritan law". and for the good of your community, you're paying for welfare, with your taxes. See where I am going with this?

Actually, you're wrong. The "Good Samaritan Law" says that you can't sue someone who tried in good faith to save your life through CPR or such at the scene of the injury.

And paying you taxes is something that allows the community to do things it would not be able to otherwise, thing that require a concentration of money. This does not.

	02-11-2003 00:44									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I would give money to hepl the poor people of the world (incl;uding my money for my computer and everything else), if it woudl help them but I don't tihnk it would, becuase it would not get to them instead it would be siphoned off a long the way also, I don't know how to help personally so basically I do nothing and I do feel guilty, but I don't know what to do? (I do try and help those in the US I see) Jon Miller

Don't feel guilty. Help if you want, but the idea that you should feel guilt about not helping is the same idea that led to the Inquisition.

	02-11-2003 00:45									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Actually, you're wrong. The "Good Samaritan Law" says that you can't sue someone who tried in good faith to save your life through CPR or such at the scene of the injury. And paying you taxes is something that allows the community to do things it would not be able to otherwise, thing that require a concentration of money. This does not.

Bull. as every libertarian would tell you, this can be easily achieved with private enterprise and capital.

	02-11-2003 00:46									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Bull. as every libertarian would tell you, this can be easily achieved with private enterprise and capital.

You've become a disciple of DF?

	02-11-2003 00:49									#23
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I agree. The people who should feel guilty are the mods.

I've heard that one can, in a Freudian sense, assuage one's own guilt by punishing others.

	02-11-2003 00:54									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat I've heard that one can, in a Freudian sense, assuage one's own guilt by punishing others.

Nah, Freudian theories have been largely disproved, and those who adhere to them are usually different sorts of perverts.

quote: You've become a disciple of DF?

notice the winking smiley.

	02-11-2003 00:54									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: notice the winking smiley.

Sorry, I forgot one of my own.

	02-11-2003 00:54									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: When someone sees the murder taking place but doesn't call 911 to stop, their actions (doing nothing) caused that person to die. WRONG! Their actions did NOT cause that person's death. It was the action of the murderer that caused the person's death. Otherwise, it is EVERYONE's fault when someone dies, because our inaction "caused that person's death".

Careful here. Of course the guy who tried to murder the person is to blame first, but if you do not help (eg. call police/doctor) despite you can you´re responsible too. Not sure if you meant that here....

"Good action is doing the RIGHT thing to do. Helping the person bleeding to death in front of you(...)"

because

"However, helping a dying person isn't your DUTY, and it would be a violation of your freedoms to make it so."

(Because according to your first statement sometimes it is your duty )

	02-11-2003 00:56									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree with MTG

	02-11-2003 00:59									#28
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Careful here. Of course the guy who tried to murder the person is to blame first, but if you do not help (eg. call police/doctor) despite you can you´re responsible too. Not sure if you meant that here....

No, you aren't responsible. When someone got shot last night (I'm sure it happened, somewhere in the world) I didn't call the police. Am I responsible?

quote: "Good action is doing the RIGHT thing to do. Helping the person bleeding to death in front of you(...)" because "However, helping a dying person isn't your DUTY, and it would be a violation of your freedoms to make it so." (Because according to your first statement sometimes it is your duty )

Huh?

	02-11-2003 01:01									#29
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I agree with MTG

Generally a safe statement to make.

As to the actual thread, well, I have no idea how to answer it without dipping into theology, but I agree to some extent with the starter. We'll leave it at that.

	02-11-2003 01:02									#30
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

John C. McLeod, what if I could demonstrate to you that we could permanently help the poor in the Third World by improving their governments against their will and if necessary by overthrowing them? Would this justify such a foreign-policy?