Morality and distance
 

Perhaps a year ago this moral dilemma occurred to me:

If I was in my living room and a guest started to have a violent, natural death and the only way I could save him was by instantly paying £500 from my bank account, I would instantly do so, rather than watch him die in front of me. In fact, I would be willing to risk my life to save some one in peril before me, let alone £500!

However I know for a fact that I could save many lives by giving away £500 to a charity, but I don't.

It would be callas and greedy to watch someone die in front of me because I didn't want to spend money to save them. Is it not equally callas and greedy not to give lifesaving money to charity if I know more people will die if I do not?
After all, the only difference is I don't have to watch people die when I do not make £500 donations to charity.

Last year I bought a motorbike for enough money to buy some anonymous person a lifesaving operation that they could no afford. Does that mean I valued the bike more than the life of another human?
Obviously at the time I didn't know of anyone who needed such a operation, but I'm sure I could have found many in the world if I had looked.

Does anyone know of any writings on the issue?
This is something that troubles me deeply and I would appreciate your thoughts.

As a white, male, Northern European, I've always considered hypocrisy to be vital to my existence, somewhere up there with oxygen and sunlight. I wear leather boots, eat meat, and damned if I'm not getting the dirty oil-burning bus home tonight. Yet here I am taking a break from an essay on environmental activism :-?.

I think it boils down to sustainability. I'll go with an example... Sure, we could knock off all the electricity and oil, (someone was arguing this on the global warming thread, I forget who) but we wouldnt last out the first winter. Sustainability is about acheiving your goals, and not reducing the ability of future generations to acheive theirs.
You could give out all your cash for new livers/kidneys for dying people, but it would massively reduce your enjoyment of life, or it's expectancy.

Maybe cognitive dissonance is what this is about, I'm not sure

I guess I'm confused about your issue. Are you upset because someone has died? Last I checked everyone dies. Or, because he died in front of you? There was a time when death was a very personal experience and was accepted for what it was. Part of the life cycle, we're born, we live the best life we can, we die.

Your money, no matter how much you have will not stop death. Do the best you are able with the money you have and believe that no matter how much anyone tries you cannot save everyone from themselves or death.

You are missing the point....

I don't really know how I can edit my original post to make it any clearer. Try reading it very carefully and slowly.

No. I got the point and no matter how much money you give and no matter who you give it to, people are still going to die!

Well of course people are still going to die, but that's not the point because you can still save a life by your actions.

If I save the man in my living room, other people will still die and so will he in when he gets old, but I still do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

You can't let people die just because they will die anyway or because you cant save everyone. If you took that attitude then there would be no need for hospitals at all!

That wasn't your original question. You asked if your purchase of a motorcycle was wrong because you could save a life if you did not.

My answer is no.

Actually, his question was a value judgement. Similiar, but not asking if it was "wrong".

That you think about it and feel responsible for finding your own answer actually already gives you credit, Letum.

You can only do so much, but not more. You can look to the horizon, but not beyond. To walk the path of true altruistic and peaceful teachings like Buddha or Jesus is a very heavy burden, and most of us mortals do not have what it takes to succeed in just one life. We cannot win it all in one giant jump, usually we need to make many small steps for that reason.

I sometimes got asked, when I still taught meditation, what to do if the person asking wishes to commit itself totally to what he/she considered a spiritual path. I said, like often is said by Buddhist teachers as well: try to live a good life and be of use for others, and don'T think you have no desire to feel some joy yourself nevertheless. that is of more worth for your heavenly banking account than to meditate in a wrong way or to start a "spiritual career" by wrong ambitions.

In other words, Letum: you give me the impression that you neither live your life blindly, nor irresponsibly. Leave it well alone, your course is fine. Don't try to be more human than you are - that would cause you more trouble than good. ;) Your life and wqell-being is not of lesser worth than that of others. Will you please accept this? :up: Accepting this will give you a good balance between "Me" and "You" in general.

Talk to Hillary Clinton. She talks of taking away your money for you and giving it to charity without your consent. That way, you don't have to feel bad about the motorbike because she made that decision for you! That could be our future!

-S

PS. All and all though, you cannot live your entire life for others and you cannot save the world. Give something each year maybe, and you will have done your duty.

Is SUBMAN1 and waste gate the same person?

No.

Here is what she said:

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."


Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.


"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.


"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Taxation is nothing new...

That is not the scary part, it is her mentallity where she plans to redistribute wealth. That is pure Socialism.

-S

I think Letum did not ask for another stereotyped discussion of what socialism is in the poster's mind, and what a bitch Hillary Clinton is or is not. He said he has a problem concerning a moral thing, and feels personally affected by it. That requires a personal answer to him, on the issue of his. This is none of the usual theoretical debates about news headlines or politics. Do him the favour and accept that.