Consider the following thought experiment, which I present as a series of questions.
1. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who has no money to feed himself because he lost all his money gambling, or has spent all his money on drugs and similar vice?
Probably not, I might guess. On to the next question, then.
2. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster?
Most likely yes, assuming that one is not in greater need. Now, finally:
3. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster, given that it is also known that the person is the same fellow as in question 1?
There are two possible answers, and both raise interesting thoughts.
If we agree to help the person, then the strange scenario is that from the position of the drug addict/gambler, a natural disaster is more favorable than no natural disaster. The position may also be inconsistent.
Conversely, if we refuse to help the person, the scenario becomes somewhat morally distasteful. Should we then introduce background checks or means testing prior to dispensing aid? Or should we just dispatch help to areas which are more 'deserving' or 'worthy' of assistance?
1. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who has no money to feed himself because he lost all his money gambling, or has spent all his money on drugs and similar vice?
Probably not, I might guess. On to the next question, then.
2. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster?
Most likely yes, assuming that one is not in greater need. Now, finally:
3. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster, given that it is also known that the person is the same fellow as in question 1?
There are two possible answers, and both raise interesting thoughts.
If we agree to help the person, then the strange scenario is that from the position of the drug addict/gambler, a natural disaster is more favorable than no natural disaster. The position may also be inconsistent.
Conversely, if we refuse to help the person, the scenario becomes somewhat morally distasteful. Should we then introduce background checks or means testing prior to dispensing aid? Or should we just dispatch help to areas which are more 'deserving' or 'worthy' of assistance?
No comments:
Post a Comment