= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Shut Up and Divide? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (258)
Under conventional legal and ethical principles, not providing someone with aid that may extend their life is not generally considered the same as killing them. Your personal ethical code may see it that way but you will find many people disagree with you (me included).
I agree. Anyway you also need to consider the "don't feed stray animals" principle. Will saving lives in the Third World ultimately cause more suffering and misery?
I was a bit surprised to hear that Ethiopia's population has doubled since the famine there in the 1980s. Where does it end?
That's a flimsy rejection, since Phil mentioned donating to programs that provide contraceptives in the Third World.
GDP per capita is a better predictor of fertility than access to contraceptives.
The rejection is only as flimsy as the contraceptive programs are effective, on the margins where increased funding might make a difference. They may not be very effective at all while additional children are still profitable.
"Socioeconomic development is considered the main cause of a decline over time in the benefits of having children and a rise in their costs."
"http://www.jstor.org/pss/20058399"
Well I agree that to the extent that the "aid" we are talking about is contraception, then my "don't feed stray animals" objection clearly doesn't apply.
Fair enough. I agree with mattnewport as well, though I'd say that 'providing someone with aid that may extend their life' is probably a moral obligation to some extent, in a reasonable extrapolation of my and your revealed values.