3 ms·

It sound horrible, morbid and even psychopathic, but it is the truth. Most people do not think about life in such practical ways (read: realistic), instead it i

It sound horrible, morbid and even psychopathic, but it is the truth. Most people do not think about life in such practical ways (read: realistic), instead it is idealized and made an abstract concept. It is not. You consciously choose, every day, egoistic actions that harm other people. You could have saved countless lifes, yet you did not. Do not pretend to care when you do not. Same thing goes with eating meat. Animals aren't things. They feel, they suffer. And we make them suffer. Just because they taste good. But harming a dog? Abandoning a dog to get a new puppy? That is horrible! But is it, really? Or is it just the same thing we do every day?

tomhoward 8y ago
It's not the truth. Most people understand that it's counter-productive to impoverish one's self in the process of trying to help others. It's for both sentimental and practical reasons that we give the greatest help to those closest to us - our spouse/partner, children, parents, siblings, close friends; if everyone were able to do that, then the world would function just fine. And we know that if we spend our entire wealth and productive capacity trying to help people unknown to us, we'll soon be unable to help anyone at all and will quickly end up in need of welfare rather than being able offer it. Effectively every employed person pays tax, and is comfortable knowing their taxes help others unknown to them. Many people give to charity because they like knowing that some of their wealth helps others outside their immediate circle. The assertion "you could have saved countless lives, yet you did not" is false and misanthropic. I'm no objectivist or right-libertarian, and I'm fully supportive of benevolence, humanitarianism and welfare. But in order for these systems to function optimally, we must begin by ensuring the needs of ourselves and those close to us are taken care of, so we can be net-contributors to welfare rather than net-recipients. Because as soon as too many people become net-recipients, welfare systems collapse.

tomhoward 8y ago

It's not the truth. Most people understand that it's counter-productive to impoverish one's self in the process of trying to help others. It's for both sentimental and practical reasons that we give the greatest help to those closest to us - our spouse/partner, children, parents, siblings, close friends; if everyone were able to do that, then the world would function just fine. And we know that if we spend our entire wealth and productive capacity trying to help people unknown to us, we'll soon be unable to help anyone at all and will quickly end up in need of welfare rather than being able offer it. Effectively every employed person pays tax, and is comfortable knowing their taxes help others unknown to them. Many people give to charity because they like knowing that some of their wealth helps others outside their immediate circle. The assertion "you could have saved countless lives, yet you did not" is false and misanthropic. I'm no objectivist or right-libertarian, and I'm fully supportive of benevolence, humanitarianism and welfare. But in order for these systems to function optimally, we must begin by ensuring the needs of ourselves and those close to us are taken care of, so we can be net-contributors to welfare rather than net-recipients. Because as soon as too many people become net-recipients, welfare systems collapse.