5 ms·

It's only immoral to question the validity of a good cause on the pretense that there's something worse happening out there somewhere...

edoceo 6y ago
Hint: there is always something worse somewhere.
- imtringued 6y ago
  There are as many "worst things" as there are people.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  There are many bad things happening everywhere. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stack-rank them, in order to allocate funds effectively. There's diminishing returns to everything[0]. As you throw money at problem #1, it becomes more and more expensive to make a marginal improvement, so eventually, it swaps places with some other problem in the ranking. There are many criteria you could use for making such ranking of problems (a popular one is minimizing dollars per lives saved, or dollars per QALY added). Living in a free society means people are free to decide how much (if anything all) they want to spend on charitable causes, and on which ones. But in one's individual spending, it's worth to think about how to get maximum "bang for your buck", in terms of alleviating suffering. --- [0] - By coincidence, this is on the front page right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993486.
markdown 6y ago
You're being deliberately obtuse. There are millions of people out of jobs, and soon there'll be millions of people starving. Put moral relativism aside for a minute and think about the real pain that people are feeling right now. These poor dogs aren't going to find homes that can feed them for a long time. At some point you need to stop being selfish and putting your own feelings aside to think about the people around you.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  You could make the exact same statement 6 months ago.
  - markdown 6y ago
    Six months ago the shelter didn't need money because people had money and donated it willingly. Now the people around there are starving and can't waste money keeping random strays alive when their own children are starving. And the people running this shelter, knowing that donor funds are limited, are asking for it to be spent on keeping unwanted dogs alive when there are people starving. It's more humane to put the dogs to sleep. They will feel no pain. But nobody is going to even begin to consider putting the children to sleep are they? Those kids are going to suffer badly, and you're here arguing that the dogs are more important? These are unprecedented times, and you can't just waste money.
ppf 6y ago
It's a question of scale, and balance. Yes, I think it is ridiculous to ask for donations to keep unwanted dogs alive when there are people on the same island who are suffering.

edoceo 6y ago

Hint: there is always something worse somewhere.

imtringued 6y ago
There are as many "worst things" as there are people.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
There are many bad things happening everywhere. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stack-rank them, in order to allocate funds effectively. There's diminishing returns to everything[0]. As you throw money at problem #1, it becomes more and more expensive to make a marginal improvement, so eventually, it swaps places with some other problem in the ranking. There are many criteria you could use for making such ranking of problems (a popular one is minimizing dollars per lives saved, or dollars per QALY added). Living in a free society means people are free to decide how much (if anything all) they want to spend on charitable causes, and on which ones. But in one's individual spending, it's worth to think about how to get maximum "bang for your buck", in terms of alleviating suffering. --- [0] - By coincidence, this is on the front page right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993486.

markdown 6y ago

You're being deliberately obtuse. There are millions of people out of jobs, and soon there'll be millions of people starving. Put moral relativism aside for a minute and think about the real pain that people are feeling right now. These poor dogs aren't going to find homes that can feed them for a long time. At some point you need to stop being selfish and putting your own feelings aside to think about the people around you.

kmonsen 6y ago
You could make the exact same statement 6 months ago.
- markdown 6y ago
  Six months ago the shelter didn't need money because people had money and donated it willingly. Now the people around there are starving and can't waste money keeping random strays alive when their own children are starving. And the people running this shelter, knowing that donor funds are limited, are asking for it to be spent on keeping unwanted dogs alive when there are people starving. It's more humane to put the dogs to sleep. They will feel no pain. But nobody is going to even begin to consider putting the children to sleep are they? Those kids are going to suffer badly, and you're here arguing that the dogs are more important? These are unprecedented times, and you can't just waste money.

ppf 6y ago

It's a question of scale, and balance. Yes, I think it is ridiculous to ask for donations to keep unwanted dogs alive when there are people on the same island who are suffering.