3 ms·
I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This
by samhw 5y ago
I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This feels like a lame attempt to shame the other commenter out of a point you couldn't answer - and on the basis of a standard you wouldn't pass yourself either.
- Kranar 5y agoNo they are not equally qualified to discuss the moral aspect of it because they have nothing at risk. It's very easy to make cheap moral claims when there is nothing at stake. What's interesting is the kind of moral decisions and tradeoffs an individual makes when there is something at stake. The fact that this person is not in a position to stake anything makes their claim entirely vacuous and superficial. First go off and start a company working on nuclear energy or electric airplanes, get to a point in your life where someone cares to offer you $100k for nothing in return, then feel free to talk about the tradeoffs and difficult balancing act that leads you to refuse it. That can be an interesting discussion... Some nobody just chiming in with nothing other than a claim that they'd refuse to take money that they're in no position to even be offered is cheap posturing.
- samhw 5y agoOK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?