4 ms·
Funny you would respond with a fallacious comparison. Relative privation is not fallacious because comparison was useless. Kids do starve (realistic) and there
by Loquebantur 3y ago
Funny you would respond with a fallacious comparison.
Relative privation is not fallacious because comparison was useless. Kids do starve (realistic) and there is even worse in the world (so not an extreme either).
But you need to choose by some metric where to use your abilities, if you don't want to end up being an egotistic hedonist.
You should help to right wrongs in ways amenable to your abilities, not more, not less. Honesty is key obviously, both ways.
- MontyCarloHall 3y agoRelative privation is fallacious because the logical existence of a bad problem isn’t negated by the existence of a worse problem. Nobody is claiming that the worse problem is fallacious, but rather that it doesn’t logically invalidate the bad problem. For example, the statement “a lot of people died on 9/11” is not logically negated by the statement “but a lot more people died during WW2”; the fact that the latter statement is true has no bearing on the validity of the former statement. Or to bring it back to Africa, the statement “there is food insecurity in America” is not negated by the statement “but there are famines in Africa.”
- Loquebantur 3y agoYou are misunderstanding the context of the comparison. Those statements are not meant to negate the factual content, they relativize the respective importance. One should direct one's energies where they make the best contribution. For that, one has to compare alternatives.