3 ms·
So your stance is withdrawing aid and directly causing the deaths of millions is morally ambiguous/neutral because the aid contributed to the larger population
by Jtarii 3mo ago
So your stance is withdrawing aid and directly causing the deaths of millions is morally ambiguous/neutral because the aid contributed to the larger population in the first place?
This just seems like such a comically evil position to hold I don't know if I am understanding you correctly.
- urbsgpw 3mo agoDirectly? I would love to see that study. I'm saying a lot of the populace is against foreign aid. And that populace has the right to shut it off. And we live in nation states - the state giving the aid can always shut it off (for whatever reason). Granted, I see no reason to do it SO abruptly (and I agree that was an infantile show), but I am not convinced aid as such is a net benefit for humanity. At the very least this is something you can do an econometric analysis and discuss different policy choices. Now, that being said, I do agree it would have probably made more sense, from an austerity point of view, to cut the military aid to Israel.
- estearum 3mo ago> Directly? I would love to see that study. Lol, no you wouldn't. If you would, this would not be news to you. "We have a right to do it" is not a response to the allegation of being immoral. There are plenty of immoral things someone is well within their rights to do.
- Jtarii 3mo agoHoly shit, infinite ethical murder exploit 1. Give aid 2. Population goes up 3. Revoke aid 4. Everyone dies 5. Go to 1 Great moral system you have there.