3 ms·
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something goo
by Timon3 23d ago
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
- Huarache1 23d agoI think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action. Actions often speak louder than words.
- Timon3 23d agoDon't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake. To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded. This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.