How can anyone claim to be a good person when they spend money on anything but the bare necessities to live...

you left out the word "ideally" from that quote faggot. it isn't a requirement for it to be around books jut a suggestion. this thread isn't just op whining his position is that there is a particular moral duty that people are not living up to.

most people don't agree with you on what constitutes killing another person. according to your position there are millions of people in the world who each kill millions of people constantly. convince people why not sending money to poor people is an act of killing.

It doesn't get me down, I'm just asking about inconsistencies

Two people come up to you. One of them is holding a gun. He says he'll kill the other guy unless you give him 40$. You don't give him the money. He kills the other guy.

Are you not at all responsible for his death?

first of all that scenario is about someone actively killing someone. the gun is fired in that example. in the africa scenario laid out above the person is not shot or anything equivalent to that. they die of natural causes not by the hand of another person so that is not considered an act of killing by most people. what you have to do is argue how it is because right now that isn't how people see it at all.

giving people food when they are starving perpetuates the conditions that caused their starvation, it is cruel and counterproductive (reduce starving people).

you can only help people who have shown the desire and motivation to help themselves, and often this is done by getting out of their way or offering protection from other people who would hinder their progress. in both cases america through it's military and propaganda arms does a commendable and underappreciated job.

>implying I want the world flooded with useless niggers of which a certain percentage will come to leech western countries' wealth until they substitute the locals after subjecting them to years of injustices

It's only moral to want all niggers dead or isolated.

Why should I help the poor if the rich aren't helping me?

moral duties are not contingent on others following their duties

Do you have a book or article about this phenomenon? It sounds quite plausible to me but I'd like to have thourough arguments somewhere. Could be how foreign aid is disrupting third world growth in general but the flooding and killing of local business initiatives sounds especially interesting.

This. Fuck the rich. They want all their money to themselves. I want fancy things too. They should be the one helping us and the poor in Africa.

No specific book but I'm sure they're out there. The harm caused by foreign aid has been discussed/documented for decades.

can't believe my meme thread gets deleted but this shit stays up smdh

look into how bill gate's strategy for helping africa has changed over the years. he ran into problems using those intuitive approaches and moved on to other approaches. not sure if there's been a book written about him doing that but there's info online

We act like we're better than those who have less
Then cry foul when the rich act arrogant

It’s not my moral duty to help anyone that isn’t my countryman or a relative of mine. (Or at least a friend)
Fuck off you niggerlover.

foreign aid to africa is only a bribe for the local political elite so they can remain in power and keep profiting from the exploitation of their countrymen and land
it does nothing except for delaying the problem, making it exponentially worse in the meantime (endless cycle: send aid, the population doubles because of the aid, the increased population will need twice as much aid)
the only way to help africa is leaving it alone so it can develop at its own pace (see sankara and how under him burkina faso became food self-sufficient)
you and dumb fucking retards like you with your retarded feelgood bullshit and your white savior complex are literally being used to contribute to the suffering of millions of people
kill yourself, it will reduce your carbon footprint

obviously you don't consider it your moral duty but op wants to argue that it is your moral duty. instead of just putting up a wall against that position why not see what he has to say?

Why do I have to babysit people who are getting their just desserts?

No it’s not my moral duty as a second worlder to help good for nothing negroes that come up here and try getting over that hella expensive fence.
Help yourself and God will help you too.

Because the rich have way more than they need and don't want to share it with us. I'm not going to give all my extra money to the poor while the rich live in luxury.

there you go just throwing up your wall again. if you're not going to add anything new to the talk why even post. the least you could do is argue why he's wrong instead of just saying he's wrong.

It is the ops job to convince us that it is our moral duty. However OP is even dumber than Mozi and therefore can not convince anyone of impartiality in terms of care.
People enjoy their leisurely pursuits and entertainments so you can never create a culture in which people are completely selfless which is a pointless virtue to pursue anyway as it leads to more suffering in each individual. Niggers are also disgusting so why the fuck use Africa as your example of a country needing the help of better people?
Fuck off back to your cave with all the other pseuds like peter cave and Alain de Botton

This. I have to work like a slave to have enough money to live a comfortable life and OP want me to give that money away so I can bail the rich from their responsability of helping the poor? Fuck that. Those pieces of shit already have too much. I'm not going to make it even easier for them.

That's a noble sentiment, but a little naive and beside the point. People don't die in relatively undeveloped nations because as a species we fail to muck in together and help each other out, they die because as a species we perpetrate a global economic system that impoverishes the third world and disempowers its people. It also disempowers people in the first world of course, which is why there's no way for you to just reach out and help people, like you wanna do with your 40 quid. It'd get pissed away in corruption and beaurocracy, or misspent, or spent on something good in the short term but harmful in the long term.
You gotta think bigger picture.
Even if the annoying wee utilitarian philosophers are right about the morality of your individual actions and your small individual lifestyle, you still gotta look bigger than that if you actually wanna help other people and conceptualise the challenges we face globally, the sources of the problems people in the third world face

you're not even arguing against op's position right now. he never said that it was possible to act morally according to his definition of acting morally. He's asking why it is that people claim to be moral when they are not actually moral.

Ahaha

Holy shit you're an actual down-to-earth idiot aren't you? It pains me greatly to see someone so naïve, such as yourself.
Do you really think donation 40$ monthly will help Africans? Do you really think Africans get all that money, and not some corrupt as fuck part, be it an organization, government, ruler or enforcer?
Even if, in best case scenario it would help, it would only be temporarily and considered a "bear's favour". Please, I'm not going to stop you. Just keep donating your money and tell yourself you're a good boy.

That's beside the facts. You could still save people by sending money. Even if it is just one. You could fly one guy over and feed and shelter him. By choosing not to do this you are choosing not to save this man and thus killing him.

You are saying that because we can't save all of them we shouldn't even try.

>People are dying in Africa and they can be saved by a mere donation of 40$/month.
i'm sure that will work out great and won't produce 1000x the amount of suffering on the long term, maintain and help to propel a population explosion on countries that can barely take care of themselves now, what could go wrong?

the most moral thing you can do is help as many people as possible
>temporally
Nobody wants to be any race over caucasian, saving non-caucasians leads to more sad fucks not being born white.
What we should do is nuke the third world, this saves billions of future humans from suffering, (genetically too low IQ to ever get out of their slump).
Tell me OP.

Don't focus so much on the dollar amount. I'm saying that people could prevent others from dying by helping them (either by sending money, flying them over to here,...) but they choose to spend their time and money on other things. This is not seen as a bad thing apparently. Yet if I saw a toddler drowning in a puddle and not do anything I would be considered a bad person. Just because I chose to not spend my time helping him.

>allowing africans to live
>good

give a man a fish proverb

Holy shit, you went there and made the toddler in the puddle argument. You just compared a local issue to a global one you stupid nigger.

lol the fact that (traditional) foreign aid harms periphery countries is common knowledge

all global issues are local issues

stop replying this nigger is baiting from a template thread earlier this month

Ah, I see. This is a bait thread. Well done, OP.

>if I saw a toddler drowning in a puddle and not do anything I would be considered a bad person
But that's not the case in the real world. In the real world you're next to a professional swimmer who also does nothing. Why should you be the one helping the kid when the most qualified person isn't doing it either?

I have no connection to people in Africa, I have no obligation to send them aid. As a matter of fact, I'm aware they have become completely dependent on foreign aid, if the West hits a crisis billions will die in Africa. They need to learn to stand for themselves. And part of that is the West no longer meddling there of course. Don't worry about China, it will collapse soon if only we let it

So, you would let the kid die?

I'm not even op. but sure, buy into that "if you disagree with me you're baiting" mentality all you want

No, the swimmer would be the one letting him die. His death would be on him.

You have no obligation to do anything. I never said you had to do anything. I was just asking about inconsistencies in morality. People have the ability to save other people, yet they choose not to and still see themselves as good a good person

depends, what race is the toddler?

I'm a good person. I'm oppresed by the rich too and you aren't going to make me feel bad about myself for not being completely selfless. We aren't going to save the poor until we start a revolution.

Corruption is such a big problem that foreign "aid" literally just becomes the slushfund of some fucking warlord that only makes problems worse. But then again, charity and foreign aid is NEVER there to help other people. It's so that donaters can feel good about themselves with a tithe.

No one can be saved by donation from others. All must find salvation within.
>inb4 christfag
Not even talking about religion, although, that'd be good for them, too.

NOOOOO UR BAAAAAD:[

Right, so do you have some works? Because quite a lot of things are "common knowledge" according to people that hold certain opinions already. The problem arises when you meet people who don't think your common knowledge is that common at all and is in fact actually quite stupid when contrasted with their common knowledge.

I'm not trying to argue against you, I'm trying to see if you can offer more insight than a bumper sticker could. Because if the point is that (certain kinds of) foreign aid is harmful and ongoing then I'd beg to differ on it being common knowledge enough.
Cheers, I'll look into it.

Is dying by the hands of another person anything different than dying by natural causes? Both can be prevented and both have the same outcome

You are putting words into his mouth trying to ease this wound. It hurts man. By god it fucking hurts. But that's the way it works. Things are not simple. At all. Nothing is simple. We all feel love, pain, guilt, joy in varying degrees. It's how people play on each other's degrees that anything gets done. That any corruption happens.

Be careful about doing more harm with an gentle palm than a clenched fist user.

It hurts so bad. But. You have to understand that's where we get all of our meaning in anything. In the contrast. Some people can't take it and fall into this mindset of I must help every problem I spot. What happens when you give that beggar $50 for food and see him tear up with joy. Feeling loved for for the first time in years. An actual connection. What happens when you walk away because alright good deed done you get to go home now. Then he walks to go get that food or a new jacket and gets mugged and killed.

I know all well worn hypotheticals but there I'd a big picture. Pain and death is a part of life.

because killing is understood as a term used to describe someone deliberately performing some action to cause someone else's death. op is making the case that it is wrong to kill yet this does not seem to be an act of killing.

Culpable omission is a real thing. People get convicted for not doing something to prevent bad things from happening.

So is the only thing that decides whether you can let a person die your distance from this person. This measure of morality will no longer hold once technology allows us to travel great distances in a short amount of time.

pointing to legal terms in a conversation about a particular concept in morality is pointless. the legal system doesn't decide the moral weight of particular actions.

Ok but is the legal system not based on (among other things) moralities that the majority agrees on? I think most people would agree that culpable omission can be used to judge someone's morality, character,... Yet these same people would have no problem with someone who does little or nothing to save poor people.

Where do they draw the line? Is the line there where it is most convenient for them?

this is just a guess but I'd say the line is responsibility. a parent is responsible for the health of their child under the law and in the eyes of others. people don't consider everyone to be responsible for the health the world's poor