http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098406
fixed formatting, broke into paragraphs
I used to think I was a pretty good person. I certainly didn’t kill
people, for example. But then Peter Singer pointed out that animals
were conscious and that eating them led them to be killed and that
wasn’t all that morally different from killing people after all. So
I became a vegetarian. Again I thought I was a pretty good person.
But then Arianna Huffington told me that by driving in a car I was
pouring toxic fumes into the air and sending money to foreign
dictatorships. So I got a bike instead. But then I realized that my
bike seat was sewn by children in foreign sweatshops while its
tubing was made by mining metals through ripping up the earth.
Indeed, any money I spent was likely to go to oppressing people or
destroying the planet in one way or another. And if I happen to
make money some of it goes to the government which spends it
blowing people up in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I thought about just living off of stuff I found in dumpsters, like
some friends. That way I wouldn’t be responsible for encouraging
its production. But then I realized that some people buy the things
they can’t find in dumpsters; if I got to the dumpster and took
something before they did, they might buy it instead. The solution
seemed clear: I’d have to go off-the-grid and live in a cave,
gathering nuts and berries. I’d still probably be exhaling CO2 and
using some of the products in the Earth, but probably only in
levels that were sustainable.
Perhaps you disagree with me that it’s morally wrong to kill
animals or blow up people in Afghanistan. But surely you can
imagine that it might be, or at least that someone could think it
is. And I think it’s similarly clear that eating a hamburger or
paying taxes contributes — in a very small way; perhaps only has
the possibility of contributing — to those things. Even if you
don’t, everyday life has a million ways that are more direct.
Personally, I think it’s wrong that I get to sit at a table and
gaily devour while someone else delivers more food to my table and
a third person slaves over a stove. Every time I order food, I make
them do more carrying and slaving. (Perhaps they get some money in
return, but surely they’d prefer it if I just gave them the money.)
Again, you may not think this wrong but I hope you can admit the
possibility. And it’s obviously my fault.
Off in the cave, I thought I was safe. But then I read Peter
Singer’s latest book. He points out that for as little as a
quarter, you can save a child’s life. (E.g. for 27 cents you can
buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from fatal
diarrhea.) Perhaps I was killing people after all. I couldn’t
morally make money, for the reasons described above. (Although
maybe it’s worth helping fund the bombing of children in
Afghanistan in order to help save children in Mozambique.) But
instead of living in a cave, I could go to Africa and volunteer my
time. Of course, if I do that there are a thousand other things I’m
not doing. How can I decide which action I take will save the most
lives? Even if I take the time to figuring out, that’s time I’m
spending on myself instead of saving lives.
It seems impossible to be moral. Not only does everything I do
cause great harm, but so does everything I don’t do. Standard
accounts of morality assume that it’s difficult, but attainable:
don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal. But it seems like living a
moral life isn’t even possible. But if morality is unattainable,
surely I should simply do the best I can. (Ought implies can, after
all.) Peter Singer is a good utilitarian, so perhaps I should try
to maximize the good I do for the world. But even this seems like
an incredibly onerous standard. I should not just stop eating meat,
but animal products altogether. I shouldn’t just stop buying
factory-farmed food, I should stop buying altogether. I should take
things out of dumpsters other people are unlikely to be searching.
I should live someplace where others won’t be disturbed. Of course
all this worrying and stress is preventing me from doing any good
in the world.
I can hardly take a step without thinking about who it hurts. So I
decide not to worry about the bad I might be doing and just focus
on doing good — screw the rules. But this doesn’t just apply to the
rules inspired by Peter Singer. Waiting in line at the checkout
counter is keeping me from my life-saving work (and paying will
cost me life-saving money) — better just to shoplift. Lying,
cheating, any crime can be similarly justified.
It seems paradoxical: in my quest to do good I’ve justified doing
all sorts of bad. Nobody questioned me when I went out and ordered
a juicy steak, but when I shoplift soda everyone recoils. Is there
sense in following their rules or are they just another example of
the world’s pervasive immorality? Have any philosophers considered
this question?
R.I.P Aaron Swartz
Hacked by grand wizard of Lulzsec, Sabu
GOD BLESS AMERICA
DOWN WITH ANONYMOUS
reddit sucks, k hacked by aush0k and tibitximer