Invisible Children is a non-profit organization that was formed to help stop the 25 year long war in Northern Uganda. Here is a link about the organization.
Also, here is a place where you can make a donation to the organization.
Hmm...well, let's assume that without intervention, on average 3 children would die, and on average 1 child would die in the other cause. And to keep it simple, let's assume you don't know any specific information on the children that will die. Well, what creates utility? Is it the complete "end" result (factoring in everything that occurred)?
Well, then if only one child dies on average in the other situation, then it would be logical to donate to the other organization, assuming that they will use the money in the best possible way to help save lives.
What happened to people being entitled to their own opinions?
But surely there is a right way to act...and so your opinions can be correct and not correct. And you don't want an irrational opinion; thus, in that sense, you're not exactly "entitled" to your own opinion. But obviously, it would be wrong for someone to force you to "believe" in something.
But then, what makes that $1000 to save 1 life good at all if there is a better alternative. Given those two choices, couldn't you say it is evil, since you are depriving 3 children to favor just 1?
Well, then if only one child dies on average in the other situation, then it would be logical to donate to the other organization, assuming that they will use the money in the best possible way to help save lives.
For sure - because you are choosing the lesser evil.
OK - now ... building radio towers sounds a bit expensive ... how much would you say one of them costs, and how many lives would the building of one save or enhance?
You could give $1000 to both.
That would save 4 lives - what about $2000 to the one that saves 3 lives, and save 6? Isn't this more "moral"?
So if this was a scientific experiment and you were "testing" the utility of a charity, the control would be doing nothing?
Clearly it would, I'm just saying that a scientific experiment regarding the effectiveness of charities would be extremely difficult.
What happened to people being entitled to their own opinions?
That was his opinion, don't play the martyr.
But surely there is a right way to act...and so your opinions can be correct and not correct. And you don't want an irrational opinion; thus, in that sense, you're not exactly "entitled" to your own opinion. But obviously, it would be wrong for someone to force you to "believe" in something.
Yes but in order to understand the absolute correct opinion you would have to have all knowledge about a subject, kind of makes it impossible.
Yes, but given the information you are given, you are forced to work with what seems to be the most rational thing...
Meaning that your own opinion would be skewed towards what your life experiences and therefore may be wrong. You've effectively created your own reality inside of an objective reality.
Meaning that your own opinion would be skewed towards what your life experiences and therefore may be wrong. You've effectively created your own reality inside of an objective reality.
Which what makes some decisions hard. You try to make a choice that is un-biased, but sometimes you just can't.
