|
|
|
|
|
|
by dkural
3854 days ago
|
|
|
The main reason being ethical is considered to be difficult, and morality being a topic of study and debate is due to considering the question "why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" - ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time. What is of higher utility to you, or what you consider your in group, is not necessarily moral. There's a big difference between physical survival and simply being more comfortable than one would otherwise be. Your rhetoric puts this as a question of survival in the same breath with different preferences. Surely no one is asking you to give up your life and die. |
|
|
Certainly, but the feeling I get from the original comment is: "There are no reasons to act selfishly ever." I'm not arguing in favor of 100% selfishness; I'm arguing against a zero-tolerance policy towards it.
Further, the form of the whole thing is troubling. If someone asked you, "How should we help the impoverished citizens of X?" My first response would likely be foreign aid of some sort, or perhaps free trade. But I don't get the feeling that proponents of open borders would be satisfied with those (assuming for the sake of argument that they would indeed help). Beggars can't be choosers; the focus on one method makes it feel more like a shakedown than a plea for help.