What is the evil in this?

[KrazyHorse]

I can't be bothered to read the rest of this thread, as it appears to mostly have been created by two low-quality thinkers. Where's the discussion at now?

[Heraclitus]

I can't be bothered to read the rest of this thread, as it appears to mostly have been created by two low-quality thinkers. Where's the discussion at now?

Albert is stuck repeating the obvious (my racism).

It would be polite if you responded to my response to your post, since no one talked about that but meh I doubt you'll find it interesting enough to bother.

I'm currently claiming that its perfectly ethical to prefer doing things for people of your own ethnicity provided it dosen't detract from your help or good will towards other people.

Yes.

I would do even more for the hobo if he was my cousin, I'd probably get him into a center or into rehab. If he was my son, damn I would let him move in despite his alcohol/meth/whatever got him there habit.

I'm not saying that's nice. But to call it evil is overblown. A great ill of our current times is that we confuse being ethical or even moral with being nice. I have special obligations to my children, I have special obligations to my old mother, I have special obligations towards Slovenians, I have special obligations towards humans that I don't have towards sentient AIs, aliens or nonsentient animals.

You seem to think this makes me give less to the Sudanese hobo than I would give If I didn't follow this ethical system. No it doesn't. It makes me give my son/daughter/neice/coethnic more than I would give the generic average hobo. Unless you live in a zero sum world I don't think you can argue everyone isn't better off by this.

However you misunderstand I would never treat them differently if all else was equal, I'm just pointing out that genetics ensures all else can't be equal until we are uploaded into computers or genetically modified.

Can you get past calling me racist without elaborating and respond to the italicized paragraph?

Can you grasp why I can give more in total if I give disproportionately to my children, friends and relatives? Can you see why from a rule utilitarian perspective I figure this is more ethical if I care about human happiness?

Perhaps this will help you think.(at Albert not you)

I am childless. I give generic hobos 10$, the average hobo gets 10$.
I use the rest to keep myself happy/fed/entertained/healthy so I can afford to give hobos 10$.

I have a child. The child becomes a hobo as a adult. I give him 50$, the generic hobo 10$ and the average hobo slightly above 10$ on average. I use the rest to keep myself happy/fed/entertained/healthy so I can earn the money I giving, I however need less than I needed before to fulfil these goals.


Sure perhaps I could give my child 100$, and the generic hobo some unspecified amount less. But this would be just following instincts, not my ethical system, actually it would be against it.

[Heraclitus]

Also yes I do know giving hobos money is stupid, its just the example Alby offered and we are stuck with it.

[DaShi]

You're so pathetic. "Please pay attention to me."

[Heraclitus]

You're so pathetic. "Please pay attention to me."

And you're a fly that keeps buzzing around the pathetic man but isn't annoying enough to be worth squashing.

Any case I obviously think my response to KH's criticism is appropriate, you shouldn't take the bit where I talk about how he won't find it very interesting as a humbleness but as a slightly mocking tone. I suppose it may not translate well.