The Super Express Fund Case shows that urgency doesn’t help to explain the difference in your moral judgments. It does this by making the envelope case (non-urgent), an urgent case. Even then, if you don’t donate the money which could have been used to save the most urgently needy child, no one will think of you as morally wrong. 2.
We are obligated to help even those people who, if saved, would live a wretched life because if you didn’t save them, it could have negative impacts on other people who know that person. For example, say you were walking on a pier and saw a homeless man fall into the ocean and you could hear him yelling “I can’t swim!” You should still save this man’s life because even if he probably won’t have a good future, it’s still a man’s life on the line. Also, if you let the man drown and die, this could negatively affect his homeless friends and family who cared for and loved him, even if they themselves could not help him enjoy a good life. Also, say you are in a poor country and you walk by some starving kids who ask for food. You should give them food because in that moment you will make their lives better, and that will make them happy which will make you feel good about yourself, even if those kids will live a poor life. 3.
One circumstance to consider is the quality of the homeless shelter. Will it be a reasonably comfortable place for the homeless to live? Because if she voted for a poorly-budgeted shelter, some homeless people wouldn’t go there and it wouldn’t maximize happiness. Another circumstance is considering the possibility that opening a homeless shelter will attract the homeless from nearby cities, thus turning your city into one that is filled with homeless people, which won’t maximize happiness for everyone living in that city. Also, will the homeless shelter be able to provide for all the homeless? If it gets full, then conflict could occur between the homeless that get access to the shelter and those who don’t. 4....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document