Peter Singer has a lovely idea: The Life You Can Save, a plan to reduce poverty worldwide.
I do have one objection. This is basically a plan for wealth redistribution, which I think is a reasonable objective. However, the only people who are going to be helping others are those willing to participate voluntarily — the selfish greedy bastards won't feel a thing. Shouldn't there be, like, a policy of progressive taxation that makes the excessively wealthy contribute more to easing poverty? That seems fairer to me.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It would be for the best.
First, some general thoughts. I had the distinct sense Obama was trying to run the clock out. He knew he had to say something, but has no room to maneuver. Thanks to his mediocre first two years and his enabling of conservative talking points (which one wonders if…
While we're delving into the right wing fever swamps, take a look at this unintentionally funny post by Indian Cowboy. I was astounded: I thought Lucky Ducky was only a joke found in the comic strips and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, yet there the concept lies, taken seriously by…
So far in this series, we've talked about ways that attempts to have a dialogue about animal research can be frustrated by inability to agree on a shared set of facts as a staring point or by unclarity about the positions people are trying to put forward. Today's featured impediment to dialogue…
Back at the end of November, Martin wrote a post on the ethics of overpopulation, in which he offered these assertions:
It is unethical for anyone to produce more than two children. (Adoption of orphans, on the other hand, is highly commendable.)
It is unethical to limit the availability of…