P1: People do not like it when they go hungry
P2: People possess empathy.
P3: People sometimes have an excess of food or money that they do not require.
C: People with an excess of food or money should donate it to the hungry.
OR
P1: Ownership of property is a cornerstone of living in a capitalistic society
P2: In a capitalistic society, a person may decide what to do with their own possessions to a legal extent.
C: People should not be obligated to give their resources to other people.
The problem is that between these two arguments only one of the has humans possessing empathy. If humans do have this quality of empathy it is intrinsically a part of both arguments. There cannot be empathy for all at the same time as empathy for none.
ReplyDeleteYour examples nicely illustrate the necessity of applying logic to moral reasoning, even though as you say it is really very difficult. Gastronomy, economic relations... almost everything of importance has moral implications.
ReplyDeletenot everyone possess empathy. expecially some of the people with the money. there was a study done and they talk about it in mail online article. that if you are a person with a executive position in a business or company you are 4x more likely to be a psychopath then somebody in the general population because in big part to a psychopaths lack of empathy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032912/One-25-bosses-psychopath-hides-charm-business-speak.html
ReplyDelete