Is Omission as Immoral as Commission in Global Wealth Distribution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter madness
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the moral implications of inaction versus direct harmful actions, particularly in the context of wealth disparity between affluent and impoverished nations. Participants debate whether choosing not to help those in need is morally equivalent to committing theft, with some arguing that inaction is an active choice that perpetuates inequality. The conversation also touches on the historical context of wealth accumulation, suggesting that affluent countries have benefited from unfair trade practices that contribute to global poverty. Ultimately, the morality of one's actions or inactions is framed as a complex issue, influenced by the outcomes of those choices. The thread concludes that understanding the nuances of moral responsibility is essential for addressing global inequality effectively.
  • #51
Dr.D said:
It is inherent in the nature of these people. This was not something "done to them" but rather a disaster in each case that they freely made for themselves because of who/what they are.

Inferiority, no, they just are inherently barbarous. Oh...wait..

mheslep, you're ignoring obvious facts, trying to rationalize prejudice and atrocities.
If the land belongs to anyone, its not Europeans. You want me to take you seriously? Why would I? What you are saying is nonsense.

Europeans didn't much care who was or wasn't on the land, they just took it and killed anyone who got in their way. The amount of wealth funneled out of colonies into Europe was staggering. It doesn't take much of a history lesson to see this. You can ignore history all you like,but in the end that just makes you ignorant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
JoeDawg said:
Inferiority, no, they just are inherently barbarous. Oh...wait..
Edit: I missed that; I agree w/ you on that part of Dr D's post.

mheslep, you're ignoring obvious facts, trying to rationalize prejudice and atrocities.
If the land belongs to anyone, its not Europeans.

You want me to take you seriously? Why would I?
No, I want you to take the forum guidelines seriously.

What you are saying is nonsense.

Europeans didn't much care who was or wasn't on the land, they just took it and killed anyone who got in their way. The amount of wealth funneled out of colonies into Europe was staggering. It doesn't take much of a history lesson to see this. You can ignore history all you like,but in the end that just makes you ignorant.
I'll take that as a refusal to back up your original assertion in anyway, and thus a retraction.
 
  • #53
mheslep said:
I'll take that as a refusal to back up your original assertion in anyway, and thus a retraction.

Head in the sand, again. That's why you miss things.
 
Back
Top