Your argument is basically talking about the common sense reason that people don’t accept the idea that we have a responsibility to save the entire world and yet you still accept the drowning child argument that mandates it. If there is no compulsion to be a radical altruism, then why is there one to be an altruist at all? It’s fine to s…
Your argument is basically talking about the common sense reason that people don’t accept the idea that we have a responsibility to save the entire world and yet you still accept the drowning child argument that mandates it. If there is no compulsion to be a radical altruism, then why is there one to be an altruist at all? It’s fine to say that altruism is supererogatory. It’s far more psychologically compatible with our nature than the alternative. If you want to help people, just argue that on its own sake instead of this whole totalizing philosophy while walking back the most extreme part.
Your argument is basically talking about the common sense reason that people don’t accept the idea that we have a responsibility to save the entire world and yet you still accept the drowning child argument that mandates it. If there is no compulsion to be a radical altruism, then why is there one to be an altruist at all? It’s fine to say that altruism is supererogatory. It’s far more psychologically compatible with our nature than the alternative. If you want to help people, just argue that on its own sake instead of this whole totalizing philosophy while walking back the most extreme part.