This opens up a whole new can of worms.
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:20, archived)
then that can only be argued from an "individual having an moral obligation to society" point of view. Otherwise, why should anyone give a shit how many cars someone else has?
*passes back can-opener and offers worms*
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)
I'm only saying most people don't need them, which was the original point of dispute.
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:26, archived)
but that's a bit of a pointless argument, you don't NEED the computer you're typing on right now. Or your dog. Or a cooker. Or clothes. etc.
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)
Or at least, not in such a way as it involves an obligation to do certain jobs just because they're good at them.
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:30, archived)
if you don't have a moral obligation in your working life to benefit society if you are able -and crucially others aren't able - why should you have a moral obligation to do anything in your life that benefits society?
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:35, archived)
and say that we don't have a moral obligation to do anything, only to refrain from doing certain things.
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:48, archived)
only the active/passive boundary is a bit of a fucker to define.*
I don't necessarily believe what I'm arguing here, I just think it's an interesting subject.
*as in, "they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist"
(, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:57, archived)