In this chain of money changing hands, only you have a real moral choice. If your employer didn’t hire you and instead gave the $10 to aid, then it wouldn’t have had a service or produce to sell and therefore wouldn’t have gotten that $10 in the first place. Similarly for LatteShop.
But if you didn’t buy a latte, you would still have gotten the $10.
If your employer didn’t hire you and instead gave the $10 to aid, then it wouldn’t have had a service or produce to sell and therefore wouldn’t have gotten that $10 in the first place.
Okay… this makes some sense. I had to work it out like this before I understood it:
My employer hires me
I do work
Employer gets stuff
Employer sells stuff
Employer pays me
I kill people
But I don’t really think this addresses the problem. In this scenario, whoever bought the stuff my employer sold just killed a bunch of people. So… my original question gets changed to:
I work for an hour and get paid $10, but whoever bought the fruits of my labor just killed $10 worth of people
I buy the fruits of someone else’s labor and kill $10 worth of people
Obviously this is simplifying economy and labor and yada, yada. We could go into more detail, but unless you think the answer lies in those details I would rather not.
Yes, assuming that the fruits of your labor that was bought for $10 is another luxury (say a bottle of wine) instead of a necessity, then that person also killed $10 worth of people. Because suppose he had bought $10 worth of mosquito nets, then you could have worked as a mosquito net maker instead of a vintner, and you still would have gotten the $10. The two of you could have saved $20 worth of people, so not doing that is equivalent to each killing $10 worth of people.
I work for an hour and get paid $10, but whoever bought the fruits of my labor just killed $10 worth of people
They almost certainly would have anyway. I really don’t see why this matters. You’re (presumably) not trying to minimize aggregate sinfulness or anything like that, you’re trying to save lives. Therefore, you choose the action with the highest expected lives saved. It’s that simple.
In this chain of money changing hands, only you have a real moral choice. If your employer didn’t hire you and instead gave the $10 to aid, then it wouldn’t have had a service or produce to sell and therefore wouldn’t have gotten that $10 in the first place. Similarly for LatteShop.
But if you didn’t buy a latte, you would still have gotten the $10.
Okay… this makes some sense. I had to work it out like this before I understood it:
My employer hires me
I do work
Employer gets stuff
Employer sells stuff
Employer pays me
I kill people
But I don’t really think this addresses the problem. In this scenario, whoever bought the stuff my employer sold just killed a bunch of people. So… my original question gets changed to:
I work for an hour and get paid $10, but whoever bought the fruits of my labor just killed $10 worth of people
I buy the fruits of someone else’s labor and kill $10 worth of people
Obviously this is simplifying economy and labor and yada, yada. We could go into more detail, but unless you think the answer lies in those details I would rather not.
Yes, assuming that the fruits of your labor that was bought for $10 is another luxury (say a bottle of wine) instead of a necessity, then that person also killed $10 worth of people. Because suppose he had bought $10 worth of mosquito nets, then you could have worked as a mosquito net maker instead of a vintner, and you still would have gotten the $10. The two of you could have saved $20 worth of people, so not doing that is equivalent to each killing $10 worth of people.
Yeah, it finally clicked. The key point I was missing was that $10 costs time for me to obtain. By the time I obtain it, more people die.
Upvoted for clarity.
They almost certainly would have anyway. I really don’t see why this matters. You’re (presumably) not trying to minimize aggregate sinfulness or anything like that, you’re trying to save lives. Therefore, you choose the action with the highest expected lives saved. It’s that simple.
The puzzle has nothing to do with lives saved. The puzzle has to do with assigning moral responsibility.
But elsewhere I figured out my missing piece.
Presumably by providing goods or services to other people who chose not to give their money to aid.