with regards to the third question: what if I believe that any resources given simply allow the population to expand and hence cause more suffering than letting people die?
If you don’t really believe that, and it’s just your excuse for not giving away lots of money, you should say loud and clear “I don’t believe I’m morally obligated to reduce suffering if it inconveniences me too much.” And then you’ve learned something useful about yourself.
But if you do really believe that, and you otherwise accept John’s argument, you should say explicitly, “I accept I’m morally obligated to reduce suffering as much as possible, even at the cost of great inconvenience to myself. However, I am worried because of the contingent fact that giving people more resources will lead to more population, causing more suffering.”
And if you really do believe that and think it through, you’ll end up spending almost all your income on condoms for third world countries.
with regards to the third question: what if I believe that any resources given simply allow the population to expand and hence cause more suffering than letting people die?
If you don’t really believe that, and it’s just your excuse for not giving away lots of money, you should say loud and clear “I don’t believe I’m morally obligated to reduce suffering if it inconveniences me too much.” And then you’ve learned something useful about yourself.
But if you do really believe that, and you otherwise accept John’s argument, you should say explicitly, “I accept I’m morally obligated to reduce suffering as much as possible, even at the cost of great inconvenience to myself. However, I am worried because of the contingent fact that giving people more resources will lead to more population, causing more suffering.”
And if you really do believe that and think it through, you’ll end up spending almost all your income on condoms for third world countries.