Previously on hubski, minimum_wage said "I'm pretty enraged by conditional assistance anyway." Jai's response would be, naturally -- making assisting the poor profitable is the best way to get more people to do it.

Later, I said:

    You are all generally right that being vegan is almost impossible for someone who is poor, but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle. That's what I'm trying to understand.

Time to test that hypothesis.


What I'm getting is that it is like avoiding eye contact with beggars, so that by avoiding them, you don't feel bad about not giving them money, but not do you lose out on that money. You ignore the problem. It makes sense. I've always figured ethics are situational, and this helps explain why situations differ. I can understand where minimum_wage is coming from, it always bothers me to see companies offering to donate to charity if you send them a picture or something. But I don't see how this tests your hypothesis so much as brings it up again.

posted by flagamuffin: 1186 days ago