|
Seriously, you're not listening. You hear what you want to hear. Let's focus.
Actions can be rated. Action A is good, or action A is bad. You should do A, or you shouldn't. And there's even grays in the middle.
There are different ways to rate an action. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, check whether the action complies with Christianity. If it does, then the action is good. If it doesn't, then the action is bad.
Another way to rate an action is humanitarianism. It says, if your action hurts people then it's bad. If it promotes human welfare then it's good.
Some rating system can be shown to be bad and illogical. Here, I attempt to show that Humanitarianism is a bad system for rating actions.
Suppose there's a terrorist cell in a house. And there are four innocent kids in that house too. The group is about to blow up London with an atomic bomb. We have a plane that fires a rocket on that house. It kills the terrorists, and the kids.
Humanitarians scream: "What a horrible act! Innocent children murdered brutally!"
They rate the action as bad. Of course, knowing the future in this hypothetical case, we can conclude that the action was in fact good.
Therefore, humanitarianism rated an action wrongly. Conclusion: Humanitarianism is a bad rating system.
But, we know that humanitarianism is very appealing. People enjoy being humanitarian. People vote for humanitarian. Another conclusion: Humanitarianism is populist.
Merge two conclusions. What do you get? Humanitarianism is a big fat, populist LIE.
__________________
"Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."
|