tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1138577861846934792006-01-29T18:37:00.000-05:002006-01-29T18:37:00.000-05:00How does my scenario make Oxfam the victim? As you say, they (or whatever charity you care to substitute) are only a means to an end. The real victims are surely the starving people who will no longer be saved.<BR/><BR/>I don't think your "window" scenario is "indirect" in the same sense as I meant. But I'm having trouble putting my finger on the difference, so I might have to get back to you on this one.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, don't you agree that there's a difference between the charity-reducing actions described in my scenario and "deliberatively starving someone"? And aren't our charity-related inactions properly analogous to the former rather than the latter?<BR/><BR/>(I'm not sure that our everyday (in)actions are best described as "deliberately allowing [people] to starve". It just seems far less direct than your window scenario. But again, I'm not sure how to spell this out.)Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com