tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1157402024997944112006-09-04T16:33:00.000-04:002006-09-04T16:33:00.000-04:00Hello Richard,<BR/><BR/>The comments here have brought out many of the points I would like to make about your post. You admit that the directness requirement is difficult to apply. I think Genius puts his finger on it by identifying 'psychological intensity' as what seems to be important. Of course this seems intuitive. But I believe this intuition is misguided as far as morality goes. It feels less intent to murder someone by hiring an assassin, but it makes it no less wrong.<BR/><BR/>On my blog you suggested that direct experience versus indirect experience was an important distinction. The only relevant difference I can see is that direct experience is more likely to prick the experiencer's conscience. This would also seem to excuse anyone who still does not feel this prick of conscience (at least to the extent of the man in the next room). Without that, what of substance is left in the distinction? Furthermore, this has the other worrying implication of actually encouraging the man in the next room and turn a blind eye to avoid going in as then he would morally bind himself!<BR/><BR/>As Genius says, "there are problems" with any of these attempts to distinguish killing someone from failing to donate to save their life. Intead, I offer my own distinction in <A HREF="http://unifiedview.blogspot.com/2006/08/acts-and-omissions.html" REL="nofollow">this post on my blog</A>:<BR/><BR/>Simply having the power to do good does not create a moral obligation. Instead, the primary way for someone to become positively morally obliged is if they are causally responsible for the state of affairs in some way. By reasserting this causal responsibility, we find ourselves not morally responsible for third world deaths (or at least not to this kind of extent). Equally however I would argue that we are not morally obliged to help someone being attacked in the street or drowning in a river with whom we have no prior connection. It would certainly be morally better to do so, but we are not morally obliged.Pejarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11396736251336284413noreply@blogger.com