>>39653935
>PLEEEEEASE GIVE US YOUR MONEY! IT’S FOR A GOOD CAUSE WE SWEAR
>HERE ARE STUDIES SHOWING WE DEFINITELY USE YOUR MONEY FOR GOOD CAUSES AND THAT PROGRESS IS DEFINITELY BEING MADE
>BY THE WAY IF YOU AREN’T GIVING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS AWAY YOU’RE FUCKING EVIL
What a load of infantile bullshit. What next? If I don’t become a vigilante and beat the shit out of purse snatchers at the risk of my own life that makes me responsible for kids being murdered?

No, seriously. By this logic am I not evil for not training myself to be a medical scientist so I could cure these diseases myself? Or become as rich as possible so I could fund the work of all these organisations myself? So am I evil if I don’t literally enslave my very existence to bettering the lives of others? What about you? Why haven’t you cured all the world’s ills? Are you evil? What about him? Or her? At what point does it end? Where is the finish line for this shitty logic?

I propose a new thought experiment. The “OP sucks cocks” thought experiment. It’s very simple. OP has to suck cocks to make everyone happy. If he doesn’t suck cocks he’s actually evil because he is actively depriving others of the joy of having their cocks sucked by him. So OP is morally obligated to suck everyone’s cocks for the rest of his life.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/x/

Thread:

Peter Singer's drowning child thought experiment