For those who have a zero-sum mindset about life, giving to others is taking from oneself. So they would necessarily reject your view.
Of course, not all of life is zero sum. Knowledge isn't, for example. But some of life is.
Ownership of real estate is zero sum. Either I own my house and have the exclusive right to possess it, or I don't. If you want to live there, I have to lose my exclusive right of possession, and either share it or give it to you. Sole possessory ownership of my house is a zero sum game.
We cannot all be wealthy; the world can't support it. I enjoy my Ford F-150, and am not willing to give it up without a fight. But I can't wish for everybody in the world to have one. There just aren't enough resources in the world for that. So no, I'm not going to wish for everybody to have an F-150. But neither am I going to give it up until everybody CAN have one.
we affect those around us, sometimes to an extent that we cannot gauge.
Considering that, we are obliged to act in a manner that is likely to help society in the long run,
That's wishy-washy in a way, because "help society" is a concept that varies with each individual. A person may think it helps society to eliminate all the people over age 70 because they are no longer productive but are a drain on society. But I know you aren't advocating that person working on killing off everybody over 70.
But beyond that, why am I obligated in any way to care about people in Rwanda? You make that assumption, but just state it. Why do you think it's true? |
