#moral circle

[bewellr]

This post is how a better world is built by generating more good—not avoiding harm—with ripple effects that uplift all.

🌍How Doing Good Helps

[gamer2002]

So this famous study of moral circle is actually demonstrably bogus due to it ambiguous task that has various possible interpretations, when the study fails to inform you about the implications of your answer.

Let's say that your moral circle is 10 and that you care about all mammals, including your own family. What does it mean, practically?

If you have a trolley problem with X family members on one track and with X+1 random mammals on another, do you let your family members die because there is more mammals and you see no difference between individual group members? That's a possible reading of the study.

If your mother is hungry and you have to kill a pig to feed her, are you unwilling to kill the pig because that would be wronging the pig when you care about the pig not being wronged? Yeah, your mother is hungry, but you care about the pig just as much and it isn't its fault. That's a possible reading of the study.

When you are drawing a hard line between binary care and don't care, the care option means that you unconditionally care about the inner group not being wronged. Therefore, if you are ready to kill an innocent animal to feed your hungry family member, you are not supposed to include all mammals in your group. That's a logical reading of the study.

Because of the ambiguity the study is useless, unless we take it literally and conclude that liberals are unwilling to use innocent and and harmless plants as food to feed their hungry families.

[accurateestimation]