Comments on: #52 Live and Let Die http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/ Now updated every day that it is updated Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:53:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Colin Matthews http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/comment-page-1/#comment-313 Colin Matthews Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:54:53 +0000 http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/#comment-313 Nice...#91? sweet I like the little debate you were having there. Nice…#91?
sweet
I like the little debate you were having there.

]]> By: chaospet http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/comment-page-1/#comment-312 chaospet Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:30:23 +0000 http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/#comment-312 I know! I know!

]]> By: Rachel http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/comment-page-1/#comment-311 Rachel Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:56:43 +0000 http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/#comment-311 About the comic standing - congrats on being #91. You're in the top 100!! Yay About the comic standing – congrats on being #91. You’re in the top 100!! Yay

]]> By: chaospet http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/comment-page-1/#comment-310 chaospet Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:20:28 +0000 http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/#comment-310 I think that we are in complete agreement! I think that we are in complete agreement!

]]> By: William Tanksley http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/comment-page-1/#comment-309 William Tanksley Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:15:22 +0000 http://chaospet.com/2007/10/23/52-live-and-let-die/#comment-309 I see your point, and agree; my disagreement was with the analogy in the second panel (and to a lesser extent with the premise in the first), rather than with the conclusion as a whole. The nature of the conclusion is affected by the nature of the argument. The ethical duty is to help, but not to help in the same way; therefore one need not (in fact should not) book an airplane ticket to help; it makes more sense to find a way to reduce the danger, perhaps by donating money to an organization which in one's opinion can help the overall situation (as the premise stated -- so I can't disagree with that). I see your point, and agree; my disagreement was with the analogy in the second panel (and to a lesser extent with the premise in the first), rather than with the conclusion as a whole.

The nature of the conclusion is affected by the nature of the argument. The ethical duty is to help, but not to help in the same way; therefore one need not (in fact should not) book an airplane ticket to help; it makes more sense to find a way to reduce the danger, perhaps by donating money to an organization which in one’s opinion can help the overall situation (as the premise stated — so I can’t disagree with that).

]]>