/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3481122
>>3481139
>>3481162
>>3481220
What I just don't get is what makes you think that anyone who doesn't feel the need to help a bunch of starving savages must thus be some kind of nihilistic amoral sociopath who cares only about himself. Does it not occur to you that an individual can hold a different set of moral values than those you hold, which can lead them to prioritize much differently than you do while still remaining true to their moral code?

I happen to consider myself a normal morally-guided individual, but I feel no obligation towards helping the less fortunate; they simply aren't units of ethical significance to me. I believe that the primary moral imperative for society is not to provide the most for the most, but rather to produce "articles of culture," if you will. In light of the fact that we are fundamentally mortal beings, and that whether we as individuals lived happily or miserably, long or short, becomes wholly irrelevant after our deaths, resources spent by the government on helping those who can't help themselves are essentially wasted. As I see it, the only morally acceptable use of funds collected by the state in excess of the amount required to maintain a functioning society is to support the arts, which live on indefinitely as contributions to the collective greatness of human culture.

Pic related.