Yes if two things don't have the same consequences all the time, they aren't morally the same. So with uncertainty, killing a man with a 50 percent chance and 100 percent chance aren't the same. But killing a man with 100 percent chance and not doing something that would save his life with 100 percent chance are the same.
Very rarely do 2 separate actions have the same consequence all the time. Some of the time, sure. Most of the time, even but rarely all of the time.
To the point about Africa, we should recognize that our actions are killing people rather than try to construct a moral code that makes our actions look good ex post. If morality condemns us, then so be it. It doesn't affect whether it is good morality or not.
Not sure which action you are referring to in the above. And not sure what 'good morality' is.
Back to your original example, you're still maintaining that causing a situation and not reacting to an existing situation are the same thing because they have the same result ( in this sample size of 1). So if 2 actions have the same result, they are equivalent? Looks like you're focusing on the result and not the action that causes the result. I can make a bad decision and it can have a good outcome. I can make a good decision and it can have a bad outcome.
If you think the 2 UX situations are the same, I wouldn't want you anywhere near me. And your statement that if you could steal money with immunity that you would, says a tremendous amount about your character. As long as I don't get caught, it is okay. Wow, you could be the former mayor of Detroit with that attitude.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpplayer88" <vpplayer88@...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpplayer88" <vpplayer88@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes stealing a wallet and not returning a wallet both have the same effects, they are morally the same in my book.
> >
> > This is morality not criminality. It's a statement about whether something should be illegal, not whether it already is.
> >
> Agreed that criminal and moral are different.
>
> Back to your original comparison between throwing someone overboard and letting someone who is already in the water drown, here's another one.
>
> By your reasoning, letting people in famine starved Africa starve to death is the same as being in Africa and killing a family who would eventually starve? Those 2 are morally the same? So, morally, by you not sending all your money to charities that feed the poor, you are morally the same as someone who kills people who are starving?
>
> I don't see how your moral equivalence makes any sense. If your reasoning is that they both have the same result, I don't agree. In this example the people will PROBABLY starve to death but if you kill them, they will definitely starve to death. In one you CAUSE their death and in the OTHER you don't do anything to PREVENT their death. Don't see how those are the same.
>