George Clooney's "Morals"? - Page 2 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

I would be vvery tempted to agree in SMP as I wouldn't nitpick about the political problems of cheating and privilege. In politics it has to be a no for those reasons.

But there's a more serious problem in that I'm not sure you can forward consent to being killed (unless past being able to communcate) anymore than you can forward consent to having sex. We're heading into Logan's Run territory where people consent to being killed at 30 with the all too plausible reality that it has to be enforced by state killers hunting them down if they dont.

Quote

12-06-2021 , 08:17 AM

#27

Morphismus

BBV Poker Player of 2022

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 24,384

Quote

12-06-2021 , 10:49 AM

#28

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

As always Tame makes a great point.

Someone like Clooney would be a high value target for many despotic regimes/companies/people.

Wave one big pay day and whether it is to silence him or his wife via the ability to point out their hypocrisy that would be over hanging them.

You can just imagine the future headlines if George's wife, in the coming years is being super critical of the same regime/company/person because of her human rights work, and the media then instantly focuses on how much money George made from them and his tacit support.

Quote

12-06-2021 , 11:40 AM

#29

lozen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 25,108

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuepee

Heck look at Lebron , NBA basically condone China and we cant forget Jon Cena's apology in Mandarin

Quote

12-06-2021 , 12:05 PM

#30

King Spew

Just average

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 15,333

I know!

Every September is donation month! Everyone donate September's entire wage to "a good cause". That would be a hellava lot more than 35M and wouldn't come with any strings like "I can't say anything bad about the IRS for ten year".

Or better yet, let's get all the authors in the world to donate their next book's gross to charity. Much more focused and you would get both liberals and conservatives caught up in that Good Will effort!

Win-win.

/

Quote

12-06-2021 , 01:31 PM

#31

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,158

How many of you think Clooney would have turned down the 35 mil if his net worth was ten million? In other words, would going from very rich to very very rich been more important to him than saving dozens of lives?

Quote

12-06-2021 , 01:34 PM

#32

RFlushDiamonds

cool

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5,969

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

In this particular case, I am suggesting that if someone pointed out to him the idea that he could take the gig an donate the money, he would have changed his mind. Assuming the story is true (which it very well might not be) and his reason for turning it down was what he said it was. Those of you who think this is close must be closet Toothsayer fans.

Meh, I remember all the criticism Mother Theresa got for taking money from third world leaders.
If a wealthy individual wants to set up a not for profit to help save lives they're always at liberty to do so.

I get your point but I'm not sure there's an answer. You can always make more money to give it away if that's your goal but I don't think it's a very wise way to address the problem. Assuming my take on GC is wrong and he actually want's to do all that work ofc.

Quote

12-06-2021 , 02:35 PM

#33

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I think your question is here is 'is self interest a factor'?

Meaning if you reduce George's wealth to a point where that money is meaningful in a way that it will provide him security and the ability to live the life he wants to live, then I say 'highly likely'.

Few people can escape self interest and wealth is a luxury that allows one to do so. Or at least makes the self interest things that cannot be provided monetarily.

Quote

12-06-2021 , 04:32 PM

#34

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I guess he probably would. Let's assume he would and if it helps, also agree that if he did take money from a souce he considered bad to go from rich to very rich then that would be immoral.

still haven't join the dots to making not doing it to help others immoral. Although I dont doubt some will agree that it is immoral.

Quote

12-07-2021 , 01:12 PM

#35

nucularburro

adept

Join Date: Nov 2021 Posts: 1,035

But what if the guy would really have just spent it all on hookers?

Quote

12-07-2021 , 01:42 PM

#36

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

...

still haven't join the dots to making not doing it to help others immoral. Although I dont doubt some will agree that it is immoral.

isn't that one leg of our prior 'Trolley Dilemma' discussion?

I think David asked that same type of counter question there if 'not getting involved and not pulling the switch to make any decision could be immoral'.

Take it further as I think it was in that thread, if you see a person drowning just off a nearby dock, there is a nearby flotation device you could easily reach and toss to the person. What requirements do you or should you have to act? What ethical or moral judgements should be attached to inaction?

Quote

12-07-2021 , 02:53 PM

#37

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,158

Chezlaw and I have been arguing over this for twenty years. I think he doesn't like the idea that if sins of omission are almost as bad as sins of commission it means that Christians are right when they say that all humans are sinners who deserve to go to hell. But the fact is that they are right. Except for the part that a belief in Jesus will save them (rather than the fact that there is no hell.)

Quote

12-07-2021 , 03:06 PM

#38

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

I've been arguing against the continuum fallacy for those decades. I also argue against equating sins of ommission vs comission which doesn't even imply that sins of omission cannot be worse.

'deserves' seems likes nonsense (if anyone deserved hell it would be the god) but I'm sure you recall we tend to agree on human scummyness so I'm not quite sure where you get that part from.

Quote

12-08-2021 , 02:21 PM

#39

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuepee

Not tossing it is a sin of omission. But what about if you picked it up and were about to toss it until you realized the drowning person was someone you didn't like. Is walking away in the same category?

Quote

12-08-2021 , 02:30 PM

#40

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

Depends. Is it chezlaw?

Quote

12-08-2021 , 02:36 PM

#41

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

I think that crosses solely into personal ethics.

You are choosing to assist or not solely based on desirability of the individual. There is no law compelling you act. No danger to you if you do act. You have a high likelihood of providing needing assistance but choose not to for the sole reason of 'I don't like that person'. That is a person I would consider deeply immoral but that is about it.

That said I am for some forms of laws that require reasonable assistance where no threat is posed to the helper and they are immunized against being sued for their efforts.

Quote

12-08-2021 , 03:00 PM

#42

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuepee

But does it cross into a sin of commission? Perhaps not. So lets say that the life preserver is attached to a rope, you throw it slightly short, the currents are bringing it to him, and at that point you recognize him and pull the rope back. Most would, I believe switch that into the commission category. Yet the result is the same as it would have been if you had better eyesight.

It is because such manipulations are often available that I continue this fight with chezlaw. I'm sure he is personally more ethical than I am.

Quote

12-08-2021 , 03:13 PM

#43

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

It is because such manipulations are often available that I continue this fight with chezlaw. I'm sure he is personally more ethical than I am.

It's wierd because I think you think that's more true than I do. And not because of a difference about the facts or conformity with what society might think is better.

On the rope thing, they are diffrent. Soemone capable of pulling back the rope has proved themselves at a a different level from someone capable of not helping someone they dont like.

Quote

12-08-2021 , 03:29 PM

#44

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

I think once you have thrown the rope with the life preserver and it now randomly is floating towards the person, the purposeful pull back is a crime.

Sure you may have been the trigger in an action you were not required to take (throw the LP) but once you did it take it, a new circumstance was created and a person was likely to be saved even if you did nothing from that point on. You then acted to interrupt that. That to me is a crime just as it would be if a stranger threw out the LP and you kept intercepting it as you did not like the person.

Quote

12-08-2021 , 03:49 PM

#45

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

and DS's equivilence requires knowning there's no-one else who might be able to act. Which in reality is irrelevent to the morality/law as you cant know there's no 3rd person around.

That's because a 3rd person isn't going to take acion while the 1st rope has been thrown and the person appears to be being saved. It may then be too late once they realise it has been withdrawn. That's a very different scenario from the same 3rd person seeing nothing has been done to help yet.

Quote

12-09-2021 , 02:08 PM

#46

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,158

Is writing an editorial that advocates against a law which makes it illegal to walk away without throwing the flotation device, a sin of commission (given that such a law will result in fewer deaths)? Or suppose you are walking past the lake with a friend, you see the drowning man who neither of you are inclined to help, and your friend erroneously says, "I wouldn't normally save him but I will be in legal trouble if I don't so I will." Are you committing a sin of commission if you reply "No you won't"?

Quote

12-09-2021 , 02:47 PM

#47

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,230

I would probably be in favour of a well crafted law but it's not a sin to argue against it. Or to correct someone about the law when you dont want to do it anyway.

Most scummy seems the behavior of helping iff it is the law.

Quote

12-10-2021 , 05:04 AM

#48

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Seems like a lot of you are committing what I would call the Milton Berle Fallacy (high falootin types call it the Continuum fallacy I believe.) I'm not saying that Clooney should work a month promoting the government of North Korea for a million dollars that he could donate. I'm talking about one day's work for an iffy country's airline for 35 mil that would otherwise not help others. Or anything close to that.

It comes down to which causes more harm (if you consider sins of omission causing harm.) And I have no problem with those who think it is OK to lean toward the selfish choice if it is at all close. But if someone had offered chezlaw 50 K to stop typing his post, he would be immoral to turn that down.

No he wouldn't.

Quote

12-10-2021 , 05:11 AM

#49

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by lozen

Oh come on between the Catholic Church, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos we could end world hunger quickly

The main cause of starvation is corrupt governments.

Quote:

Yet the Catholic Church does little other than protect pedophiles,

I am certainly no fan of the Catholic Church, but your statement is just wrong. They provide many charitable services worldwide.

Quote:

Bill Gates does his best to protect Covid Vaccine Patents and Jeff Bezos has a space hobby

I certainly don't much care much for Gates or Bezos either, but I suspect you are over-simplifiying here as well.

Quote

12-10-2021 , 05:18 AM

#50

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

You know a conversation is winding down when contrary-to-fact hypotheticals enter the fray.

Quote

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last