Yes with that soap. The soap is expensive but also it does dry skin and hair come, I find washing scalp helps for scalp health, and face, but requires moisturizer and conditioner use.
Article claims it doesn’t help but I think that is wrong and many others agree.
A larger number of people dying from an unrelated cause in another country doesn’t make these deaths insignificant. By that logic, virtually no problem deserves attention because you can always find something that kills more people.
The "trolley problem" is literally never a valid argument for anything because it purports to create an analogy for a real world problem but does so by creating a scenario that cannot exist, hence any argument based on it is nonapplicable to "real" problems.
So you’re being pedantic? Future forecasts and estimates can’t mesh with the trolly problem? If that’s your stance sure, you are correct. I do feel like you missed the whole point of the exercise though, and are hiding behind an absolute that is never achievable.
Look, nobody brings up the trolley problem because they're concerned about what they're going to do when a train car goes out of control.
They use it as a metaphor to attempt to make an argument about a different, actually real, situation. My argument is this is pointless because no real world situation will ever meaningfully resemble the trolley problem.
The correct answer to the trolley problem is STOP THE TROLLEY. "You can't do that!" "Why not?" "because magic" "well how do I know this magic is there?" "more magic!" etc etc.
What do you do if the dragon demands a sacrifice or it attacks the town? You fight the dragon.
The idea that "stop the trolley" or "slay the dragon" is cost-free is a wish. You've merely added a third horn to the dilemma. "Someone brave attempts to jump onto the moving trolley, risking their own neck" might well be the preferred choice; the expected outcome may marginally improve; the shape of the problem remains.
I hope you're arguing out of perversity, not conviction - such is valuable, and i did have to think for a minute. I agree that lateral thinking can be productive.
At no point did I say anything was "cost-free" or even make any reference to cost. It's extremely rare for the cost of an action to be at all relevant to its morality.
> Someone brave attempts to jump onto the moving trolley, risking their own neck
This is a completely different problem. The whole point of the trolley problem is to attempt to justify the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many.
The entire framing is about other people dying, not whether or not you would sacrifice yourself.
According to UNICEF, globally, Diarrhea causes 444k deaths of children under 5 or ~1200 per day.
Globally, 1.2 million people (all ages) die of diarrhea every year.
India accounts for 120k deaths of children under 4 or roughly one fourth of global D related deaths or 328 deaths per day.
Assuming a similar ratio across all ages, India must account for 300k D related deaths every year of roughly 820 deaths. Not great (obviously) but at least it only accounts for 1/4 of all D deaths, not 1/3rd.
Edit - worth pointing out that India has 1.4B out of 8B humans globally or a little more than 1/6th.
The real elephant in the room is that 60% of our school shootings are streetside minority violence spilling into schools, not angry white incels mowing down classmates.
reply