data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db42e/db42eec499f77db880abcc29c2c5cc829abd1337" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1df69/1df69f53f5559e83c288e08b403109544e78dc05" alt=""
It still grew 39%, that’s crazy growth. Their users do not care.
It still grew 39%, that’s crazy growth. Their users do not care.
Thanks, I’m very keen not to pull it up as it’s herringboned and took a very long time to lay.
We asked the kitchen fitter to level the floor, but turned out he didn’t really know what he was doing so we ended up with an uneven floor in the other direction. Not used him again…
The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.
Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.
Luxuries are of no significance is not obviously true. Our economic system means that purchasing items of “no moral significance” feeds into a system which supports livelihoods and, in a functional government, provides welfare and health care to populations.
There are multiple areas where money could be focused instead of Oxfam etc which could be seen as moral- R&D, luxuries as per 3
(It might just be that I don’t like philosophy)
Move fast, break things, leave the front door unlocked, salute the führer