I’m not sure I understand: on one side, we have a stronger obligation to those close to us, but on another side, it is good to help strangers that are thousands of kilometers away
I don’t see how this is contradictory? For example, you might prefer saving 10 American lives to saving 11 non-American lives, but prefer saving 100 non-American lives to 5 American lives.
That and the anti-expanding moral circle argument suggests that it’s OK (and in fact, in my opinion, good) to assign different weights to different entities.
But in that case, if scale is a very important metric, shouldn’t helping animals also be a good idea? It’s possible to help thousands of them for a fraction of the cost required to save one non-Amerian life.
I don’t see how this is contradictory? For example, you might prefer saving 10 American lives to saving 11 non-American lives, but prefer saving 100 non-American lives to 5 American lives.
That and the anti-expanding moral circle argument suggests that it’s OK (and in fact, in my opinion, good) to assign different weights to different entities.
Oh, ok, I see.
But in that case, if scale is a very important metric, shouldn’t helping animals also be a good idea? It’s possible to help thousands of them for a fraction of the cost required to save one non-Amerian life.