Have you ever heard the argument,"If just one person will gain ... it's worth it?" Or, "If just one person will be hurt ... it's not worth it?"
It makes for a compelling argument but only emotionally. Logically, it doesn't make sense. For example, I recently read a news item about an Israeli umpire dying after being hit by a ball. Does anybody think we should outlaw all ball playing in which a ball is thrown, because "if just one person will be hurt, it's not worth it?" Of course not. People play ball.
Does anyone think we should ban all cars because, "If one person is killed by a car, the minuses outweigh the benefits?" Certainly not.
There needs to be a cost analysis, i.e. benefits versus the minuses, plus knowing how many people will be affected, before a decision can be made. In some cases, it might very well be the right thing to do even if only a few people will stand to gain or lose; in other cases, not at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I just went to a DTAG event which helps frum people limit their digital exposure. There were donors and sponsors and they brought in Rabbi Johnathan Rietti as well as someone from TAG. I guess that they hope that everyone in the room would modify their digital habits but if even one mother decides to limit or eliminate the internet in her home, she may save one of her children from ruining himself spiritually. If only one soul was saved by this expensive event, was it worth it?
ReplyDeleteCould be ...
ReplyDelete