Which is more moral?
A minority suffering grevous pain and misfortune for a slight benifit to the majority?
Or the majority being slightly worse off for the extreme benefit to the minority?
>inb4 define morality
Use your own definition
Am I in the majority or in the minority?
>real and scientific
Peter Singer: When we have the possibility to lessen human suffering without giving up something of comparable moral value, we have to do so.
The majority would even have to worsen their own condition themselves if it lessens the suffering of the minority, at least to some degree.
>if they are in our country we can't enslave them for cheap sweatshop labor
> Which is more moral?
Every person's moral decision-making must be aimed at allowing for every other person the same degree of moral decision-making.
For humans, the goal of ethics is not to maximize or distribute pleasures; the goal of ethics is to maximize and coordinate autonomy by respecting it in ourselves and in others.
I'd say the second
Would you rather every working American pay $1 per year to keep a 1000 people from off the streets (via homeless shelter). Or not pay $1 per year and let 1000 people become homeless and suffer?
The benefit is extreme and the loss is very minimal.