In short:
Donald Trump has claimed victory in the US presidential election, saying his political movement is the greatest the world has ever seen.
The Republican candidate swamped his Democratic rival Kamala Harris in critical swing states.
What’s next?
The Republicans were on track to win both chambers of congress, too, paving the way for Trump’s agenda to be enacted in full.
I’m not arab, but as he said, you can worry about more than one thing. But I think the biggest difference with your tuberculosis example is: One is a problem due to lack of action, the other a problem due to direct action. You have to be competent to do something about one, while the other, just by not doing anything (by not giving them loads of money and weapons) they would already solve the problem.
So one problem requires effort to be solved, the other, they are putting effort to create the problem and it would be as easy as just not doing it. In theory pressuring them in just not doing something should be easier than doing other work.
Put in a different view, what would be your worse behaviour?
-A person you know died of turberculosis and you didn’t take them to the hospital
-A person you know died because you shoot them, or you gave someone a gun and money and told them they could shoot them?
Which action would get more people against you?
Tuberculosis is definatly due to a direct action. As a country ur not allowed to manufacture a vacccine cos the us companies hold the patents and u get sanctioned if u break intellectual property law.
Both ur cases are equallity as bad. All people are equal therefore all death is equal therefore the reason of death doesnt matter.
Imagine this
1.8million of ur friends will die every single year u can stop this ever happening again for a one time payment of 3hours of us military budget.
40thousand of ur friends will die just this once because they invaded ur home kidnapped and raped ur daughter so u continued to pay ur taxes so the cops can shoot them before they do it again.
Which action is less morally justified?
Sorry, your scenario is too stretched for me to comment on it.
I can only comment regarding their patent system and I 100% agree that the north american patent system is a cancer on the entire world. A massive problem that needs addressing. But as mentioned before, you can worry, and work on more than one problem without invalidating them. But that problem involves much more variables and powerful companies/ people/ countries to be resolved. I won’t comment if that is the solution for the problem you present since I think it’s more complicated than that. But, again, I think destroying the north american patent system would benefit the whole mankind. I just have no idea how that can be solved without the whole world going against them.
The rest, I guess I can only say that you can’t judge which battles people decide to fight, if you agree they are fighting something bad. You fight to demolish their patent system and others fight to end their imperialism. Both fights are valid and everyone except the abusers would benefit from them.
And ur cenario was just as ridiculous.
Im not arguing against gaza im simply making the observation that curing a global disease is somthing we have done before (smallpox, polio, etc). Curing the middle east is somthing we have never succeeded at. The more achievable task is also 50times more impactfull on reducing harm to our speicies (assuming u see all people and therefore all deaths as equall).
I absolutely will judge people on the battles they fight if only when there is a more effective way to acheive what they claim to be fighting for for.
