Originally Posted by Gamma Male
I just have to address this. Lets say you have X amount of money, and you want to spend it on a gaming console that, if bought, would provide you with many hours of joy and fun. But you instead decide to donate it to help feed starving children or something. When those children receive that food, they're likely to experience a plethora of positive emotions and have many of their negative emotions(hunger, in this case) cured. And I think you would agree that the amount of suffering that is alleviated when the children receive the food is greater than the amount alleviated when you buy a gaming console. It stands to reason then that giving away your money was a logical decision because it decreased the total amount of suffering in the world more than if you had kept it. Who's suffering it is that's decreased is irrelevant.
I believe that it is the right
thing to do. If we presume that it is objectively the right thing to do then I would be in agreement that it's the logical thing to do - but it would be illogical to start making such assumptions.
On a side note (unrelated to this thread - but I don't want to start another), do you consider it moral
to threaten someone at gunpoint to hand over their hard-earned cash in order to alleviate another individual's suffering.