Wealth, Poverty, and Morality (page 17)

Bangalore

Sounds like Peter Singer,the Australian philosophy professor.

SecondRateMind

Sounds like Peter Singer,the Australian philosophy professor.

Yes, I have read some Singer. But at root, he is a utilitarian. Despite my quotes from scripture, (which may suggest a deontological bias) I tend to lean more towards virtue ethics. For me, life is a (good) character building exercise. Nevertheless, I think all three academically respectable attitudes to ethics important, and look forward to the time when some philosopher genius combines all these three approaches into a single, unified, system of morality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

MeanMrMustard

@SRM:

Glad to hear your father is OK.

However, you are still not stating your position very well. If you are speaking of charity, then fine. This is no difference than our current situation, in which charity can be given freely by anyone. Although you could do well to encourage charity by getting the government out of the charity business.

But if your “charity” is taking the money of the rich, then it is theft, and you are back to our original problem.

SecondRateMind

But if your “charity” is taking the money of the rich, then it is theft and you are back to our original problem.

A sacrifice is not a sacrifice unless it is voluntary. Charity, caritas, is always motivated by love, and never by compulsion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

days of future passed

Since the shroud of the JW religion has left my eyes, I understand one of the reasons why, the idealist vision of John Lennon and many others have not come true.

People's personalities, their life experiences and even the deficients that they were born with, all have a part in why this world continues to be unequal.

Until I worked for a person like my boss, I wouldn't have realized how harmful working for a greedy, so called Christian psychopath was. And I don't say psychopath lightly. He has and probably will, continue to steal hours, rearrange overtime so that it isn't and generally display actions showing he doesn't care a fig about anyone. I then imagine him the head of a country. Since he has no conscience, people would come last on his list to take care of unless they could provide money or labor for him.

When I look at the leaders of the world, I wonder how many fall into that category. Rich people if they believe in God, probably excuse themselves just like the religious leaders for their lack. Or maybe they did work really hard to come by their money and to give any away, would seem like an injustice to them.

When I was young, I wanted everything to be fair. I was willing to sacrifice for the benefit of others. Now I know, that some of those wanting you to sacrifice for them, are users.

MeanMrMustard

@SRM: Just to be clear - you are backing off of this original position:

Let us take all the world's wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people. And let us take all the world's annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people.

“On behalf of” rich people...

SecondRateMind

And, if you read to the end of the OP, you will also discover I said:

And let us do this voluntarily, because we think it good and right and just. And, for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus, and try to save them from the consequences of their avarice.

Best wishes, 2RM

MeanMrMustard

@SRM:

Right, and you also said the redistribution would be “on behalf of” the rich. The seemingly contradictory statements need clairification.

Assuming we are past this, what is immoral (since this thread is about morality) about someone being rich? Also, if someone has a large amount of money, do you view that person as immoral if he/she refuses to divide it equally among the world’s population?

SecondRateMind

Also, if someone has a large amount of money, do you view that person as immoral if he/she refuses to divide it equally among the world’s population?

Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?

As I recall, I referred to a massive charitable exercise on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. By which, at the time, I meant by the rich, for the poor. But, I also think that a voluntary devestment of the assets of the rich would not do them any spiritual harm, and might even, come judgment day, do them some favours.

Best wishes, 2RM.

_Morpheus

Lol oh srm... without double standards you wouldnt have any standards at all. I declare you: a liar. Liar liar pants on fire. You just said:

motivated by love, and never by compulsion.

A week ago you said:

Cofty, do you really think the callous rich should get the best of this life, and the best of the next, too? I'm afraid goodness doesn't work like that. Justice will be done. So I believe.

Rotflmao!!!! Threat of eternal damnation isnt compulsion? Lying douche.

Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

Share this