Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

by SecondRateMind 226 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  _Morpheus

  SRM believes his actions towards the poor will have consequences in terms of eternal rewards or punishment.
  There is absolutely nothing voluntary about that.

  Exactly my point
• 

  Splash

  It is the height of naivity to think that giving money to the poor will solve poverty.
• 

  stillin

  A lady I met that has been on the waitstaff end of the restaurant business made an astute observation. The "blue collar" customers are better tippers than the business "white collar" ones. They have a better understanding, and compassion, for those who will work for their sustenance. Fair enough to refer to compassion as a Christian attribute, although Christians don't have the monopoly on it.

  Whether Somebody is watching or "He" is not, this is a snapshot view of the "thousand points of light" idea of people helping people. Nothing mandatory about it. We can't legislate morality. Pigs will be pigs and virtue is its' own reward. I wish there was more empathy in the world. It certainly makes for better service!
• 

  days of future passed

  mentalclarity - What you said goes along with an experience I saw on program. A woman from the USA had seen how the lepers were treated in India and wanted to help. She paired up with a UN representative. While they were driving in the city, a woman with leprosy begged outside the car and so the American lady gave her money. The UN lady said, "If you give one more person money like that, you can't be on this team" (or something like that) The reason she stated was "If you give someone something for free, they don't value it" Instead, the two ladies set up a "bank" where money could be loaned to the lepers. At first, only the women in the colony were involved. They took out money and bought sewing machines. When they became successful, the men also started borrowing to start businesses. From hopelessness and poverty, the colony with their own hard work, prospered.

  I think the UN lady was right.
  
• 

  Simon

  Capitalism does more for people in poverty than charity, especially at the government level. Too often it ends up propping up dictators and the basket-case countries that need food are almost guaranteed to need food in 10-20 years time.

  Setting up proper functioning economies that can grow and provide employment, payment, and downstream education etc... does far more for those in poverty than handouts do.

  Handouts should be reserved for very short-term disasters where immediate aid is needed, otherwise it's a mistake and also risks becoming an industry full of people profiting from it which then gives people reason to perpetuate dysfunction rather than fixing it.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Setting up proper functioning economies that can grow and provide employment, payment, and downstream education etc... does far more for those in poverty than handouts do -

  ^^^ yes, precisely ^^^

  The above is the sensible, long term solution.

  Giving to charities is fine because it helps alleviate suffering/starvation in the here and now but it is a short term solution only.

  Dambisa Moyo argues trade over aid with regards to African countries.

  She also points out that aid money props up African dictators and argues instead for Western countries to stop this so that African leaders can be responsible for their respective countries.

  It ain't exactly rocket science, is it.
  
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Well, everyone, I am pleased to note that the climate of the thread seems to have altered from whether the rich should succour the poor, towards how, and what is the most effective method, for the rich to succour the poor. As you may have gathered from my previous posts, I think this to be in everybody's best interests.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 

  SecondRateMind

  She also points out that aid money props up African dictators and argues instead for Western countries to stop this so that African leaders can be responsible for their respective countries.

  LoveUniHateExams, no one mistakes Mugabe's responsibility for trashing Zimbabwe. But the people there still need to eat.

  Best wishes, 2RM
• 

  Simon

  And they will have trouble eating the longer a regime like Mugabe's is propped up by state sponsored industrialized "charity".

  Let's face it, the ideas you submitted were childish and simplistic in the extreme and even things much further down on that scale have been tried before and always result in the deaths of millions, more than the Hitlers of the world even managed.

  So take your looney ideas and shove them. The way to help people is to actually help them to stand on their feet, not throw food into the gutter.
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Capitalism does more for people in poverty than charity

  Actually, Simon, capitalism does nothing for people in absolute poverty. If you haven't got money, you can't buy anything. Not the food you need to eat, nor the tools you need to work with. Charity can, at least, put these basics in place.

  Best wishes, 2RM.