Well that’s realistic. :rolleyes: In other words, you want the people with the talents and drives to earn a bunch of money to support the people without talent and no drive?
“Alleviating suffering” by just handing those folks a bunch of money/goods has not shown to create the drive to better themselves if it wasn’t there before. For example, if you buy a house for a homeless person who got that way from drinking/drug excesses, what do you think will happen next?
Apparently, it does. If it wasn’t for his father, he’d probably be homeless so it looks like this comes more from self interest than any question of morality.
Exactly. Why should we work at jobs we don’t really want just to fund strangers? I worked at a job I hated for years after I could have gone on permanent disability, because I wanted to make sure I’d be fine in retirement. If I had been forced to give even more to strangers than I was, I might be one of those seniors on welfare.
When you start having to pay say, $50/month for your own internet* and then choose to give it up to feed a starving family in Botswanna for a year, then you can talk about how selfish people who don’t give up their so-called luxuries for other people’s comforts are. Until then, shut up until you grow up kid.
*Or if you don’t like that example:
Do you live in anything bigger than a 1 room studio apartment? Eat at the minimal subsistance level to stay healthy and nothing more (no luxuries, no going out to eat.) Do you go out to movies? Ever bought something because you liked it rather than needed it to survive? Then, by your definition, you’re not only a selfish prick, you’re a hypocritical one too.
That’s what I was wondering. Then I saw he’s been here too long for that so I bumped the age I imagined to 18, taking his first ethics course, and with a paper due Monday. And high. Been in enough of those conversations for one life, thank you.
You…really are like, 15 years old, aren’t you? Do you also believe that for ever drop of rain that falls…a flower grows?
Why are you sitting on your ass on your daddy’s computer typing when you could be out delivering papers or working in a 7-11 or being a popcorn seller in a theater and sending 100% of your take-home pay to sponsor a few children to help get them food and clean drinking water* for $35/month. If you work 2 hours a day after school, and 8 hours on Saturday and Sunday, you’d be making about enough to sponsor about 5 children a month. And you’re just lazing around on your ass, you selfish little maggot.
You’re the problem. Not the tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who have $100,000 cars: they’re such a small minority that they’re basically irrelevant. The problem is you. The guy who won’t get off his ass to actually do something he believes in. 26 hours a week of work, 5 starving kids fed/clothed/housed and given fresh water and some kind of schooling (see disclaimer in footnote). But giving up a chunk of your leisure time is just too much bother for you. So you want OTHER people to do it.
Punk.
*Assuming this isn’t a scam. I know nothing about this charity and don’t support or endorse it (or condemn it either): it was just the first that came up with a Google search. If they’re evil, or something, pick a better one.
I saw that too, but figured he registered as a little kid or he’s on his daddy’s account or something. By college/ethics courses/being stoned age, he should be beyond the whiney “Everyone else should do something so I feel better but don’t have to work” stage.
I think people are being a little hard on the (admittedly ineloquent) OP. He’s trying to make a (admittedly unoriginal) reasonably valid point, and one that I agree with- we have massive wealth in the hands of a few while some, despite working hard and giving all they can, literally haven’t enough to survive.
There are lots of people picking apart the way he constructed his posts, but we all know what he meant.
The biggest problem with our current social and economic system is that it really is completely willing to leave someone in the gutter. I don’t think that’s OK in such a wealthy country.
I know of one particular family who work as hard as they can and struggle mightily, but due to factors beyond their control (namely, they are particularly not-smart) the entire family works at McJobs (literally. Wal-Mart and McDonalds employ half the family). If you saw how difficult every day is for them financially, I don’t know how you could not be moved. They aren’t lazy, just not well equipped for this economy. And that failure is at a biological level.
Unfortunately, in the US, we tend to look at the poor as deserving their lot in life. That might be true sometimes, but not all the time.
Well, and the real issue isn’t the middle class workers. Presumably they can afford a reasonable place to live.
Our economy seems to have no place for the people at the bottom, and we’ve told ourselves that we can just send everyone to college and educate away the McJobs.*
I hope everyone can see the problem with that thinking. There will always be a segment of the population whose best just isn’t good enough. And I don’t think that makes them trash. But I do seem to be in the minority.
*I’m defining that as jobs which are stuck at or near the minimum wage, such that even at the rarely offered full time level don’t provide sufficient salary to get by.
I agree with most of this, but I’m less hopeful than you. This is going to change someday, but things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
Also, people aren’t going to change their behavior because of moral exhortation: if you want to suppress people accumulating wealth, then to some extent, yes, you do need the state to step in and ‘not allow’ them to do it.
He doesn’t have to choose as those are not mutually exclusive positions, provided you define affluence in terms of consumption rather than wealth. Which isn’t unreasonable.
This is a milder position than the OP, but is still a reasonably high ethical bar. It says, “There’s something known as luxury or excess: you can define it in terms of median consumption in your state or metropolitan region. I permit that. But those who pretend to be moral should contribute more to the needy than they consume in surplus.”
A high bar. But one that could be met.
Set aside the concept of defining surplus (I think that’s doable, though not easy or obvious). The problem I see is that, well, you have responsibilities to your kids and spouse. Also, you might need an expensive ($60,000?) car for business if you deal with certain sorts of clients. The OP doesn’t want to punish or discourage success after all. The point being is that there are competing moral considerations.
Yes. Pick a better one. I didn’t click the link, but if it’s worthwhile to give to charity, it’s also worthwhile to do at least a little research.
Final point: properly considered programs for third world aid like this one or perhaps this one surely provide more bang for the buck than an opera donation or even the local food bank in the US. So the implications of the OP’s argument may differ than what he imagines.
That depends on what you value. If you value the arts over support in third world countries, than no, it doesn’t give more bang for the buck, in fact, a third world charity gives zero bang for the buck while leaving opera as a dying art form. Opera may not be your thing, but some people do place a high value on art, including the U.S. military that risks their lives to save art in war zones.
If I had to give away all of my money over a certain sum, I’d just work less and make sure not to waste my time on earning more that amount. Sure, I’d be a less productive member of society, but why bother?
Thank you and well said. What I wish I conveyed is, “Give the issue some thought.”
I mean I still personally put a higher value on third world development. But I also wanted to indicate that those wishing to raise the bar might be pro-active with their charitable choices as well. Donating to the first google hit doesn’t really cut it, not that the guy I was responding to advocated that. To the contrary.