How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Melchior » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:04 pm

All that you can, so long as you acquire it honestly.

Belinda
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:20 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
Trump's win is a big fuck you to Democrats (and the Left) who treat 'the people' as a resource to be managed instead of employers to be serviced.
I like and approve of the notion of service as a virtue; it's that perception of Chivalry which is altogether good. If serving is what Mr Trump will do then I'd feel a lot more optimistic, on condition that Mr Trump would serve others impartially.

I appreciate good workmanship , professional skill , and duty of care.

I deplore treating people as nothing but a resource to be managed.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:44 pm

I'm inclined to think Trump will make a good effort to improve the economy (for every one), reduce burdensome regulation (on every one), and generally pave the way for individuals to succeed as each sees fit (and to bear the brunt of individual failures rooted in bad choices).

It's that last bit (personal responsibility for personal failure) that sticks in the craw for a lot of folks (mostly on the Left, but including a significant number on the Right).

Belinda
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:08 pm

henry quirk wrote:I'm inclined to think Trump will make a good effort to improve the economy (for every one), reduce burdensome regulation (on every one), and generally pave the way for individuals to succeed as each sees fit (and to bear the brunt of individual failures rooted in bad choices).

It's that last bit (personal responsibility for personal failure) that sticks in the craw for a lot of folks (mostly on the Left, but including a significant number on the Right).
But regulation is necessary when a society gets so much larger than traditional village or small tribe. The modern nation is so big that individuals don't know each other, or even don't know about each other .It's unrealistic to expect that people who fall by the wayside will be looked after by neighbourhood traditions of friendship and mutual care.

As for taking responsibility I am all for it! It's actually a privilege to be able to take responsibility for self and others. It feels like a loss when perhaps with old age or illness a person has to relinquish responsibilities to self and others.

I gather that "It's that last bit (personal responsibility for personal failure) " which is the main problem why we fear to go too far in the direction of a nanny state that taxes workers so that lazy people can avoid work. Don't you think only a few are antisocially lazy, and that the great majority of people actually positively want to be part of the world of work?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:22 pm

I said 'reduce burdensome regulation' not 'eliminate regulation'.


I think the majority want to live their lives and be left alone...seems to me, most folks want to self-rely and -direct to the degree possible for them and leave other folks alone to do the same...unfortunately, there are folks (on the Left, Right, etc.) who can't just mind their own business...apparently, they're driven to interfere...some seem well-intended, wanting to raise every one up...too bad the result of their efforts usually has every one being pushed down...such folks, well-intended or not, make it difficult to self-tend and easy to be dependent...policies promted by such folks, stretched out ever generations can squelch initiative so that even folks with moxie can be made to feel cog-like (and to act accordingly).

Belinda
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:42 pm

Yes, but what would be the cost of adequate care for people who cannot take care of themselves?

I think that adequate care for such people should be borne by those who can. Meantime, education for material and moral self sufficiency also costs money which many parents cannot afford

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:04 pm

Part of what defines a civillization is how well the capable tend to the incapable. Children without caretakers, the damaged, the infirm old, all deserve care (and those cared for should pay for the privillige of that care through sensible gratitude and making the best of the hand up offered). These are on-going populations that are relatively small.

Unfortunately, for quite a while now, a whole whack of physically and mentally capsble folks, generations of 'em, have ridden the gravy train. They swell the population beyond the capacity of even a healthy economy to bear.

Boot 'em offa the caboose...let them walk on their own.


Material and moral self sufficiency is easy to come by if the trainig starts early. It begins with the simple lesson 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' followed by 'no one owes you diddly'. The man and woman of mediocre (or even inferior) intellect and physical capacity is liable to get further down the road, if they recognize themselves as their first, best propery, than the ones with normal or superor capacity who accept cog-status.

Really, those who do, get things done; those for whom things are done, are 'done for'.

Belinda
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:10 pm

Henry Quirk, you say that the training should start early. I very much agree and I think that pre school education, and indeed good parenting, is much needed.

There are parents who are themselves bad, stupid, or otherwise ignorant of how to do the job of parenting. How can the cycle of deprivation be tackled?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

'henry' will do just fine

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:33 pm

I don't believe there are that many bad parents out there. There's a few, sure, but mostly parents do their best.

I think academics, fixated on theory, ignoring the practical demsnds and rewards of parenting, and ignoring the natural inuring a child is supposed to go through, have spooked a lot of moms and dads into second-guessing themselves.

We need to relax our collective sphincter just a little.

As for the few truly bad eggs (abusers and neglectors): intervene with great caution, with great care, conservatively.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:40 pm

Belinda wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sadly the poor are, rather predictably doing what they are instructed, and deciding to blame foreigners and immigrants.
Yes, partly or even largely because they have been duped by the political Right and its media mouth pieces. See the Daily Mail as an English paper that well illustrates "media mouth piece" of the popular ragged sort.

The Right spends insufficient on educating the poor to the effect that the poor are unaware of the benefits brought to natives by foreigners and immigrants.
Agreed.

The news media is owned by a tiny group of people who are manipulating the political process and have been doing for decades.
Rupert Murdoch is the most powerful of these and is probably the most powerful single man on earth.
All this manipulation can be achieved by selection of news items, and the pursuit of selected stories to set major agendas.
For the most part this is all achievable by ignoring inconvenient truths and portraying minor situations as major threats and dangers. No lies need be told.
For example the US people are obsessed with the danger from terrorists, yet they have more chance of being killed by their vacuum cleaners, or being shot by a toddler.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:53 pm

henry quirk wrote:Hobbes,

What you describe with Trump is not the behavior of an ideologue, but a businessman.

By his own admission, Trump supported the Clintons (and many others) cuz "when I call, I expect them to pick up the phone."


Fuck the world. Who owns 'you'?
What you are saying is that because US democracy is hopelessly out-of-date Trump lucked out on a technicality.
It's not as if he is smart enough to plan this stuff. He's a fucking moron. I'm surprised you can't see that.

As for business man? I don't think you are paying attention. Four times bankrupt, his advisors playing a broken economic system that puts all the cards in the hands of the rich, to exploit those that provide services.
I'd love to be able to say he knows what he is doing, but he's not more than a spoilt brat on the margins of legality.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:58 pm

henry quirk wrote:I said 'reduce burdensome regulation' not 'eliminate regulation'.

.
Jesus! Have you ever thought of thinking through the shit you are shovelled by Fox News?
The 2008 crash, was caused because the regulators were asleep at the wheel and had their own noses in the trough. Far from being burdensome, what little regulation there was was not applied, due to the mantra "less government".

When the financiers are cheating millions of ordinary people they have a right to expect government services to call a halt. Less government, means less regulation, even where regulatory law exists.

Belinda
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:01 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
I don't believe there are that many bad parents out there. There's a few, sure, but mostly parents do their best.
Parenting does not come naturally but has to be taught. In the days when people lived in small communities the adults, the older kids, and especially the elders called the shots. Now, parenting has to be a subject taught in school. Henry do you ever listen to the experts? How would you react to someone without your particular skills and knowledge telling you how to do your job? Parenting is a particular skill.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:23 pm

Hobbes,

Yeah, you keep respondin' to what you think I'm posting...go on...get all the bile outta your system.

When you get 'round to actually respondin' to what I posted, we can talk.

#

Belinda

If parenting isn't a natural event then how, oh how, did those poor brutes get by spurtin' out young'uns *6000 years back...before experts and education came along, I mean.

Yeah, I listen to experts...sometimes I even learn sumthin'...what I don't do is let myself get rattled by them (cuz, ya know, sometimes experts are just plain wrong).









*yeah, I know, 'it took a village'...but, really, it doesn't and, no, I don't think it ever did

thedoc
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?

Post by thedoc » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:12 am

Belinda wrote:Henry Quirk wrote:
I don't believe there are that many bad parents out there. There's a few, sure, but mostly parents do their best.
Parenting does not come naturally but has to be taught. In the days when people lived in small communities the adults, the older kids, and especially the elders called the shots. Now, parenting has to be a subject taught in school. Henry do you ever listen to the experts? How would you react to someone without your particular skills and knowledge telling you how to do your job? Parenting is a particular skill.
A lot depends on the source of the expertise, an expert who has no children of their own, should be suspect when giving advice on parenting. The expert who draws on their own experience and combines it with relevant studies should be listened to. Parenting is something that is learned by doing and not by reading books. Wild animals don't seem to have any trouble parenting their young without any formal training, they do it by instinct (naturally), human parents should give some credence to instinct and stop trying to deny that humans have instinctive behaviors. I have had 3 children and have helped to raise 2 of my grandchildren, Henry is bringing up a nephew, and I will assume that you have children of your own, but correct me if I am wrong. Children don't come with an owners manual, so it's mostly learn as you go, and a good parent will learn from their mistakes and their parents mistakes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests