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

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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 ken » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:35 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
Human beings do NOT need money to live. To think / believe we need money to live is
a distortion of reality. Human beings have survived for millions of years without money
There has to be some type of universal currency in order to pay for goods and labour.
There HAS TO BE?

Are you suggesting that there was also some type of universal currency whenever human beings first evolved?
surreptitious57 wrote:Human beings have
not survived for millions of years because homo sapiens have only existed for between 100 - 200 000 years
Are human beings and homo sapiens the exact same thing? If not, then why is it being proposed that human beings existence is depended wholly upon homo sapiens.

I am not sure how long human beings have existed for but the reason I wrote millions of years is because there was a skeleton of a female of the hominin species found. This specimen, which came to be known as lucy, is dated to about 3.2 million years ago. Depending on what human beings actually are and what they actually belong to, homo sapiens or the hominin species for example, then this will then decide how long human beings have actually existed, and thus survived, for. I will propose I do not know how long human beings have survived for.

But I will propose human beings do not need money to live. If human beings can live without money, or a universal currency, which they have, then that is enough proof to Me that human beings do not need money to live.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 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 Greta » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:52 am

Aisling wrote:Hi lovely people,

this has been bothering me for a while. Could you perhaps share your positions on this question. How much wealth is it ethical for one to posses when there are people all around who do not even have enough to meet their basic needs?

Thank you for your thoughts!
I find it hard to sensibly consider the ethics of wealth beyond very broad ideas because every society has been inequitable, and this is simply the way of nature - different abilities, inclinations and luck.

Consider someone with a billion dollars. What if most of the wealth is tied up with a business employing people and producing something useful? If s/he was to distribute that wealth it would result in great disruption. Of course, the reality is that billionaires tend to have plenty of free cash and much of it accumulated via tax dodges not available to the middle class. I think this is a more pressing issue, although if billionaires are more fairly taxed then their philanthropic donations may decrease. Generally, many nations devote around two percent of GDP to foreign aid so perhaps giving two percent to charity p.a. would be a baseline approach.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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 ken » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:51 am

TSBU wrote:
ken wrote:
Having one cent more than I need while I sit here and allow others to die is totally and utterly unethical, and repulsive.
like you, then.
I did say "I", did I not?

I spoke for me only.

I, unlike you, do not try to bundle what I do into what others do. I look at what I do and accept responsibility for what I do. I do NOT try to blame others for what I do, unlike others do.
TSBU wrote:
Human beings have survived for millions of years without money.
600000 years homo sapiens, 1,5 million years homo erectus (bipeds) 2,5 million years homo hhabilis (first tools). Before of that, aproximately 50 million years, monkeys. Before of that I don't know. Now go to a fucking cave and stop using your computer, you don't need it.
So, which one of them do human beings belong to, or for how long have human beings survived for?

If you do not know the answer to that, then I certainly will not judge you.

By the way did you notice your 600000 years for homo sapiens is different than surreptitious57's between 100 - 200 000 years for homo sapiens, so which one of 'you' is right?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to infer with your last sentence. If you would like to elaborate please feel free to.
TSBU wrote:
Thinking/believing we need money to live is also an attempt to justify the wrong and abusive behaviors we commit on each other,
Yeah, yeah, homo habilis were all in Narnia... and Homo sapines didn't kill other tribes or ate them. Because they didn't have money.
What are you trying to allude to here?

All I am saying is if human beings are still alive, and thus surviving, today, and they have come from times when there was no money, then OBVIOUSLY human beings do not need money to live.

I am not sure why you brought in the fact that human beings do kill and eat each other for? Would you like to elaborate the reason for doing this?

To use what is happening here as an example of how the Mind and the brain actually works first take notice of the people who are believing human beings need money to live. These people are looking at my statement from the brain only. The brain within that human body has obviously grown up within an environment where money has existed. From all of their experiences, or from the experiences that they are selectively choosing to look from, all they can see is that money is needed for human beings to live. To them human beings can not live without money, or some sort of universal currency. And, once they start to believe that this is "fact", then they have become completely closed. They will NOT look at anything else, even if facts are put in front of them. For example even the very obvious and simple fact that many human beings have lived and survived without money is still NOT proof to these people that human beings can live without money.

If, however, these people stopped believing, from only the knowledge that they have already obtained, which is stored within the brain, and, instead looked from a truly open perspective, or the Mind, then they can see that of course prior to their own personal experiences previous human beings have lived with, survived, and continued evolving without any money or universal currency whatsoever. The very fact that they are here is living proof that human beings can live without money. Their great ancestors had no money and human beings are still here. In fact there might be some tribes of human beings still today, or if not today only a relatively very short period of time ago, even in the same time period as those people who believe we need money to live who are living now lived, who are/were living within tribes without any money at all. Also, and more proof that human beings do not need money to live is the very simple and obvious fact that a family could born a child today, raise that child without any money at all, and then that child human being live for decades without any money whatsoever and die with never ever experiencing money is just more proof that human beings do NOT need money to live. To learn and discover more or new things comes from this truly open Mind, NOT from what is already believed to be true, which is held within a single brain. Being able to look from the Mind instead of just the brain only is all it takes to become a much wiser person.

while we go to work to obtain more and more money. In order to satisfy our learned greediness and obtain as much money as possible
[/quote]
Noone wants money, they want what they can buy with it. [/quote]

What about the one's who do not spend money, the one's who just want to save money, do they not want money?

Is it not true, some people just want money, while others want the things money can buy? Some people in fact just want money and do not necessarily want things money can buy because some people save as much money as they can, just to pass it on when they die to a select few, generally their children.

I NEVER said people want money in this quote anyway.

Did you notice that I did NOT write the word 'want'? What I did write, however, was 'obtain'. I used the word 'obtain' so that some people would not make assumptions and jump to a conclusion, like you just did. But obviously my subtlety does not work on some people.

I used the word 'obtain' because this can infer either saving money OR spending money on what is wanted.

TSBU wrote:You are ridiculous.
I do not know what you are trying to allude to here so I looked up the word 'ridiculous', one definition given was deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

If you believe I am deserving or inviting derision or mockery or absurd, then that is fine. You are free to choose to believe whatever you want. Or maybe 'ridiculous' means some thing else to you. I will await your clarification on this point.

By the way did you know there is a huge difference in the meaning of 'you' and 'I'. So, the statement,"You are ridiculous", may well be very true, from My perspective, but this may mean it is very poignant, from your perspective. But then again it may not. We will just have to wait and see.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
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 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:21 am

It is irrational to think that wealthy people lock their money up so that it is of no use to others. Most wealthy people keep their money in a bank, where it is lent out with interest to pay the interest on the deposit, plus a profit for the bank.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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 ken » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:35 am

thedoc wrote:It is irrational to think that wealthy people lock their money up so that it is of no use to others.
Just wondering who thinks this?

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 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 TSBU » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:15 am

Talking to this guy is bad for him.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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 ken » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:18 am

TSBU wrote:Talking to this guy is bad for him.
Who are you talking to? Who are you talking about? And, what are you talking about?

How can talking to a person be "bad" for them?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:42 pm

So, I'm sittin' atop a mountain of food and all around me skeletons mewl.

What to do, what to do?

Probably, I throw some food down, watch 'em all scramble for it, then choke on it.

Is that 'ethical'?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:50 pm

"I...propose human beings do not need money to live."

You're right.

What humans need to live is the will to get up off their bscksides and feed themselves.

If you say you're hungry, but haven't gotten up off your backside to do sumthin' about it ('cept trundle over to the government cheese handout line), then you aren't hungry enough.

We insulate ourselves from the natural consequences of bad behavior and then wonder if we should 'do' sumthin' to help the folks who behave badly.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
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 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:00 pm

ken wrote:
thedoc wrote:It is irrational to think that wealthy people lock their money up so that it is of no use to others.
Just wondering who thinks this?
I've read people who criticize the rich as if having great wealth somehow deprives others of using it. I know there are some very wealthy who amass a great deal of material goods, but even to acquire these goods, they need to spend money to buy them, and that puts the money back in circulation. The best way to keep an economy healthy is to keep the money flowing, when the money stagnates, so does the economy.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
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 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:42 pm

ken wrote: By the way did you notice your 600000 years for homo sapiens is different than surreptitious57's between 100 - 200 000 years for homo sapiens, so which one of 'you' is right?
The difference between these facts is, much like you and your argument, utterly irrelevant.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
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 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:55 pm

If the person next to me was hungry, I would probably help them out, the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
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 » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:25 am

thedoc wrote:If the person next to me was hungry, I would probably help them out, the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.
they are half way round the world, so they are out of mind. i.e. its easy not to care.

If you really meant what you say can I suggest this..... gee whizz if only there was a way to donate

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate

https://secure.savethechildren.org.uk/donate/

thedoc
Posts: 6473
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 » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:49 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
thedoc wrote:If the person next to me was hungry, I would probably help them out, the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.
they are half way round the world, so they are out of mind. i.e. its easy not to care.

If you really meant what you say can I suggest this..... gee whizz if only there was a way to donate

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate

https://secure.savethechildren.org.uk/donate/
My wife and I do donate. How much do you donate, should we have a pissing contest? And do you do it because it makes you feel good, or because the others really need it?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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 ken » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:01 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote: By the way did you notice your 600000 years for homo sapiens is different than surreptitious57's between 100 - 200 000 years for homo sapiens, so which one of 'you' is right?
The difference between these facts is, much like you and your argument, utterly irrelevant.
Hobbes choice's way to respond to discussions is to attempt to put people down. WHY? Is the insecurity within you that strong? All I said was human beings do not need money to live. If you believe that is irrelevant, just maybe you have a very lot to learn.

If human beings do not need money to live, then obviously money will not fix a starving population problem. In fact it has been discovered already that the want of money is causing a great deal of humanities problems.

By the way I noticed you have again not provided anything of substance at all in this thread, just like most of the threads you contribute to. You spend far more time trying to ridicule and put others down than anything else.

The question I posed was to some one else, not you. I posed the question because that person and the other were both saying I was wrong in my timeline for how long human beings have lived for. I was pointing out that these two people also had different timelines for homo sapiens, which by the way was NOT the ones I had proposed my timeline for.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests