Philosophy Now Forum

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!

The important thing is not how much they have, but how much they deserve.
That doesnt change the fact that almsost every worker in other part of the world deserve more than the common worker in a "rich zone"
But people usually dont care, they build walls for that, and they'll keep puting a highee price to a coffee in a rich zone.
And talking from their laptop about other cold hearts while people die because of hunger.

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!

Ethics is ultimately about emotion.

Distance matters. People forge social distances where spatial difference are not present.
Thus millions of people find it easy to ignore starving children in other countries. In their own countries, they use family, class, race and notions of entitlement to sever the connection between themselves and those less fortunate than themselves.

It is easy to be devoid of feeling from distant people

Hobbes Choice wrote:
It is easy to be devoid of feeling from distant people

There is indeed some correlation between emotional distance and geographical distance
Even moreso when one cannot identify any common link between themselves and others

What human action isn't ultimately about emotion? I want to live ultimately because of emotion.
Also, being stupid is important in how many differences you see with others.
And, we've begun to talk about differences, I like that

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!

Having one cent more than I need while I sit here and allow others to die is totally and utterly unethical, and repulsive.

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. Thinking/believing we need money to live is also an attempt to justify the wrong and abusive behaviors we commit on each other, 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 can in the very short time we are here, we need to make up distorted and "justifying" thoughts and thinking while we do the unthinkable like neglect children and even allow some to die.

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!

Are you only talking in terms of money? Does how much income you get have anything to do with this? (which normally isn't looked upon as wealth) How does taxation figure into this?

PhilX

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. Human beings have
not survived for millions of years because homo sapiens have only existed for between 100 - 200 000 years

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.

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.

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.

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.


You are ridiculous.

"this has been bothering me for a while: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?"

Meh, if you wanna share, then share. If, like me, you don't wanna share, then don't share. Not seein' the conundrum.

'But, Henry, people starve while other people wallow in gold!'

Yep.

'But something must be done!'

Not really, no. The only real solution is to 'take' that gold and spread it around. I can't sanction such a thing, but -- hey -- if you think you gotta a shot, go for it. More likely you'll 'be' shot but that's your business.

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. Human beings have
not survived for millions of years because homo sapiens have only existed for between 100 - 200 000 years

Your objection is not relevant.
Money was only invented 2500 years ago.
Some items of exchange might have been around earlier, but no more than 10kbp was it a necessary part of life, and even then only in some places on earth.
Human species can be said to include more than just homo sapience, but even for AMHs money has played a significant part for only 5% of that time.
Thus Surreptitious' point is a valid one as far as it goes.

henry quirk wrote:"this has been bothering me for a while: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?"

Meh, if you wanna share, then share. If, like me, you don't wanna share, then don't share. Not seein' the conundrum.

'But, Henry, people starve while other people wallow in gold!'

Yep.

'But something must be done!'

Not really, no. The only real solution is to 'take' that gold and spread it around. I can't sanction such a thing, but -- hey -- if you think you gotta a shot, go for it. More likely you'll 'be' shot but that's your business.

The question was whether is was ethical, not is it a free choice regardless.
So if you were sitting on top of a mountain of food whilst a 100 people around you were starving, would you be acting ethically?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"this has been bothering me for a while: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?"

Meh, if you wanna share, then share. If, like me, you don't wanna share, then don't share. Not seein' the conundrum.

'But, Henry, people starve while other people wallow in gold!'

Yep.

'But something must be done!'

Not really, no. The only real solution is to 'take' that gold and spread it around. I can't sanction such a thing, but -- hey -- if you think you gotta a shot, go for it. More likely you'll 'be' shot but that's your business.

The question was whether is was ethical, not is it a free choice regardless.
So if you were sitting on top of a mountain of food whilst a 100 people around you were starving, would you be acting ethically?

I thought you didn't like that kind of hypothesis. What if all that 100 people were murderes? what if all of them have 1 second left of life cause they are all ill or they all or old? What if you have that food for a whole month cause you save it but they decided to it their food more quick? Etc etc.

TSBU wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"this has been bothering me for a while: How much wealth is it ethical to have when the person next to you does not even have enough to eat?"

Meh, if you wanna share, then share. If, like me, you don't wanna share, then don't share. Not seein' the conundrum.

'But, Henry, people starve while other people wallow in gold!'

Yep.

'But something must be done!'

Not really, no. The only real solution is to 'take' that gold and spread it around. I can't sanction such a thing, but -- hey -- if you think you gotta a shot, go for it. More likely you'll 'be' shot but that's your business.

The question was whether is was ethical, not is it a free choice regardless.
So if you were sitting on top of a mountain of food whilst a 100 people around you were starving, would you be acting ethically?

I thought you didn't like that kind of hypothesis. What if all that 100 people were murderes? what if all of them have 1 second left of life cause they are all ill or they all or old? What if you have that food for a whole month cause you save it but they decided to it their food more quick? Etc etc.

Why would you think that? BTW I think you mean hypothetical.
I only asked quirkey because he always childishly blows off all ethical issues in the same way.

if you are that worried about your hungry neighbor, become soylent green

-Imp