by SecondRateMind 226 Replies latest jw friends
No. One is free to believe what one wants to believe. One is free to think the injustice of this life demands a balancing justice in some after-life, or not, as one chooses. One is free to love, as widely and as deeply, as one prefers. None of this amounts to compulsion.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?
Yes, they are perfectly moral.
Now, if you please, will you answer my questions?
As I recall, I referred to a massive charitable exercise on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. By which, at the time, I meant by the rich, for the poor. But, I also think that a voluntary devestment of the assets of the rich would not do them any spiritual harm, and might even, come judgment day, do them some favours.
And we are back talking about capital investment. If the rich divest themselves of capital, and instead of putting it toward productive measures, gives it away for consumption only, then they are dooming our economy completely. Do you feel the rich would incur spiritual harm by causing millions more to starve?
Your a douche and you also fail at understanding the english language.
Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?
Yes, they are perfectly moral.
Then we have no common ground. If you would rather see people starve, than for the rich to become less rich, I have to wonder what your criteria far morality actually are.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Then we have no common ground. If you would rather see people starve, than for the rich to become less rich, I have to wonder what your criteria far morality actually are.
No SRM,
Read it again. If we eliminate capital investment, we starve. I am saying that your position will result in starvation. Free market capitalism is moral and results in actual prosperity. Your system would result in death. Why do you feel you hold the moral high ground?
So, if they starve, to the extent of 36 million per year, so the rich can be rich, its ok. But if we starve, it's not ok?
Free market capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It's just the default system of organising our economics. Maybe it is conducive to prosperity. But until that prosperity is equitably distributed, I will continue to be a critic.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Lol what crap. If you dont give away all your money you hate poor people and want to see them starve. Unforgivably stupid.
SRM believes his actions towards the poor will have consequences in terms of eternal rewards or punishment.
There is absolutely nothing voluntary about that.
It is impossible to have a sensible conversation about objective morality until you first exclude god-talk.
@SRM:
No, we all starve. You are going to have the same problem as the socialists - your economy will not be able to calculate resource usage. Nothing good will come of it.
And don’t mischaracterize me. Charity is perfectly moral.
My biggest contention with the OP is the idea that redistribution of wealth will help the poor. I lived through the aftermath of an agrarian reform which consisted of taking lands from the wealthy and distributing lots equally to the poor in a Latin American country. Unfortunately the poor did not possess the skill set or tools necessary to profit from these rich farmlands. The land was overworked and destroyed, the beautiful mansions on the lands were filled with farm animals and ruined. Guess what? The poor were still poor- just now they had some worthless land too.
A few years ago I saw a Peace Corps endeavor where some volunteers came and taught some marketing and small business skills to women who produced textiles in their small rural communities. The knowledge and training they were given allowed them to sustain themselves quite nicely long after the volunteers and their money had gone.
If you really want to help the poverty issue, there needs to be sharing of knowledge and skills- not wealth. This is why people who donate money to communities without offering any type of additional training or education only create dependence. Once the money runs out, that community is screwed. This is in the event that the funds even reach the people that need it. I also saw how regional leaders kept all the money that was given to people in their communities that needed the funds. I've seen clothing sold that was supposed to be given. The list goes on and on- corruption is real. It's important to look at results not good intentions.
I also have to say that there is a huge difference between being born poor in a country like the US and one that has caste like system that occurs in Latin America or India, for example. Poor people in those countries simply have very few opportunities to improve their situation - no matter how hard working they are. This is why endeavors that are led by people from within the community are better than those by foreigners with absolutely no concept of how things work and lack the cultural/historical knowledge needed who try to implement their idea of "help" without collaboration from the people themselves.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
