by SecondRateMind 226 Replies latest jw friends
why would you consider a rich man, who chooses not to give to charity, immoral?
It's quite simple, really. The rich man has more than he needs, and the starving have less than they need. Morality, in this scenario, is simply a matter of ensuring both have adequate for their needs.
Best wishes, 2RM
@SRM: No, in this case the rich man has what he needs to create new businesses or reinvest in current businesses. Or charity. Not both. Why is his choice immoral?
Funny that you consider being a communist as an insult given that is fundamentally the ideology that you are advocating.
I propose a simple, just, fair, equitable solution.
I'm going to assume that you understand the two basic approaches to fairness in human relations along with their respective strengths and weaknesses.
(For those who don't, the two approaches are rules based and outcome based. Those who subscribe to the former believe things are, "fair" when everyone abides by the same rules. Those who subscribe to the latter believe things are "fair" when everyone experiences the best possible outcome.)
Neither approach is perfect. Both have lead to serious miscarriages of justice and outright atrocities.
How would you avoid this?
There is no plan, there's just restating the problem and declaring it 'solved'
"How would I solve world starvation? By feeding everyone, duh! See, problem solved"
"How would I solve global poverty? By giving everyone money, duh! See, problem solved"
Obviously, there's an ever so slight gap in the reasoning in that there is no reasoning whatsoever - the "exactly how" part in particular may need more work. I by "more" I mean at least more than the 2 seconds thought that have been spent on it so far.
let us do this voluntarily, because we think it good and right and just. And, for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus - From the OP
According to SRM's OP eternal torment awaits those who fail to follow his economic plan - but it's all voluntary!
He still can't see the contradiction, despite it being pointed out again and again.
This is what 'faith' does to an otherwise intelligent mind.
According to SRM's OP eternal torment awaits those who fail to follow his economic plan - but it's all voluntary!
He still can't see the contradiction, despite it being pointed out again and again.
This is what 'faith' does to an otherwise intelligent mind.
Yep. Although the ‘otherwise intelligent mind’ part has yet to be determined in srm’s case.
This thread topic reminds me of the talks we used to hear at Kingdom Halls where the speaker goes on about the demeaning pursuit of material wealth and the greed of pleasure drawn out from materiel things where in its place one would be better off preaching door to door a vital message that can really save lives.
Yes live in poverty, dont pursue education and pioneer with the WTS's literature in hand.
Then the speaker would step down from the podium flash his expensive suit and drive off in his new Cadillac.
The pursuit of wealth which can aid are living experience and effectively aid in others should not be overly criticized for its shown that the wealthiest countries have the best living conditions for a better amount of the population and more aid to the poor in comparison to the poorest countries, longer life span too.
These countries (Scandinavian) that also spread around the wealth by way of socialized government sponsored programs create even better living conditions than rigid and unregulated capitalist countries . ie. United States
2RM It's quite simple, really. The rich man has more than he needs, and the starving have less than they need. Morality, in this scenario, is simply a matter of ensuring both have adequate for their needs.
It's not just simple, it's simplistic.
The poor man would be better served by education, a great business case, hard work and a loan, not a handout.
Why do you think multi billionaire philanthropists refuse to simply give their wealth away? It's because they know that simplistic ideas like yours don't work.
Your. Idea. Doesn't. Work.
It doesn't matter how long you bang on about it, how elaborately you state it or how many people you insult who point out your lack of logic and comprehension, it won't make an unworkable idea workable.
You keep telling people to reread the thread, so my advice to you is the same. Reread the thread. Open your ears. Think. Up your game. Learn. Your proposition is kindergarten level economics.
Interesting opinion piece from the seattle times (a very liberal writter in a liberal paper) that addresses some of this thread
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/after-14-years-ive-had-it-im-leaving-seattle/
