What Do We Owe to Others?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]kamui wrote:
Every MMORPG need a level and/or stuff reset from times to times, to allow newbies/casuals to compete with older players/hardcore gamers.

Maybe the USA mmorpg need such a reset too.

It’s pretty easy to achieve : 100% inheritance tax during a few years (20 years for example)

After all, these transfers distorts the free market. [/quote]

so life is an MMO? have you ever played an MMORPG? all you need to do is work hard, make the effort and when new content comes out, BAM! your equal…

now, lets apply this to life, I was born into a middle class family, i worked jobs every summer and during school, got through my BS with no debt, decided to get a masters (got paid for the research work) = no debt, I am now doing the same with a PhD… guess what, no debt. Now, I take what I learned, add in the fact I have computer skills older employees dont, bam, a good job that puts me equal with them…

Also, why should the government get 100% of the money my parents made when they die rather then me? they ALREADY paid taxes on it…

To the OP… the main question to ask yourself is this… is the federal government or private small local groups more efficient at using Your/My money to help people. Take the time to actually find out the % of your money that goes to the cause based on the level of burocracy… I’ll give you a hint… churches = 100% if thats what they choose to do, local govt 1 dollar for every 10, county 1 for every 100, state 1 for every 1000, federal is 1 for every 10,000 bucks… so, for the federal govt to supply that cheap drink packet, they will waste over 3k bucks… now, tell me whats better use of YOUR money…

42

[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s not about what you give, under compulsion or not. It’s about what you owe to others.
Not the same thing.

We understood your answer is “nothing, but i will give what i want, cheerfully”. Some of us still disagree. [/quote]

Mebbe, but that is only the beginning for you, now you need to make a point regarding what is owed, to whom, why, who can legitimately decide all that not knowing mine and everybody else’s circumstances.

Good luck!

43

DoubleDuce, I tried to make the point clear.

Guys, I’m not saying that money has to be taken via higher taxes, that’s just one way to enforce morality, which this guy’s dissertation was about. I’m extrapolating his point and saying that we have a moral duty to help others in need.

I’m not versed in politics or government infrastructure. I’m simply stating that we should help where we can.

And, I’m not saying that we should help people who are a burden. I specifically raised my hand while he was arguing his point and asked the same question as you DoubleDuce. I asked, “What about the freelaoders? Won’t this encourage free riders and promote laziness, etc?”

He responded that we don’t have the same moral obligations to a person who is in a bad state due to their own choices, such as drug addicts, lazy people, or people who embrace that sort of lifestyle. His argument is that we should help those in legitimate need.

@ everyone: I’m saying that we should MORALLY give more to others. I don’t mean to say that we have to be taxed more. I’m saying that people should voluntarily donate more.

The real argument in this thread is altruism vs. non-altruism. I think we have a duty to those in need. I respect the popular view (the one you are all taking), but I can’t morally justify it (at least for myself).

And lol, I’m not some college twat. I’ve worked hard jobs, I’ve worked 50 hour weeks, and I’ve supported myself at different times in my life. But yes, I understand why an older person with more problems and life experience would chalk this thread up as hippie bullshit haha.

And by god I am NOT a utilitarian. I think utilitarianism is one of the most dangerous moral systems

And lastly, the African children example is fine, but his argument (and I agree) is that we should help those in our own backyard. No doubt the kids in Africa are worse off than the poor here, but I’m saying that we should help the people we can in our own areas.

And guys, I think this is a problem with current ideologies. The seeming unwillingness fo pepole to help is frankly scary. I mean, is it REALLY so much to cut back a bit and help more, either with time or money? Honestly, are you people so valuable and SO important that you can’t cut back from luxuries (that we all take advantage of if we’re on this site more than likely) and give a bit more. Are you SO independent and unique that you cna’t help a suffering human?

I don’t think we’re born with a moral debt to those around us, but rather that we should give more.

And I’m not arguing it should be some ludicrous amount of giving either. In fact, a friend of mine was just shot by a rubber bullet in the Occupy Oakland riots 2 or 3 days ago (I live right around the corner). That’s drastic. I’m jjust saying to give more.

The idea of forcing taxes on people is my GSI’s point, namely that if something is morally justified than it is okay to make people do it. Like stopping slavery. Nobody wanted to (well, not nobody), but when people realized that it was morally right to stop it, they forced people to stop.

Cliffnotes: Everybody thinks they are too valuable and important to be bothered with those in need. If you worked hard, secured a good job, and plug away, I’m not saying you should be undermined and taken advantage of. I’m just saying that there are people who CAN"T get a job, becuase there aren’t enough jobs out there, they are a real victim of circumstances, etc.

Guys, I want you to all stop the internet gang up and truly think. Put yourselves away from your perspective and objectively think about your life if you are well off. No doubt you work hard. No doubt you have gotten where you are by doing the work. But, don’t you think that the people who are less fortunate by chance (not choice) deserve a little help. How could you justify buying a Lexus or parking your riches in a bank account where it will just be a number on paper instead of giving a fraction to those in need. How could you live with the suffering and hopelessness that’s going on all around us. People die of starvation and you can’t give 5% more out of your paychecks to help save lives, and creat a better world?

And please, no personal attacks. Like I said, I’ve had my fair share of ‘real world’ experiences, and I’m sure you guys are much more knowledgable, etc, but please let’s reserve that for some other time.

44

[quote]
so life is an MMO?[/quote]

I stopped reading here.
I won’t answer someone who doesn’t respect my inalienable right to liberally use poetic analogy.

I stopped reading here. (I always read your last sentence first, except when your post begins with “pish posh”)

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When you two are done quoting scripture regarding private charity, would you care to join us in the discussion about taxation and redistribution?[/quote]

Well, obviously this is the crux of the argument. And, the only argument a moral person can have against taxation and legislation for the poorest among us.

Actually, I think we had this discussion before, haven’t we? It came down to “efficiency” on your side and “scope” on mine, didn’t it? Perhaps I’m remembering someone else.

46

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
DoubleDuce, I tried to make the point clear.

Guys, I’m not saying that money has to be taken via higher taxes, that’s just one way to enforce morality, which this guy’s dissertation was about. I’m extrapolating his point and saying that we have a moral duty to help others in need.

I’m not versed in politics or government infrastructure. I’m simply stating that we should help where we can.

And, I’m not saying that we should help people who are a burden. I specifically raised my hand while he was arguing his point and asked the same question as you DoubleDuce. I asked, “What about the freelaoders? Won’t this encourage free riders and promote laziness, etc?”

He responded that we don’t have the same moral obligations to a person who is in a bad state due to their own choices, such as drug addicts, lazy people, or people who embrace that sort of lifestyle. His argument is that we should help those in legitimate need.

@ everyone: I’m saying that we should MORALLY give more to others. I don’t mean to say that we have to be taxed more. I’m saying that people should voluntarily donate more.

The real argument in this thread is altruism vs. non-altruism. I think we have a duty to those in need. I respect the popular view (the one you are all taking), but I can’t morally justify it (at least for myself).

And lol, I’m not some college twat. I’ve worked hard jobs, I’ve worked 50 hour weeks, and I’ve supported myself at different times in my life. But yes, I understand why an older person with more problems and life experience would chalk this thread up as hippie bullshit haha.

And by god I am NOT a utilitarian. I think utilitarianism is one of the most dangerous moral systems

And lastly, the African children example is fine, but his argument (and I agree) is that we should help those in our own backyard. No doubt the kids in Africa are worse off than the poor here, but I’m saying that we should help the people we can in our own areas.

And guys, I think this is a problem with current ideologies. The seeming unwillingness fo pepole to help is frankly scary. I mean, is it REALLY so much to cut back a bit and help more, either with time or money? Honestly, are you people so valuable and SO important that you can’t cut back from luxuries (that we all take advantage of if we’re on this site more than likely) and give a bit more. Are you SO independent and unique that you cna’t help a suffering human?

I don’t think we’re born with a moral debt to those around us, but rather that we should give more.

And I’m not arguing it should be some ludicrous amount of giving either. In fact, a friend of mine was just shot by a rubber bullet in the Occupy Oakland riots 2 or 3 days ago (I live right around the corner). That’s drastic. I’m jjust saying to give more.

The idea of forcing taxes on people is my GSI’s point, namely that if something is morally justified than it is okay to make people do it. Like stopping slavery. Nobody wanted to (well, not nobody), but when people realized that it was morally right to stop it, they forced people to stop.

Cliffnotes: Everybody thinks they are too valuable and important to be bothered with those in need. If you worked hard, secured a good job, and plug away, I’m not saying you should be undermined and taken advantage of. I’m just saying that there are people who CAN"T get a job, becuase there aren’t enough jobs out there, they are a real victim of circumstances, etc.

Guys, I want you to all stop the internet gang up and truly think. Put yourselves away from your perspective and objectively think about your life if you are well off. No doubt you work hard. No doubt you have gotten where you are by doing the work. But, don’t you think that the people who are less fortunate by chance (not choice) deserve a little help. How could you justify buying a Lexus or parking your riches in a bank account where it will just be a number on paper instead of giving a fraction to those in need. How could you live with the suffering and hopelessness that’s going on all around us. People die of starvation and you can’t give 5% more out of your paychecks to help save lives, and creat a better world?

And please, no personal attacks. Like I said, I’ve had my fair share of ‘real world’ experiences, and I’m sure you guys are much more knowledgable, etc, but please let’s reserve that for some other time. [/quote]

Well, maybe you should read up on altruism as envisioned by Auguste Comte, you will find out that Ran was not only not rambling, au contraire, she was spot on.

47

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
so life is an MMO?[/quote]

I stopped reading here.
I won’t answer someone who doesn’t respect my inalienable right to liberally use poetic analogy.

I stopped reading here. (I always read your last sentence first, except when your post begins with “pish posh”)[/quote]

Liar-

You would not know what they begin with if you would not have read them.

Also, I had so laid off the pish posh and now I feel the itch again.

48

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When you two are done quoting scripture regarding private charity, would you care to join us in the discussion about taxation and redistribution?[/quote]

Well, obviously this is the crux of the argument. And, the only argument a moral person can have against taxation and legislation for the poorest among us.

Actually, I think we had this discussion before, haven’t we? It came down to “efficiency” on your side and “scope” on mine, didn’t it? Perhaps I’m remembering someone else. [/quote]

Honestly, I can’t keep track anymore. The danger of making a moral case for taxation and redistribution is, how much? Am I more moral than you suggesting that a roof, electricity, and basic groceries are more than enough? That everything else should be confiscated and divided up for ‘charity?’ Is it moral to create ‘charitable’ programs that ARE going to bankrupt future generations who had no say in their creation or administration? As it is, we’re most likely ruined. The burden of future entitlement programs compounded by shifting demographics has destroyed us. I say has because those demographics have , most likely, already driven us past the exit.

49

[quote]kamui wrote:

and if you had kept reading you would have seen that I liberally owned your poetic use of an analogy…

50

This is the main problem, imo.

without this shifting demographics, the very same burden would feel much lighter.

51

Eh, there are a lot of dangers, I think. As far as changing demographics and the need to “fix” the problems, I think we more or less agree. 'Cept I’m not as doom and gloom about it. Where were we on that? Raise taxes and cut benefits at the same time, wasn’t it?

52

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Cliffnotes: Everybody thinks they are too valuable and important to be bothered with those in need. If you worked hard, secured a good job, and plug away, I’m not saying you should be undermined and taken advantage of. I’m just saying that there are people who CAN"T get a job, becuase there aren’t enough jobs out there, they are a real victim of circumstances, etc.
[/quote]

Cliffnotes: Giving is not sustainable from an economic standpoint. We know this from the way foreign aid and even charitable donations have completely crippled African nations. End of story.

If you want to make a difference in your own backyard, you need to effect change. Don’t just give away money. Sign up to be a mentor in your nearest city if you want to actually do something meaningful.

53

[quote]challer1 wrote:

Cliffnotes: Giving is not sustainable from an economic standpoint. We know this from the way foreign aid and even charitable donations have completely crippled African nations. End of story.[/quote]

Not so sure about that one. This is a good book though, if interested in the topic.

This is a good point.

54

[quote]kamui wrote:

This is the main problem, imo.

without this shifting demographics, the very same burden would feel much lighter.

[/quote]

Yep. And it’s going to get a whole lot heavier. Even Obama has recognized that by 2025 we’ll be servicing the debt, and meeting entitlement obligations. Nothing else. No military, no infrastructure. Nothing. Everything else will have to come from borrowing. In that situation just how much does anyone think we’ll be able to borrow? And it only continues to get worse from there…

We may not be serious about austerity now, but austerity will get serious–deadly serious–with us in the not so distant future.

55

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Eh, there are a lot of dangers, I think. As far as changing demographics and the need to “fix” the problems, I think we more or less agree. 'Cept I’m not as doom and gloom about it. Where were we on that? Raise taxes and cut benefits at the same time, wasn’t it?[/quote]

In the end I do agree, it will have to be both.

56

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:

Cliffnotes: Giving is not sustainable from an economic standpoint. We know this from the way foreign aid and even charitable donations have completely crippled African nations. End of story.[/quote]

Not so sure about that one. This is a good book though, if interested in the topic.

[/quote]

I’m pretty sure about it - the proof is in the pudding:

“Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population – over 350 million people – live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.”

57

Indeed.
And obviously, both spending cuts and tax raises will be required.
Both WILL happens.
it’s only a matter of time.

If we don’t start to do it now, our grandchildren will do it later. But not without making us pay in the process.

If i had to choose i would prefer to pay with (tax) money rather than blood. But to each their own.

Anyway, being dogmatic now (one side or the other) is suicidally stupid.

58

[quote]challer1 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:

Cliffnotes: Giving is not sustainable from an economic standpoint. We know this from the way foreign aid and even charitable donations have completely crippled African nations. End of story.[/quote]

Not so sure about that one. This is a good book though, if interested in the topic.

[/quote]

I’m pretty sure about it - the proof is in the pudding:

“Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population – over 350 million people – live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.”

A lot of smart people have come to the same conclusion you have. So you might be right. That said, once you start asking yourself where the money went, and why, you realize little was “for development.”

One guy who agrees with you, Easterly, was influential (or at least his ideas were) in setting up GlobalGiving.com a good place to check out to try to get to know where your money is really going.

59

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:

Cliffnotes: Giving is not sustainable from an economic standpoint. We know this from the way foreign aid and even charitable donations have completely crippled African nations. End of story.[/quote]

Not so sure about that one. This is a good book though, if interested in the topic.

[/quote]

I’m pretty sure about it - the proof is in the pudding:

“Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population – over 350 million people – live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.”

A lot of smart people have come to the same conclusion you have. So you might be right. That said, once you start asking yourself where the money went, and why, you realize little was “for development.”

One guy who agrees with you, Easterly, was influential (or at least his ideas were) in setting up GlobalGiving.com a good place to check out to try to get to know where your money is really going.
[/quote]

Well yes, I agree with that, which is why I like Kiva. It is practically self-sustaining and lets you lend micro loans directly to entrepreneurs in developing countries who otherwise would not be able to get a business loan. The interest rates loans provide most of the overhead for the organization.

They are actually big enough to have physical loan offices in said countries, and 99% of the time the loan is repaid within the terms and you can lend it to someone else.

60

Yes, I think we havea moral duty to help others to the extent that they cannot help themselves. It is always the duty of the strong to protect the weak.

But, my words are careful - to the extent they cannot, not will not.

One problem with this is that our culture has changed drastically, and that change has undermined our ability to fulfill that moral duty effectively - we once had a cultural “autopilot” mechanism that helped us focus on helping those who legitimately need: people actually were once embarrassed to take help and wanted to get out of a position of needing help as quickly as possible. People took pride in their independence and genuinely expected that help from others would be temporary.

That helped us prioritize who was really in need of private charity and/or government assistance, and it helped make sure that our efforts to help weren’t being taken advantage of by the lazy and irresponsible.

Now, not so much. And as a result, many have soured on fulfilling this moral duty. That’s a shame, but I can’t exactly blame them.