What Do We Owe to Others?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

When was this time? The 60s? The 50s? The 30s?

I agree that many were (are?) embarrassed to need help. But I think lazy bums were always with us. I guess you are arguing that those numbers are growing. In pure numbers that may be true, but I’m not sure about in percentages.

62

[quote]challer1 wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yeah, Kiva seems really good too…I haven’t used them (yet) though. I’ve heard lots of good things about them.

63

[quote]kamui wrote:

This is the main problem, imo.

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

[/quote]

Ah, but what if the shifting demographics were in part caused by state enforced “charity”?

64

[quote]
Ah, but what if the shifting demographics were in part caused by state enforced “charity”?[/quote]

Yes, “what if ?”.

if it happened, it happened.
(and i would agree it actually happened. “in part” being the important words here.

Now what ?
We get rid of “state enforced “charity”” ?

65

[quote]kamui wrote:

It all breaks down, gets a little bit bloody and in the end people will not trust government for generations.

Their great grand kids will have it all forgotten and then we start all over again.

66

oh, i see.
A reset. (and a bloody one at that).

Quid erat demonstrandum.

67

[quote]kamui wrote:
oh, i see.
A reset. (and a bloody one at that).

Quid erat demonstrandum.

[/quote]

Sure, but if government somehow escapes the breakdown for another ten years or so by expropriating people it will only be more bloody and we will have a lot less to build on once the dust settles.

Better to get it over with.

68

You guys are doing what I was hoping you would not do. You’re all arguing with me on the basis that the government couldn’t efficiently distribute the money, etc…I’m NOT talking about the how’s, but rather the mroal perspective. Leave the how’s to a different thread.

I’m agreeing with ThunderBolt BTW. Give the help to the ppl who can not, not the ppl who will not.

And BTW, who in this thread has a job that is so rock-solid that they CANNOT be fired/laid off? What happens when you can’t pay rent, are evicted, and homeless? This happens to ppl like us all the time. Just b/c you have a job doesn’t guarantee you can’t be on the streets. Then, my guess is you’d want help. Everybody in this country w/ money is on their high horse about how they work so hard, blah blah fucking blah. What about hleping others in need? You honestly don’t think we have a moral obligation to help ppl who CANNOT (not will not) help themselves? You can sit there eating your food and living under a roof and putting money into the bank and not give a flying fuck about the ppl who are dying across the streets? I don’t get what is wrong with people.

PS I live right down the street from the Occupy Oakland thing, and I’m really glad that it’s going on. If I didn’t have class, and shit to turn in, I’d be there. Last night the protestors shut down the Port of Oakland. Sometimes a little civil disobedience is just what we need. But that’s beyond the scope of this thread.

PS you guys make me sick hahaha JK but seriously

69

Me.

70

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
You guys are doing what I was hoping you would not do. You’re all arguing with me on the basis that the government couldn’t efficiently distribute the money, etc…I’m NOT talking about the how’s, but rather the mroal perspective. Leave the how’s to a different thread.

I’m agreeing with ThunderBolt BTW. Give the help to the ppl who can not, not the ppl who will not.

And BTW, who in this thread has a job that is so rock-solid that they CANNOT be fired/laid off? What happens when you can’t pay rent, are evicted, and homeless? This happens to ppl like us all the time. Just b/c you have a job doesn’t guarantee you can’t be on the streets. Then, my guess is you’d want help. Everybody in this country w/ money is on their high horse about how they work so hard, blah blah fucking blah. What about hleping others in need? You honestly don’t think we have a moral obligation to help ppl who CANNOT (not will not) help themselves? You can sit there eating your food and living under a roof and putting money into the bank and not give a flying fuck about the ppl who are dying across the streets? I don’t get what is wrong with people.

PS I live right down the street from the Occupy Oakland thing, and I’m really glad that it’s going on. If I didn’t have class, and shit to turn in, I’d be there. Last night the protestors shut down the Port of Oakland. Sometimes a little civil disobedience is just what we need. But that’s beyond the scope of this thread.

PS you guys make me sick hahaha JK but seriously[/quote]

Well, I have some money saved, I own the place I live in and if everything goes wrong I have at least 2 places where I would get a job immediately. The pay would suck though but whaddayougonnado?

It is called networking, saving and advanced planning and I highly recommend all three.

Then, I do not think that you can separate the issue who distributes the money from whether giving is a moral imperative or not because if you look what welfare and foreign aid has done to some people they would probably be better off without it.

Is it not true that if you postulate that there is a duty to help that you should make sure that you do more goof than harm with your “help”?

71

Orion, when I asked who has the rock solid job that ensures their future prosperity, I was speaking metaphorically, but that is good for you, seriously, more should learn from you.

and yes, I think we can separate the issue of who distributes the money and time from the moral issue.

And yes, I do think that you should make sure your help is doing more good than harm.

Let me get back to the main issue:

Do you think that we have a moral duty to help others? Why or why not.

72

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Orion, when I asked who has the rock solid job that ensures their future prosperity, I was speaking metaphorically, but that is good for you, seriously, more should learn from you.

and yes, I think we can separate the issue of who distributes the money and time from the moral issue.

And yes, I do think that you should make sure your help is doing more good than harm.

Let me get back to the main issue:

Do you think that we have a moral duty to help others? Why or why not. [/quote]

No, nobody has a moral claim on you just because you exist.

That would be a form of slavery.

73

I don’t view it that way. I view it as me having a moral duty to help others, not being born into a system in which someone else has a claim on me. I guess you can argue that they’re both the same, but I don’t look at it like that. (Think glass half full vs. half empty).

For the sake of interesting discussion, Orion: Would you save the baby from drowning?

74

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I don’t view it that way. I view it as me having a moral duty to help others, not being born into a system in which someone else has a claim on me. I guess you can argue that they’re both the same, but I don’t look at it like that. (Think glass half full vs. half empty).

For the sake of interesting discussion, Orion: Would you save the baby from drowning?
[/quote]

Yes, but I reject the notion that I have a moral duty to do so.

I would feel like a POS if I did not, but that is neither here nor there.

75

Well i guess I’m more radical then and argue your point further. That you ARE a POS if you don’t help those in need.

Like I’ve said over and over, how can you sit by and let ppl down the street die of hunger without doing a single thing about it? It seems that we fundamentally agree but are arguing over minutia. I assume you are charitable in your own ways. Great. We’re agreeing then!

PS what do you do for a living? I assume it’s something cool judging by your avatar lol.

76

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

When was this time? The 60s? The 50s? The 30s? [/quote]

Hard to say, but the 60s were the primary data point, unquestionably.

I agree that many were (are?) embarrassed to need help. But I think lazy bums were always with us. I guess you are arguing that those numbers are growing. In pure numbers that may be true, but I’m not sure about in percentages. [/quote]

I think the percentages have grown - exponentially - and precisely because of cultural norms and perceptions. A person is not culturally shamed for laziness like they used to be.

This is because, at least in part, of blame-shifting: if someone is in a bad way, the cultural presumption now is that it’s not their fault. This presumption can be refuted, but the presumption is that this person is the victim of some external force.

That wasn’t always the case. The presumption used to be the opposite: if you were in a bad way, the presumption was you had yourself to blame. That presumption could be overcome, of course, and often was, as bad things do happen to good people, but the presumption was quite different.

Also, there has been a huge change in status and attention rewards in society. Nowadays, the more problems you have, the more attention you get. So it “pays” from a cultural standpoint to be dysfunctional or loaded with problems. This encourages people to find ways to intentionally screw up their lives, or at a minimum, retain some version of “victim” status as much as possible.

That wasn’t always true. The old heroes were the strong, not the frail. You got attention and cultural status for having your act together, not for being dysfunctional.

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[
That wasn’t always true. The old heroes were the strong, not the frail. You got attention and cultural status for having your act together, not for being dysfunctional.[/quote]

This is true, the lazy are a growing percentage because we pay for them to procreate and make more lazy people.

The government is generous with our money when they know they are buying themselves more power with it through future generations of dependent serfs.

Where previously if it were you helping someone directly you were more frugal with your money and wanted to make sure they could then help themselves, not need you to keep supporting them.

And this is why the taxation and use of government for what should be charity is morally wrong and flawed.

78

[quote][quote][quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

When was this time? The 60s? The 50s? The 30s? [/quote]

Hard to say, but the 60s were the primary data point, unquestionably.[/quote]

I agree that many were (are?) embarrassed to need help. But I think lazy bums were always with us. I guess you are arguing that those numbers are growing. In pure numbers that may be true, but I’m not sure about in percentages. [/quote]

I think the percentages have grown - exponentially - [/quote]

Do you have any statistics? I’d enjoy reading about this.

[quote]and precisely because of cultural norms and perceptions. A person is not culturally shamed for laziness like they used to be.

This is because, at least in part, of blame-shifting: if someone is in a bad way, the cultural presumption now is that it’s not their fault. This presumption can be refuted, but the presumption is that this person is the victim of some external force.

That wasn’t always the case. The presumption used to be the opposite: if you were in a bad way, the presumption was you had yourself to blame. That presumption could be overcome, of course, and often was, as bad things do happen to good people, but the presumption was quite different.

Also, there has been a huge change in status and attention rewards in society. Nowadays, the more problems you have, the more attention you get. So it “pays” from a cultural standpoint to be dysfunctional or loaded with problems. This encourages people to find ways to intentionally screw up their lives, or at a minimum, retain some version of “victim” status as much as possible.

That wasn’t always true. The old heroes were the strong, not the frail. You got attention and cultural status for having your act together, not for being dysfunctional.[/quote]

Well I certainly agree with you about the need for heroes/role models.

79

This is all pretty good but you have to take in consideration what kind of world we live in. Just look at the replies in this thread, that HoustonGuy for example. Just by looking at a partial pic of his face you would know not to expect much from him. And the billions of people who wear some sort of stupid scarf on their head. How shall I put this, don’t expect them to be very conscious.

Now I would like someone to start a thread about the islamist attack on a french magazine who published drawings of mohammed the dumbass prophet.

80

[quote]
Now I would like someone to start a thread about the islamist attack on a french magazine who published drawings of mohammed the dumbass prophet.[/quote]

Done.