What Do We Owe to Others?

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
^ Cool story bro. JK, don’t want to be a dick.

You guys are truly missing the point. Unless you are a nihilist who thinks there’s no reason for anything, then we can think along these lines: Do we have a moral duty to help others?

NOT do we legally have to. NOT the logistics and difficulties in mandatory help. NONE of that. Just the simple, simple, simple question of whether or not we have a moral duty to help others.

My god sometimes I feel like shooting myself in the face after reading pages upon pages of ppl completely missing the point. sweet mother of pearl. [/quote]

You are missing the point. Widely. You, I or anyone else have no moral or ethical obligation to some amorphous “mankind.” If someone tells you otherwise guard your wallet and put as much distance between them and yourself as possible.

The one exception to this is I owe you to right to exist without physical coercion on my part. In other words, you should be able to live without being bullied, beaten or stole from. I would probably concede that if I were to witness such action being taken against you that I would have a moral and ethical responsibility to help or defend you to some point short of the sacrifice of my life.

A clarifying distinction to note is that I consider children to be an extension of ones self until they are of age and ability to defend and provide for themselves. You owe them any and all consideration you would allow yourself.

And yes, altruism is the worst thing ever. The sacrifice or nullification of a greater good or value to a lesser good or value is as good of a definition of evil as I need.

Now, what I chose to do with my own wealth or labor or both after I have taken care of the basic necessities of life are up to me and my own value structure. Anyone who thinks they can better allocate my wealth or labor and are willing to do so can only do so with force. In doing so their value structures are negated.

Your graduate instructor is an evil fuck and it would be to the betterment of humanity that he have an aneurism and die in his sleep. (just kidding, but not really) He will never be more than a leech or an anchor on the ass of society as long as he continues to think and regurgitate such nonsense, especially to impressionable youth such as yourself.

The legend of Robin Hood had to be a creation of the devil himself. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a guaranteed method to eventually make everyone poor (except Robin Hood, of course.)

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
^ Cool story bro. JK, don’t want to be a dick.

You guys are truly missing the point. Unless you are a nihilist who thinks there’s no reason for anything, then we can think along these lines: Do we have a moral duty to help others?

NOT do we legally have to. NOT the logistics and difficulties in mandatory help. NONE of that. Just the simple, simple, simple question of whether or not we have a moral duty to help others.

My god sometimes I feel like shooting myself in the face after reading pages upon pages of ppl completely missing the point. sweet mother of pearl. [/quote]

You are missing the point. Widely. You, I or anyone else have no moral or ethical obligation to some amorphous “mankind.” If someone tells you otherwise guard your wallet and put as much distance between them and yourself as possible.

The one exception to this is I owe you to right to exist without physical coercion on my part. In other words, you should be able to live without being bullied, beaten or stole from. I would probably concede that if I were to witness such action being taken against you that I would have a moral and ethical responsibility to help or defend you to some point short of the sacrifice of my life.

A clarifying distinction to note is that I consider children to be an extension of ones self until they are of age and ability to defend and provide for themselves. You owe them any and all consideration you would allow yourself.

And yes, altruism is the worst thing ever. The sacrifice or nullification of a greater good or value to a lesser good or value is as good of a definition of evil as I need.

Now, what I chose to do with my own wealth or labor or both after I have taken care of the basic necessities of life are up to me and my own value structure. Anyone who thinks they can better allocate my wealth or labor and are willing to do so can only do so with force. In doing so their value structures are negated.

Your graduate instructor is an evil fuck and it would be to the betterment of humanity that he have an aneurism and die in his sleep. (just kidding, but not really) He will never be more than a leech or an anchor on the ass of society as long as he continues to think and regurgitate such nonsense, especially to impressionable youth such as yourself.

The legend of Robin Hood had to be a creation of the devil himself. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a guaranteed method to eventually make everyone poor (except Robin Hood, of course.)

[/quote]

I always thought that Robin Hood stole from the rich who were rich by taxing the poor peasants for all they had. So wouldn’t he be giving the pesants back their rightful property??

Otherwise I agree with what you are saying

@ Fraggle: Thank you! Finally, somebody is addressing the question and furthering the point by making objections within the scope of the question!

I’ve been curious about this myself. Obviously the main thing is whether or not you think we have a moral duty to help others. If you do, then the real work comes out, ie how much to give, to whom, etc. Now, others have been denying the validity of moral obligations based on the difficulty of such distributions, etc, but that is not the point.

I haven’t really thought about a requirement so much.

I actually sat down with my GSI this afternoon and talked with him about all your guys’ objections (of course I dind’t mention that my opponents come from a BBing site lol). Anyway, he mentioned that moral duties are VERY DIFFERENT from laws. If you break a law, you go to jail. If you break a moral duty, you’re immoral. Morality doesn’t have the same literal weight and pull on us that law does.

His whole reason in writing a massive dissertation defending his stance that there IS a moral duty to help others leads to his conclusion that we should help others. Now, if we were to institutionalize this help (by taxing people and giving their money to charity), the only way we could justify creating such a law is if it were morally justified.

There are tons of laws that are or have been around that are very unjust. Slavery was okay at a certain time in this country. Does that make it right? No. (unless you’re a relativist). lol. Anyway, he gets more radical than I would. He thinks people should give way more than most would probably think, whereas I would instead say to give more but not quite as much.

He candidly stated to me, and I agree, that a lawyer who make 300k a year could drive a Toyota instead of a Lexus and give that money to people in need.

I can already hear you guys swarming and saying “But if you can’t enjoy the benefits of making money then you won’t work hard and society will be undermined.” blah blah.

Well, I think that this is a bluff. And if you choose your career solely based on income, good luck being miserable (most likely). Either way, the peopel who claim that the NEED their money to buy lavish shit and park it in a bank are 9/10 miserable. I know b/c I grew up with tons of friends whose parents were loaded to the gills. And guess what? They were miserable fuckers. It is clear that moeny doesn’t buy happiness. That’s a different piont, but one worth addressing.

Sure, money is great. Sure, economic comfort is a good thing. But reallly, need we take it so far as to deny others

And to address Jeaton, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You sound like you picked up a copy of Ayn Rand’s work and regurgitated some cool sounding lines. I’ve read her stuff. I like some of her stuff. But come on man, really? I mean, it’s fine to have your own opinions. Obviously. But are you telling me that you don’t owe ANYTHING to ANYONE? You were born into wealth (or at least NOT born into poverty, I assume) when you could have JUST as easily been born into horrifying poverty. You’re so fucking lucky that you weren’t born into a drug addicted family (I’m not talking about you personally, just ppl in general. You very well could be a 3 headed inbred freak), you weren’t born in the Congo, you weren’t born into sex slavery. And there are people who were born this way. So you’re saying that as a result of your luck, your chance birth into a priveledged existence, you can’t find ANY fucking reasons to help those who were born into suffering?

I get the Randian sentiments you’re trying to convey. I take what you’re saying to mean that if one is born into an extreme altruistic society, then they will be expected to do work for no reward. I’m not saying that. I’m not saying take every penny away from a rich man until he makes just as much as the milkman. I’m saying to give a bit more, and that it is morally dutiful to give.

Rand talks all about how altruism is the worst thing. Read We The Living. That’s kind of autobiographical. She clearly grew up in some of the worst communist conditions this planet has ever seen, so her worldview is obviously explainable as a result of what I just mentioned above (how nobody has an incentive to work, etc). Well, take her message, de-radicalize it, and think for yourself man.

Now, I think that if we just step back from our high horses, and our philosophical mumbo jumbo, and just think about others as human beings, then we see that we have a DUTY to help those in need. And even if you don’t agree, we still AT LEAST have a strong responsiblity to help those in need.

And guess what else? Helping others in need makes you feel good. So really, altruism is selfish. Sorry Rand. My charitable donations aren’t self sacrificing, they’re self interested. I feel good and become more productive and feel more satisfied when I help others through various means. I call this the paradox of altruism, and regardless of the implications, I still think altruisim is a good thing. Even if it is selfish.

And lastly, to the guy who said I think there shiould be more jobs but still agree with the Occupy Oakland movement. !. go fuck yourself. Just kidding, seriously. No, for real though, I hear what you’re saying. I think it is a bit counderproductive to jobs and economies to shut down the 5th largest port in the country. But, I also believe that if we DON’T challenge the status quo in fear of upsetting a few longshoreman’s jobs (who are supporting the cause BTW) then we are fucking stupid.

Look, I don’t know enough about economics and politics to really debate this with some smarter ppl here, but I will say this: The way thigns are going is NOT okay. I don’t know many who would disagree. Things are so ass-backwards in the world, in the county, in the cities, etc. When teachers have to buy books for their students, something has got to give. I think that a bunch of nonviolent protesters gathering and telling the “1%” or whatever that they’ve had enough is beyond good.

And to those who say that the protests are violent: They’re not. End of story. Of course all kinds of other groups have jumped on the bandwagon and tried to ride on the Occupy protest’s coattail, but those people are phonies and you can smell their agendas froma mile away. And of course a protest draws anarchists and all kinds of crazies who just want to throw some bottles at cops and scream fuck the pigs. those people are ruining it for everyone else. Thos people give ‘the man’ reason to tear gas innocent, civil protesters, and give people to dismiss the protest as a violent, unorgainized mess, which it is NOT>

In fact, 100,000 or more people peacefully marched to shut down the port. 100,000 people in peace is pretty impressive. Now, I have one friend who was arrested 2 nights ago at the protest and got out yesterday. He, and some other friends, were holding the police back from destroying one of the camps set up where people were sleeping and living. The police overpowered them and arrested one of my friends. One of my other friends was shot with a rubber bullet, and another was shot with a beanbag thing. Of course it’s understandable that the cops shoot at protestors from a psychological standpoint. They’re probably scared shitless seeing thousands of people chating, but that doesn’t make it okay for them to do what they’ve been doing.

Anyway, “It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”

I think the biggest problem with people my age is the lack of desire to pursue change. People these days just accept the status quo. The only reason that the corrupt and unjust get away with the things they do is because WE LET THEM. Hopefully this starts a trend of stopping unjust activiies. People my age figure that someone else will do it. NO. If you believe in something, get out of your house and stand for it.

In my case, I live about 15 minutes from the main protest site. How can I believe in the cause and NOT go down there to show my support? Now, I don’t believe in violence per se, and therefore I’m not going to scream fuck the police and get teargassed, hopefully lol. But I am going to bring bandanas and vinegar just in case :slight_smile:

I guess I’ve gotten WAY off track here. But I really want to say to all of you guys (who are very smart and who are hopefully already doing things) that if you want change in anything, be it physical change, political change, etc, go out and do something. It’s easy to sit behind a book and say that somebody better qualified will do something, but don’t fall into that trap. Revive the spirit of protest that this country was founded on and that brought this country from a slave state to a demoncratic society that is better than most other countries.

You seem like a good guy. I’m curious who the protesters have voted for in the recent election and who they intend on voting for next November. If people really truly want change, we need to vote people into power who have integrity and empathy for the people they represent. Unfortunately, the majority of people can name the cast of jersey shore or the last 3 winners of American idol and probably don’t even know who their congressman or representative is. These people, if they vote at all, just vote for whoever seems likeable who look and sound good on tv. in a nutshell, we are basically fucked and have ourselves to blame.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
NOT do we legally have to. NOT the logistics and difficulties in mandatory help. NONE of that. Just the simple, simple, simple question of whether or not we have a moral duty to help others.
[/quote]

“Moral duty”

Which moral code?

The discussion and your premise (or your lecturer’s premise) is meaningless unless this defined. Not everyone in the world, or in the US, or in a state, or in a city, or in a neighborhood for that matter abides by the same ‘moral code’.

SteelyD, I agree. A lot of people say that morality is relative to the culture, person, situation, etc. I don’t like that view, because it’s a copout that leaves too much open.

I think that morality, and moral duty necessarily, should hold true for every person, from me to the starving kid in Africa. That’s why it’s so hard for ethical theories to make a system that holds constant among all people.

Anyway, moral duties aren’t equivalent to laws Steely. A law holds your freedom and liberty above you. If you break a law you go to jail (hypothetically). Moral duties on the other hand are rather things that you have to do to be moral. Nobody is going to arrest you for not being moral.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:

And to address Jeaton, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You sound like you picked up a copy of Ayn Rand’s work and regurgitated some cool sounding lines. I’ve read her stuff. I like some of her stuff. But come on man, really? I mean, it’s fine to have your own opinions. Obviously. But are you telling me that you don’t owe ANYTHING to ANYONE? You were born into wealth (or at least NOT born into poverty, I assume) when you could have JUST as easily been born into horrifying poverty. You’re so fucking lucky that you weren’t born into a drug addicted family (I’m not talking about you personally, just ppl in general. You very well could be a 3 headed inbred freak), you weren’t born in the Congo, you weren’t born into sex slavery. And there are people who were born this way. So you’re saying that as a result of your luck, your chance birth into a priveledged existence, you can’t find ANY fucking reasons to help those who were born into suffering?

I get the Randian sentiments you’re trying to convey. I take what you’re saying to mean that if one is born into an extreme altruistic society, then they will be expected to do work for no reward. I’m not saying that. I’m not saying take every penny away from a rich man until he makes just as much as the milkman. I’m saying to give a bit more, and that it is morally dutiful to give.

Rand talks all about how altruism is the worst thing. Read We The Living. That’s kind of autobiographical. She clearly grew up in some of the worst communist conditions this planet has ever seen, so her worldview is obviously explainable as a result of what I just mentioned above (how nobody has an incentive to work, etc). Well, take her message, de-radicalize it, and think for yourself man.

Now, I think that if we just step back from our high horses, and our philosophical mumbo jumbo, and just think about others as human beings, then we see that we have a DUTY to help those in need. And even if you don’t agree, we still AT LEAST have a strong responsiblity to help those in need.

And guess what else? Helping others in need makes you feel good. So really, altruism is selfish. Sorry Rand. My charitable donations aren’t self sacrificing, they’re self interested. I feel good and become more productive and feel more satisfied when I help others through various means. I call this the paradox of altruism, and regardless of the implications, I still think altruisim is a good thing. Even if it is selfish.

And lastly, to the guy who said I think there shiould be more jobs but still agree with the Occupy Oakland movement. !. go fuck yourself. Just kidding, seriously. No, for real though, I hear what you’re saying. I think it is a bit counderproductive to jobs and economies to shut down the 5th largest port in the country. But, I also believe that if we DON’T challenge the status quo in fear of upsetting a few longshoreman’s jobs (who are supporting the cause BTW) then we are fucking stupid.

Look, I don’t know enough about economics and politics to really debate this with some smarter ppl here, but I will say this: The way thigns are going is NOT okay. I don’t know many who would disagree. Things are so ass-backwards in the world, in the county, in the cities, etc. When teachers have to buy books for their students, something has got to give. I think that a bunch of nonviolent protesters gathering and telling the “1%” or whatever that they’ve had enough is beyond good.

And to those who say that the protests are violent: They’re not. End of story. Of course all kinds of other groups have jumped on the bandwagon and tried to ride on the Occupy protest’s coattail, but those people are phonies and you can smell their agendas froma mile away. And of course a protest draws anarchists and all kinds of crazies who just want to throw some bottles at cops and scream fuck the pigs. those people are ruining it for everyone else. Thos people give ‘the man’ reason to tear gas innocent, civil protesters, and give people to dismiss the protest as a violent, unorgainized mess, which it is NOT>

In fact, 100,000 or more people peacefully marched to shut down the port. 100,000 people in peace is pretty impressive. Now, I have one friend who was arrested 2 nights ago at the protest and got out yesterday. He, and some other friends, were holding the police back from destroying one of the camps set up where people were sleeping and living. The police overpowered them and arrested one of my friends. One of my other friends was shot with a rubber bullet, and another was shot with a beanbag thing. Of course it’s understandable that the cops shoot at protestors from a psychological standpoint. They’re probably scared shitless seeing thousands of people chating, but that doesn’t make it okay for them to do what they’ve been doing.

Anyway, “It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”

I think the biggest problem with people my age is the lack of desire to pursue change. People these days just accept the status quo. The only reason that the corrupt and unjust get away with the things they do is because WE LET THEM. Hopefully this starts a trend of stopping unjust activiies. People my age figure that someone else will do it. NO. If you believe in something, get out of your house and stand for it.

In my case, I live about 15 minutes from the main protest site. How can I believe in the cause and NOT go down there to show my support? Now, I don’t believe in violence per se, and therefore I’m not going to scream fuck the police and get teargassed, hopefully lol. But I am going to bring bandanas and vinegar just in case :slight_smile:

I guess I’ve gotten WAY off track here. But I really want to say to all of you guys (who are very smart and who are hopefully already doing things) that if you want change in anything, be it physical change, political change, etc, go out and do something. It’s easy to sit behind a book and say that somebody better qualified will do something, but don’t fall into that trap. Revive the spirit of protest that this country was founded on and that brought this country from a slave state to a demoncratic society that is better than most other countries.
[/quote]

You may be too far off the reservation to save. I do not really have the time at the moment to attempt it. But for a few quick moments.

You have no fucking idea who, what, or the conditions related to my birth and childhood. I promise you they were far different than yours.

The amount of help I have given to those in need and who I believed were worth the investment would probably be staggering to most people like yourself. But I never did it with notice, announcement or fanfare. And I never did it out of guilt or pity. And frankly, the larger percentage turned out to be wasted. But some wasn’t and in the end it was worth it for me.

But ultimately it was I who decided what, when and how it was to be given. It is the complete moral degenerates such as your GSI who cannot be bothered with the going out and making the money, jobs, and opportunities that would lay the groundwork for such things to take place. No, it is they who in their intellectual ivory towers have decided they are above the grunt work of creation and are better suited to the high ground of allocation and redistribution.

BTW, you would be surprised to discover that I support the occupy movement, not for what it is but for what I believe it has the potential to become. Eyes are being opened. The curtain is slowly being pulled back. Your GSI will never see the little man behind the curtain. He is too far gone. He is a cog in the machine. There is a very slight chance though that you may see the light. I am doubtful, but hopeful.

I’m not sure what you’re saying dogg. Srs.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
^ Cool story bro. JK, don’t want to be a dick.

You guys are truly missing the point. Unless you are a nihilist who thinks there’s no reason for anything, then we can think along these lines: Do we have a moral duty to help others?

NOT do we legally have to. NOT the logistics and difficulties in mandatory help. NONE of that. Just the simple, simple, simple question of whether or not we have a moral duty to help others.

My god sometimes I feel like shooting myself in the face after reading pages upon pages of ppl completely missing the point. sweet mother of pearl. [/quote]

But your ignaorance is that you think taxes for social programs truly helps others. It is immoral to take money from someone by threat of violence, ie taxes.

^ Not the point. I don’t necessarily agree that we should force taxes on people. I’m saying that we have a moral duty to help others. How that is done is another question for another thread. PS I like your dawg.

Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?

How about instead of taxing the rich, the government taxes everyone the same, low percentage. However, if someone give their money away in a method that saves lives, this tax is reduced slightly for them.

Oh wait. We already do this. That’s one way most of our giant corporations avoid paying taxes. It turns out there are many reasons the largest corporations have some of the largest philanthropic efforts.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Video-Why-IBM-Gives-to/125018/

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?

[/quote]
Mainly because it is not a valid comparison.

This is the same tired shit socialist drag out every time in an attempt at misdirection.

Members of a community deciding that a certain portion of their property taxes should be pooled in order to provide a resource that they may never need, i.e. fire dept., but justify as a valid shared expense has little opportunity to become a self serving bureaucracy that takes on a life of its own.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?

[/quote]
Mainly because it is not a valid comparison.

This is the same tired shit socialist drag out every time in an attempt at misdirection.

Members of a community deciding that a certain portion of their property taxes should be pooled in order to provide a resource that they may never need, i.e. fire dept., but justify as a valid shared expense has little opportunity to become a self serving bureaucracy that takes on a life of its own.

[/quote]

I think its a valid comparison. What do law enforcement, fire, and EMS have in common, that they are considered valid shared expenses?

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
NOT do we legally have to. NOT the logistics and difficulties in mandatory help. NONE of that. Just the simple, simple, simple question of whether or not we have a moral duty to help others.
[/quote]

“Moral duty”

Which moral code?

The discussion and your premise (or your lecturer’s premise) is meaningless unless this defined. Not everyone in the world, or in the US, or in a state, or in a city, or in a neighborhood for that matter abides by the same ‘moral code’.[/quote]

Dude, he’s talking about the moral code that he can steal my property to give it to others!

The question is: do you want to force people to hand over their money to a cause that you value?
Or do you want a system based on voluntary interaction?

Erasmus, you’re jumping to the next step. I think that IF you wanted to force ppl to make charitable contributions, you’d better damn well be morally justified. That’s my GSI’s point. But I don’t know if forcing ppl is the best answer. In fact, I lean towards it NOT being the best answer. I think forcing ppl to be charitable would leave ppl resentful and all chairty would be lost and it would take on a negative connotation.

I think, once again, that we have a moral duty to help those in need. I think that the next step in the discussion is whether or not we force ppl to help ppl in need, but as I’ve said, I’m not very qualified to talk about this. I just think we have that moral duty, which means that to be moral you must help those in need.

@ IronCross: I understand where you’re coming from on the philanthropy of corporations. I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard that GM (General Motors) has an entire office building full of ppl who work only on saving their company from paying taxes. I heard there’s around 800 employees, and that’s why they barely pay any taxes. If that’s true, that’s fucked up.

Anwyay, back to your point. I think that my argument about the moral duty to help others kind of implies my viewpoint. I also think that it makes more sense to tax a bit higher on the rich than the poor. I just have that gut feeling. Again, I really don’t know much about economics. I also know that new ideas, such as Cain’s 999 plan, will put a huge burden on low income people. I just think that the rich people are the ones who don’t feel the burden of slightly higher taxes, whereas somebody making 20,000 a year WILL. That’s just my uneducated analysis, lol.

Ok, 80% tax rate on the rich. What is ‘rich,’ again?

[quote]Erasmus wrote:
The question is: do you want to force people to hand over their money to a cause that you value?
Or do you want a system based on voluntary interaction?[/quote]

You’re forced to pay for police officers, fire fighters, and EMS. You’re forced to pay for the services of everyone who works for the state and federal governments. And you’re given no choice in the matter.

Is this not theft?

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Anwyay, back to your point. I think that my argument about the moral duty to help others kind of implies my viewpoint. I also think that it makes more sense to tax a bit higher on the rich than the poor. I just have that gut feeling. Again, I really don’t know much about economics. I also know that new ideas, such as Cain’s 999 plan, will put a huge burden on low income people. I just think that the rich people are the ones who don’t feel the burden of slightly higher taxes, whereas somebody making 20,000 a year WILL. That’s just my uneducated analysis, lol. [/quote]

I agree. It baffles me that people go all bleeding heart for the poor millionaire who makes 2 million a year and gets taxed 500,000 - poor bastard has to find some way to scrape by on 1.5 million a year. And they want to compare it to someone making 20,000 being taxed 5,000 a year (cause, its like, the same percent!)… except that the 5 grand from the poor guy actually means he can’t make rent or buy food, and the 500 grand from the rich guy means he can’t… buy a seventh house?

Don’t get me wrong. Smaller government is better. The government needing/taking/using less money is better. But, please dont try to tell me taxing the poor and the rich at the same percent is somehow “fair” or makes any kind of sense at all.