It is currently Mon May 29, 2017 3:09 pm

 49 posts • Page 1 of 1
Author Message
Rory
 Post subject: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:39 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 [MODNOTE] The following posts were split from the "Who is the king of the USA?" thread: topic1788.html [/MODNOTE]I bet if you polled all of the seriously rich people the majority of them are not philanthropists in a big way - you don't get rich by giving away money to causes with no prospect of reciprocation. So perhaps the self-made millionaires and billionaires will be more generous because they are more capable of empathising with those experiencing financial difficulties - more so than family money types. Also you have to look at the proportion of income or wealth dobated to charity e.g. a working class person who donates £1,000 per year of their £10,000 salary is more generous than a rich person who donates £1,000,000 of their £1,000,000,000 income - although the latter will receive more attention and public praise because the amount donated is greater even if the proportion (of income) donated is less when compared with the former. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Falconer360
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:12 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 970
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

 Rory wrote:I bet if you polled all of the seriously rich people the majority of them are not philanthropists in a big way - you don't get rich by giving away money to causes with no prospect of reciprocation. So perhaps the self-made millionaires and billionaires will be more generous because they are more capable of empathising with those experiencing financial difficulties - more so than family money types. Also you have to look at the proportion of income or wealth dobated to charity e.g. a working class person who donates £1,000 per year of their £10,000 salary is more generous than a rich person who donates £1,000,000 of their £1,000,000,000 income - although the latter will receive more attention and public praise because the amount donated is greater even if the proportion (of income) donated is less when compared with the former.A million dollars is still a million dollars. If the museum that I worked at was given a million dollars, I wouldn't care if that was 1/10 of the donor's income or 1/100 of it. It's still a kickass donation. As for who is really more generous, you do hit in on the head. But does that really matter to a charity or a non-profit? If you give the $1,000 donor more recognition than the$1,000,000 donor, then the millionaire will be less likely to give that much again. At least in the US, most charities and organizations have different levels of recognition for donors based on the amount that is given as an incentive to get wealthier contributors to donate even more. _________________"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:31 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 But by publically praising donors on the basis of the amount donated rather than the proportion of income donated you only give the rich ("kings of the USA") a further false sense of moral superiority which in turn breeds a false sense of entitlement. It's allowing one good to turn into one evil. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:40 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 This all seems nonsequitur and a bit like forcing ideological preconception to negate the net positive and public good being done. For what purpose, though? Having money does not ipso facto render one evil, no matter what percentage is/is not donated to charity. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:03 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Depends on the definition of evil - sometimes inaction is as harmful as negative action. To use an example cited on a Forum I once frequented - imagine that an innocent is tied to train tracks in such a way that they cannot escape, and suppose a train is guaranteed to run the person over in 15 minutes. You know about the situation and are available to assist the trapped person. So, do you help them? If you don't help them then despite it not being you who originally tied them down, you are responsible for that person's death. By way of analogy, the rich and powerful are responsible for the suffering of the impoverished if they do not provide assistance, because it is within their reach to provide practical financial help and also to overhaul the broken political and economic systems in the long term. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:14 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Rory wrote:Depends on the definition of evil I really don't think it does, but I respect your opinion on the matter all the same. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:43 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Of course it does - if you say 'being rich does not ipso facto render one [term]' then the accuracy of that statement will depend upon the meaning of the term - until you define the term it could mean anything, it could mean 'monied' (in which case the statement would be inaccurate). In cases of morality it does not make sense to make claims with reference to absolute truth so the most that you can say is that you disagree with my opinion that the absence of assistance from rich to poor represents a moral ill. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
scoobydoo1
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:37 am

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 196
Location: Singapore

 I think this line of discussion on morality is worthy of a thread of its own since it does not really tie into the OP.Rory wrote:Of course it does - if you say 'being rich does not ipso facto render one [term]' then the accuracy of that statement will depend upon the meaning of the term - until you define the term it could mean anything, it could mean 'monied' (in which case the statement would be inaccurate). In cases of morality it does not make sense to make claims with reference to absolute truth so the most that you can say is that you disagree with my opinion that the absence of assistance from rich to poor represents a moral ill.It is a stretch to argue that Amoral being Immoral, since the implications are that the mere awareness of plight confers responsibility onto those who receives the information. Car manufacturers are aware that automobiles are causing much mangled limbs, orphans, and deaths. Yet they continue to churn out their products. A two-pronged approach to this line of discussion is to determine where the responsibility for the plight resides, and whether the much hailed personal freedoms are the cause for such "evils"
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:28 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Responsibility lies first and foremost with those uniquely or exclusively in a position to provide assistance. For example, if I had just witnessed a hit-and-run RTA and there is nobody else around to help then it is my duty to attend to the victim and call for an ambulance. The impoverished generally are impotent when it comes to initiating socioeconomic change - as evidenced by the stubborn continuation of poverty. Mass union-led and civilian strikes and demonstrations may have some influence but those uniquely in a position to provide assistance are the rich and powerful - wealthy individuals, private companies, governments and politicians. The way in which they could help is to change our electoral system from FPTT to PR or to increase the minimum wage or improve working conditions. Most of them don't bother because it is not in their private interest to do so. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
scoobydoo1
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:01 am

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 196
Location: Singapore

 Rory wrote:Responsibility lies first and foremost with those uniquely or exclusively in a position to provide assistance. In a resource related situation, that remains contentious. Rory wrote:For example, if I had just witnessed a hit-and-run RTA and there is nobody else around to help then it is my duty to attend to the victim and call for an ambulance.For this specific example alone, I would agree. I concede that it may be my responsibility to call for an ambulance, and would go as far to say that I may be needed to attend to the victim myself till help arrives. Would it also be my responsibility pay for the medical expenses for the victim; simply because I am aware of his/her plight? Would I also be my responsibility to provide for the the families of the victim should he/she not survive; simply because I am aware of their plight? If the mere awareness of the plight of the less fortunate confers responsibility, every single man, woman, and child who chooses to spend money on things such as cinema tickets, a mocha latte, branded apparel, fruit branded cellular phones, and even toilet paper ought to withhold their "immoral" expenses and focus their resource (however plentiful or slight) on those who are less fortunate that themselves. Why build lavish skyscrapers, houses, and airport terminals when less - would have suffice? This is after all the point of this line of discussion isn't it? That I would be deemed immoral (opposed to amoral) because I am now "responsible" simply because I am aware, and that I now am no longer the allowed to choose where my resources are channeled to for whatever purpose I "used to" see fit, by way of knowledge of the plight of those who may be less fortunate than myself, and societies "branding" of whether I am "good or evil", moral or immoral, is what I value? So much for personal freedoms. * I think this off-topic topic would make for an interesting discussion (perhaps in the philosophy subforum?). Can we perhaps split it from the the "King" topic?
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:13 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Of course it would not be sensible to assist others to the extent that, as the giver, you become impoverished. That would not be solving the problem - only transferring it from one person to another. But the wealthy have the means to give in a way that does not significantly harm or change their own lifestyle for the worse but which does deliver substantial benefits for the impoverished. Ultimately it comes down to where you think social responsibility ought to begin and end. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
scoobydoo1
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:39 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 196
Location: Singapore

 Rory wrote:Of course it would not be sensible to assist others to the extent that, as the giver, you become impoverished. That would not be solving the problem - only transferring it from one person to another. That isn't the extent I was speaking of. Being deprived of "cinema tickets, a mocha latte, branded apparel, fruit branded cellular phones, and even toilet paper" (well perhaps not toilet paper) wouldn't render one impoverished. Although, all the monies spent on such things by every single person on the planet would significantly improve this lives of those less fortunate - wouldn't you agree? Any form of excess spending for goods and services beyond that of basic necessities would be by default considered evil and/or immoral by that standard. Rory wrote:But the wealthy have the means to give in a way that does not significantly harm or change their own lifestyle for the worse but which does deliver substantial benefits for the impoverished. Correct. You have written a factually correct and accurate statement, but did not conclude it.I have the means to give in a way that does not significantly impact my lifestyle and that also delivers benefits for those less fortunate. Therefore, I... ?Rory wrote:Ultimately it comes down to where you think social responsibility ought to begin and end.That is the question.
billvon
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:32 pm

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

 Rory wrote: But the wealthy have the means to give in a way that does not significantly harm or change their own lifestyle for the worse but which does deliver substantial benefits for the impoverished. And they do. About a quarter trillion dollars in philanthropy comes from US citizens every year, primarily from the wealthy.
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:02 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 scoobydoo1 wrote:I think this off-topic topic would make for an interesting discussion (perhaps in the philosophy subforum?). Can we perhaps split it from the the "King" topic?Agreed and done. Couldn't attend to it sooner due to a massively busy day at work. Cheers. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:21 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Rory wrote:Of course it does - if you say 'being rich does not ipso facto render one [term]' then the accuracy of that statement will depend upon the meaning of the term - until you define the term it could mean anything, it could mean 'monied' (in which case the statement would be inaccurate)So, you're using an uncommon definition of evil, one where an absence of charity or lack of philanthropy can be conflated with it? I cannot say I've ever seen evil described so loosely, but okay. To be clear, I think a quality argument can be made that those of means ought to do more to help those less fortunate, that this is the basis of a moral society rooted in group survival. We help each other, and those who can help more do. We have no quarrel there. The problem, of course, is where the boundaries get drawn and who gets to draw them? At what point does it transition from choosing a different approach than you would to full blown evil?"A wealthy man is simply one whose income is at least one hundred dollars more per year than the income of his wife's sister's husband." ~ H. L. Mencken _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:10 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor. That is the only possible place where wealth can be gained.To compliment those who do take advantage of those/us, when they return some of that gain is like thanking the thief who shops in your store after robbing you.So in terms of your question, I would think that yes, if one does not return some wealth back to those who provided it would be immoral.The absence of charity is evil.RegardsDL
Falconer360
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:25 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 970
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

 Rory wrote:Responsibility lies first and foremost with those uniquely or exclusively in a position to provide assistance. For example, if I had just witnessed a hit-and-run RTA and there is nobody else around to help then it is my duty to attend to the victim and call for an ambulance. I'm just going to play the asshole here and point out that in every first aid training I've had, they inform you that if you witness an accident or come upon one, you are only responsible to do what you feel comfortable doing. So you do not actually have to attend to the victim. You can simply call for an ambulance if you so choose to. Also in regards to your other posts, I agree with Inow that you are defining evil more loosely than normally. You also seem to frequently focus on the morality of a subject (in several threads), sometimes equating immorality with amorality. _________________"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:56 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Gnostic Bishop wrote:Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor.What about folks who inherit it, or win a lottery? What about people who work hard, maximize savings, and minimize expenditures? The problem with statements made in the absolute is they're always wrong... (do you see what I did there?)Gnostic Bishop wrote:So in terms of your question, I would think that yes, if one does not return some wealth back to those who provided it would be immoral.Define "some wealth." After all, everyone returns at least some percentage of what they earn through various taxes.Gnostic Bishop wrote:The absence of charity is evil.This strikes me as largely rubbish. A person is not the same as Hitler if they don't give a dollar to the guy standing on the street corner, and I think we all know that. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
billvon
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:43 pm

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

 Gnostic Bishop wrote:Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor. That is the only possible place where wealth can be gained.To compliment those who do take advantage of those/us, when they return some of that gain is like thanking the thief who shops in your store after robbing you.More like thanking the man who stopped to help you when you had a flat. Your company didn't have to give you a job - but they chose to do so, and you benefit from their decision.
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:11 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 Quote:iNow wrote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor.What about folks who inherit it, or win a lottery? What of them? They would not be included in my statement directly but their funds still originally came from someone or a company taking advantage of labor or markets. Quote:What about people who work hard, maximize savings, and minimize expenditures? They are taking advantage of their labor and the markets that help them to maximize savings, and minimize expenditures.Quote:The problem with statements made in the absolute is they're always wrong... (do you see what I did there?)Sigh.Where else other than markets and labor can wealth be generated?See what I did there?Quote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:So in terms of your question, I would think that yes, if one does not return some wealth back to those who provided it would be immoral.Thanks.Quote:Define "some wealth." After all, everyone returns at least some percentage of what they earn through various taxes.Enough so reverse the entrenchment and cast creating conditions spoken of in this clip.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0Quote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:The absence of charity is evil.This strikes me as largely rubbish. A person is not the same as Hitler if they don't give a dollar to the guy standing on the street corner, and I think we all know that.True but if one of the 1% passes by a poor man in his city and does not take the steps to eliminate those poor in his city, while sitting on the means that he can lose without causing him harm, then he is no better than Hitler.RegardsDL
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:17 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 billvon wrote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor. That is the only possible place where wealth can be gained.To compliment those who do take advantage of those/us, when they return some of that gain is like thanking the thief who shops in your store after robbing you.More like thanking the man who stopped to help you when you had a flat. Your company didn't have to give you a job - but they chose to do so, and you benefit from their decision.??Were you hired by any company at any time because they wanted you to profit?Or were you hired because they wanted to profit from whatever skill set you have?RegardsDL
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:06 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Billvon, Your argument rests on the assumption that employment is always beneficial for the employee. This is not always the case. There are people who work part time hours or on a zero hours contract at minimum wage who would be financially better off on the dole. Not to mention that most types of jobs that pay the minimum wage are excessively physically demanding and even damaging leading to premature death that is preceded by chronic health problems. And the work is generally not intellectually or emotionally fulfilling. Then the profits of that labour are fed up the economic food chain never to be seen again by the labourer. What is there to be grateful for? _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:24 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Gnostic Bishop wrote:True but if one of the 1% passes by a poor man in his city and does not take the steps to eliminate those poor in his city, while sitting on the means that he can lose without causing him harm, then he is no better than Hitler.Every poor person in the entire city? Which city are we talking about? That seems like a lot and like pretty poor financial advise in terms of ones own personal security. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:15 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 iNow wrote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:True but if one of the 1% passes by a poor man in his city and does not take the steps to eliminate those poor in his city, while sitting on the means that he can lose without causing him harm, then he is no better than Hitler.Every poor person in the entire city? Which city are we talking about? That seems like a lot and like pretty poor financial advise in terms of ones own personal security.That is why I qualified the answer. But yes, every poor in every city.The point is, and you have seen that graph showing the wealth distribution and how top heavy it is, that if the super rich in the West are so short on morals that they can walk over the poor and ignore them while sitting on their billions in disposable income, then they are not fit to be in the positions of power over us that they enjoy.If the rich West cannot walk its moral talk then we are not fit to demand that other less developed countries do more for human rights.RegardsDL
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:38 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 What you frame as an issue of morality, I view as an issue of economic policy that requires centralized action. We can implement policies that allow healthcare and food and housing to be available to all citizens and we can do so with only marginally higher taxes (and shifts of defense spending away from jets and carriers and tanks more toward tech and networks). We can implement training and jobs programs so people can earn for themselves and make infrastructure investments and offer subsidies for childcare while parents are away at work and improve education so we grow from the middle out and can sustain it in the long-term. These all strike me as a far more effective approaches than trying to guilt wealthier people into directly doing more for others with whom they share no particular kinship or giving handouts to everyone with standing at an intersection, and they all start with smart legislation from elected officials who are listening to the will of the masses and working toward the good of our children. I guess what I'm saying is this... Perhaps if you (and others) stop framing this as an attack on the rich as if you are a bunch of petulant teenagers and instead frame it as a mature discussion about potential ways to improve our collective futures then perhaps real progress could be made and the lives of millions improved. However, if you start by calling those who happen to have more money than you immoral or evil without knowing anything more about their character or circumstances then we get nowhere. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
kojax
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:49 am
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

 scoobydoo1 wrote:Rory wrote:Of course it would not be sensible to assist others to the extent that, as the giver, you become impoverished. That would not be solving the problem - only transferring it from one person to another. That isn't the extent I was speaking of. Being deprived of "cinema tickets, a mocha latte, branded apparel, fruit branded cellular phones, and even toilet paper" (well perhaps not toilet paper) wouldn't render one impoverished. Although, all the monies spent on such things by every single person on the planet would significantly improve this lives of those less fortunate - wouldn't you agree? Any form of excess spending for goods and services beyond that of basic necessities would be by default considered evil and/or immoral by that standard. n. Redistribution of wealth is not the same as redistribution of income. If you donate all your existing money to charity, that's just a once-off effect. Temporary, and the benefits will soon forgotten. What is needed if we want to reverse the trend toward consolidation is to redistribute the incomes. It needs to be continual. Worker wages need to go up. In effect, what is really happening right now is the rich are managing to pay themselves more and more, but pay the workers who work for them less and less. As things consolidate more and more, they gain "market power", which amplifies their ability to negotiate a lower and lower wage for the workers who serve them, which consolidates things further, which gives them more "market power."It's a feedback loop.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:12 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 The feedback loop cannot be sustained indefinitely - eventually workers, en masse, will suffer to such an extent that they prefer life on welfare and public services and the fabric of life as we know it will shut down. And/or there will be actual physical class warfare, rioting, looting, general anarchy and a failed irretrievable nation state. Taxation is one option but it makes no sense to tax the working poor further in order to redistribute those taxes among the working poor. Economic fortunes have polarised so significantly that taxation has to be increased on the wealthy if society is to survive. Luckily Labour are proposing just that, with: a mansion tax on properties above £2 million to fund the NHS, an end to the 'non-dom' rule, crackdown on hedge funds/multinationals who avoid corporate tax, and the 50p rate of taxation for high earners. Personally I used to give 50p-£1 per homeless person on the street and I would limit this to a maximum of twice daily. Since my financial position has become precarious I have stopped this but will restart it once I am in a better place financially. If I can afford to do that then the rich (millionaires) should be able to do that x 1,000. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:37 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 iNow wrote:What you frame as an issue of morality, I view as an issue of economic policy that requires centralized action. We can implement policies that allow healthcare and food and housing to be available to all citizens and we can do so with only marginally higher taxes (and shifts of defense spending away from jets and carriers and tanks more toward tech and networks). We can implement training and jobs programs so people can earn for themselves and make infrastructure investments and offer subsidies for childcare while parents are away at work and improve education so we grow from the middle out and can sustain it in the long-term. These all strike me as a far more effective approaches than trying to guilt wealthier people into directly doing more for others with whom they share no particular kinship or giving handouts to everyone with standing at an intersection, and they all start with smart legislation from elected officials who are listening to the will of the masses and working toward the good of our children. I guess what I'm saying is this... Perhaps if you (and others) stop framing this as an attack on the rich as if you are a bunch of petulant teenagers and instead frame it as a mature discussion about potential ways to improve our collective futures then perhaps real progress could be made and the lives of millions improved. However, if you start by calling those who happen to have more money than you immoral or evil without knowing anything more about their character or circumstances then we get nowhere.All good suggestions that would cost more in management than the return.Why not just a decent wage level that would do all you suggest without new government departments.You saw the huge discrepancy and inequality we live under thanks to the rich who are keeping the minimum wage as low as they can.Any who look ate that hockey stick graph on wealth should recognize how immoral the rich are and I think if more of us acted like petulant teenagers, the rich might recognize their immorality.RegardsDL
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:39 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 kojax wrote:scoobydoo1 wrote:Rory wrote:Of course it would not be sensible to assist others to the extent that, as the giver, you become impoverished. That would not be solving the problem - only transferring it from one person to another. That isn't the extent I was speaking of. Being deprived of "cinema tickets, a mocha latte, branded apparel, fruit branded cellular phones, and even toilet paper" (well perhaps not toilet paper) wouldn't render one impoverished. Although, all the monies spent on such things by every single person on the planet would significantly improve this lives of those less fortunate - wouldn't you agree? Any form of excess spending for goods and services beyond that of basic necessities would be by default considered evil and/or immoral by that standard. n. Redistribution of wealth is not the same as redistribution of income. If you donate all your existing money to charity, that's just a once-off effect. Temporary, and the benefits will soon forgotten. What is needed if we want to reverse the trend toward consolidation is to redistribute the incomes. It needs to be continual. Worker wages need to go up. In effect, what is really happening right now is the rich are managing to pay themselves more and more, but pay the workers who work for them less and less. As things consolidate more and more, they gain "market power", which amplifies their ability to negotiate a lower and lower wage for the workers who serve them, which consolidates things further, which gives them more "market power."It's a feedback loop.20/20RegardsDL
kojax
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:46 pm
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

 Rory wrote:The feedback loop cannot be sustained indefinitely - eventually workers, en masse, will suffer to such an extent that they prefer life on welfare and public services and the fabric of life as we know it will shut down. And/or there will be actual physical class warfare, rioting, looting, general anarchy and a failed irretrievable nation state.History doesn't really bear that prediction out. Or well, not all of it. In the middle ages, the peasant class lived essentially hand to mouth. It seems the feedback loop stopped at the point where the peasants would physically die if they were pushed to accept any lower a return on their labor. The nobility had to allow them enough for bare subsistence, or they'd lose their labor force.And rioting happened sometimes, but the riots were easily put down. The peasants didn't have access to effective weaponry. So, if you look at history, it appears we are headed toward another medieval era. That's where the feedback loop will likely terminate. It's already getting there in the USA. The largest expense most poor people face these days in the USA is rent. The landowners are becoming the new nobility - again.
scoobydoo1
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:46 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 196
Location: Singapore

 kojax wrote:Redistribution of wealth is not the same as redistribution of income. If you donate all your existing money to charity, that's just a once-off effect. Temporary, and the benefits will soon forgotten. What is needed if we want to reverse the trend toward consolidation is to redistribute the incomes. It needs to be continual. Worker wages need to go up. In effect, what is really happening right now is the rich are managing to pay themselves more and more, but pay the workers who work for them less and less. As things consolidate more and more, they gain "market power", which amplifies their ability to negotiate a lower and lower wage for the workers who serve them, which consolidates things further, which gives them more "market power."It's a feedback loop.Would you like to take a stab at the thread question? This being the philosophy subforum, the verdict of which hangs on the definition of evil being used here.Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:00 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_lawDo we need a rich class that is more intelligent in their expenditures or have all of us lost our common sense?What was that car worth in our latest speed movie? 4 million?The U.S. also had a law on how poor the rich could keep their surfs but I have lost the link.RegardsDL
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:20 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 To address the subthread title - you would first need to define 'evil' and then you would need to specify the parameters of 'charity'. Charity could be the donation of 5k from somebody earning 30k to somebody earning 20k or it could be the donation of £1 from a billionaire to a homeless person he passes on the street. I would not regard the former as evil for not engaging in this particular form of 'charity' because both have sufficient means of survival being well-salaried. I would regard the latter as immoral (I don't find the term 'evil' useful in this context) and especially if the incident were representative of their general response to the impoverished. My point is, it depends on context and extent. Is pink a good colour? It might be in the subtle hues of a blushing bride but not in the middle of a freshly cooked piece of fried chicken. I really don't know where I'm going with this _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
kojax
 Post subject: Re: Who is the King of the U.S.A.?  |  Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:32 am
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

 scoobydoo1 wrote:Would you like to take a stab at the thread question? This being the philosophy subforum, the verdict of which hangs on the definition of evil being used here.Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?Sure. Why not?I define evil as behavior which, if a person exhibits it, they thereby become my enemy. Taking out a gun and robbing me, for example, would make a person my enemy. Having a lot of something valuable and not giving it to me doesn't make a person my enemy. For example, if a beautiful woman refuses to date me on the basis that she thinks I am not handsome enough, that doesn't make her my enemy. I would basically be a creep if I thought of things that way. A rich person refusing to donate money to me also doesn't make them my enemy. If they hire punks to beat me up, that would make them my enemy. If they "black ball" me from an industry by using their influence to prevent businesses from hiring me, that might also make them my enemy. If they pollute the air so badly that I get cancer from the byproducts, that would also make them my enemy. But simply refusing to share doesn't.
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:42 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Thought we were discussing evil. When did enemies become a relevant variable? _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:08 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 kojax, Your definition of 'evil' fails to meet the contextual flexibility required by the question. The problem with the labels 'evil' and 'charity' is that they are static. If you are to judge the character of a person it makes sense to analyse as many of their thoughts, intentions, actions and inactions as you possibly can. As such an isolated event may be 'immoral', 'moral' or 'amoral' but alone it would not be sufficient to fairly judge a person's entire character. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
kojax
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:06 am
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

 What is the sense in which they are static?Do you mean evil in the Christian sense? That which defies the Christian code of morality? I guess the Bible is static. Or do you mean things which defy another code of morality? Do you mean that which is against the law? That which opposes an overlord like Ghengis Khan's personal code of conduct? That which defies your own code of conduct? That which defies my code of conduct?Surely you don't mean that which contradicts society's collectively agreed upon morals. There is no such thing. Society has quite a lot of disagreement within its self, about that topic.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:41 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1896

 Well, my own personal definition of evil would be, 'that which is characterised by the intention and/or deliberate implementation of acts (speech and actions) to inflict unnecessary suffering upon another - inluding the failure to intervene to alleviate the suffering of others where this is reasonably possible, and especially where one has a unique ability to do so.' My point about the term 'evil' being static is that, that is the nature of the common usage of the term. People tend to label actions or individuals as 'evil' in the absolute sense without considering the contextual variation under which those actions might take place or the variation of intentions, actions and inactions by any one individual. I still prefer the term 'immoral' to 'evil' because the latter is muddied in the public consciousness by the use of that term in Christianity to refer to extreme acts of violence including genocide. Also the former reminds us that there is a moral framework being used somewhere in the judgement equation - so any qualification of that judgement is only as good as the moral framework being used. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:15 am

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 kojax wrote:What is the sense in which they are static?Do you mean evil in the Christian sense? That which defies the Christian code of morality? I guess the Bible is static. Or do you mean things which defy another code of morality? Do you mean that which is against the law? That which opposes an overlord like Ghengis Khan's personal code of conduct? That which defies your own code of conduct? That which defies my code of conduct?Surely you don't mean that which contradicts society's collectively agreed upon morals. There is no such thing. Society has quite a lot of disagreement within its self, about that topic.It may be that there is such an agreement on a moral code. At least for 70% of us.At least on our main 5 points. It is quite better than what religions offer which should not surprise anyone.http://blog.ted.com/the_real_differ/RegardsDL
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:18 am

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 Rory wrote:Well, my own personal definition of evil would be, 'that which is characterised by the intention and/or deliberate implementation of acts (speech and actions) to inflict unnecessary suffering upon another - inluding the failure to intervene to alleviate the suffering of others where this is reasonably possible, and especially where one has a unique ability to do so.' My point about the term 'evil' being static is that, that is the nature of the common usage of the term. People tend to label actions or individuals as 'evil' in the absolute sense without considering the contextual variation under which those actions might take place or the variation of intentions, actions and inactions by any one individual. I still prefer the term 'immoral' to 'evil' because the latter is muddied in the public consciousness by the use of that term in Christianity to refer to extreme acts of violence including genocide. Also the former reminds us that there is a moral framework being used somewhere in the judgement equation - so any qualification of that judgement is only as good as the moral framework being used.The base of our law uses the term mens rea, Latin for evil mind or intent and without it there is not conviction of an offender.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_reaRegardsDL
kojax
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:15 pm
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:11 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Let's try to leave religion bashing out of this, please. The discussion is about charity and various people of means choosing whether or not to engage it in, also what those choices say about their character and morality. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Gnostic Bishop
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 252

 iNow wrote:Let's try to leave religion bashing out of this, please. The discussion is about charity and various people of means choosing whether or not to engage it in, also what those choices say about their character and morality.Religious hierarchies tout themselves as being all in for the poor while enriching themselves and their religions.To remove them from the equation, being the biggest liars about charity, would be hypocritical as what I sais says a lot about their character and morality. That aside. I had my say and was do going to bash them further.RegardsDL
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:22 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5526
Location: Austin, Texas

 Discussion of Christianity and sex has been split >> topic1808.html _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wegs
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 5:25 am

Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:48 am
Posts: 77

 I don't think evil is something you can easily or readily define, but you just sort of know it, when you come across it. But, if there were a way to definitively define it, it wouldn't be lack of charity, rather lack of compassion and empathy, which could lead to lack of charity, soon enough.
Falconer360
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 5:19 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 970
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

 wegs wrote:I don't think evil is something you can easily or readily define, but you just sort of know it, when you come across it. But, if there were a way to definitively define it, it wouldn't be lack of charity, rather lack of compassion and empathy, which could lead to lack of charity, soon enough.I think I can agree with that. I've always felt that evil was in the eye of the beholder much like beauty. What one person deems evil behavior might be deemed necessary and justifiable by the perpetrator of the evil actions. _________________"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori
wegs
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 1:48 am

Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:48 am
Posts: 77

 Falconer360 wrote:wegs wrote:I don't think evil is something you can easily or readily define, but you just sort of know it, when you come across it. But, if there were a way to definitively define it, it wouldn't be lack of charity, rather lack of compassion and empathy, which could lead to lack of charity, soon enough.I think I can agree with that. I've always felt that evil was in the eye of the beholder much like beauty. What one person deems evil behavior might be deemed necessary and justifiable by the perpetrator of the evil actions.That's probably true. The road to hell is paved with.......
shlunka
 Post subject: Re: Is an absence of charity the same thing as evil?  |  Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 1:49 pm

Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:55 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Virginia, US

 billvon wrote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:Any who accumulate large sums of wealth do so by talking advantage of the markets and labor. That is the only possible place where wealth can be gained.To compliment those who do take advantage of those/us, when they return some of that gain is like thanking the thief who shops in your store after robbing you.More like thanking the man who stopped to help you when you had a flat. Your company didn't have to give you a job - but they chose to do so, and you benefit from their decision. I've never been to a job interview where compassion was involved. Not sure how appreciative I'd be if the man who stopped to help happened to be the same person that refused to pay me a living wage. But I certainly agree that your analogy works in fields of high competence/high competition where wages are great. _________________John Hancock was here.
 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 49 posts • Page 1 of 1

Who is online
 Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum