There is a moral responsibility to provide for the unfortunate

[gallantwarrior]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

Is there a moral responsibility to provide for the less fortunate?

I think there is.

According to me.

I don't force others to provide for the less fortunate. But I do it myself. And I think that those who do not do so are selfish individuals.

You know, there is a practical reason for providing for the less fortunate that should appeal to even conservatives. Provide for the less fortunate and they won't be lounging around your streets and public areas bothering you for handouts quite as much. They won't be burglarizing your homes and generally causing trouble in your communities. They might even begin contribuing something to society themselves.

The trick, of course, is weeding out the truly less fortunate, from the frauds and fakers who can take care of themselves but are just lazy.

As to this latter group - fuck 'em!

I'm not seeing how provision for the unfortunate is being denied. I do, however. perceive that government is NOT the vehicle to provide an in an efficient manner, for those less fortunate. If there is any entity proven to be more reliant on currying the favor of the less fortunate to continue their power and influence, government is unequaled.

 

[signelect]

lI have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves but for those who can help themselves but won't and are too lazy to work or are waiting on Obama to give them something, just like he did in 08

 

[Avatar4321]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

Is there a moral responsibility to provide for the less fortunate?

I think there is.

According to me.

I don't force others to provide for the less fortunate. But I do it myself. And I think that those who do not do so are selfish individuals.

You know, there is a practical reason for providing for the less fortunate that should appeal to even conservatives. Provide for the less fortunate and they won't be lounging around your streets and public areas bothering you for handouts quite as much. They won't be burglarizing your homes and generally causing trouble in your communities. They might even begin contribuing something to society themselves.

The trick, of course, is weeding out the truly less fortunate, from the frauds and fakers who can take care of themselves but are just lazy.

As to this latter group - fuck 'em!

First, you're making an assumption that poverty leads to crime. It's usually the exact opposite. Being criminal leads to poverty.

Second, Conservatives dont have a problem providing for the less fortunate. We just believe the individuals and private sector should do it because they do it better, more efficiently and without the use of violence like the government does.

What evidence do you have that government handouts have lead to less crime and turned those who recieve them all their life into productive members of society? Helping is a good idea, but let's stop doing things that dont work and find out what does.

 

[AnonymousIV]

NO EXCUSES 19 pictures which scream NO EXCUSES - StumbleUpon

 

[there4eyeM]

"We just believe the individuals and private sector should do it because they do it better, more efficiently and without the use of violence like the government does.

What evidence do you have that government handouts have lead to less crime and turned those who recieve (sic) them all their life into productive members of society?"

What evidence is there that 'private sector' is doing this job? Oh, it SHOULD. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Bill Angel]

First, you're making an assumption that poverty leads to crime. It's usually the exact opposite. Being criminal leads to poverty.

Second, Conservatives dont have a problem providing for the less fortunate. We just believe the individuals and private sector should do it because they do it better, more efficiently and without the use of violence like the government does.

What evidence do you have that government handouts have lead to less crime and turned those who recieve them all their life into productive members of society?

Helping is a good idea, but let's stop doing things that dont work and find out what does.

I agree that being criminal leads to poverty. So what problem leads to being criminal?

I believe that the problem is anger management. I'm thinking of the senseless violent crimes such as domestic violence, fights in bars or on the street, etc.

Is there a public sector verses a private sector approach to facilitating anger management in individuals likely to commit violent acts?

Or should society simply identify those individuals who are at risk of losing their self control because of anger related issues and keep them heavily sedated on mind numbing drugs?

 

[catzmeow]

First, you're making an assumption that poverty leads to crime. It's usually the exact opposite. Being criminal leads to poverty.

Second, Conservatives dont have a problem providing for the less fortunate. We just believe the individuals and private sector should do it because they do it better, more efficiently and without the use of violence like the government does.

What evidence do you have that government handouts have lead to less crime and turned those who recieve them all their life into productive members of society?

Helping is a good idea, but let's stop doing things that dont work and find out what does.

I agree that being criminal leads to poverty. So what problem leads to being criminal?

I believe that the problem is anger management. I'm thinking of the senseless violent crimes such as domestic violence, fights in bars or on the street, etc.

Is there a public sector verses a private sector approach to facilitating anger management in individuals likely to commit violent acts?

Or should society simply identify those individuals who are at risk of losing their self control because of anger related issues and keep them heavily sedated on mind numbing drugs?

Actually, it's a lot more complex than that. Poverty is not the most significant factor, although it is part of the issue. Poverty has close correlations to criminal behavior, but it's primarily because of the stresses that poverty puts on families, neighborhoods, schools, individuals, and the overall community. It is important to realize that crime isn't caused by a single factor. If it were, we could eliminate it.

Criminal behavior comes as a result of a set of complex circumstances in the individual, home, school, community and that individual's peer group. When certain conditions are in place, it's much more likely that an individual will become involved in crime (particularly violent crimes).

For instance...anger management skills are learned at home. So, if you are a little kid who grows up in a home and in a community where violence is viewed as an acceptable response to conflict, you are likely to model that behavior. The roots of criminal behavior begin in childhood. There is a relationship first between poverty and population density. The higher the population density + poverty of an area, the greater the likelihood of violent crime.

Beyond that, violent crime rates are highest in areas with high overall rates of crime, plus community disorganization (poorly-functioning social institutions such as families, schools, churches, and others); families with ineffective child management skills; lack of supervision of children (often in areas where parents are forced to work long hours to survive economically); failing schools; community laws and norms favorable to drugs/alcohol use, guns and violence; etc. It's a set of circumstances, not a single issue.

Criminals are created. Most criminals have negative experiences in multiple areas: personal life, home, school, with peers, and in the community.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf

 

[catzmeow]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?

Jesus Christ:

Matthew 25:31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

I don't believe that this is mandated to occur through government mechanisms, and I don't believe that people are answerable to me for their choices in this realm. I believe they are answerable to their own conscience.

I'm not a Christian, per se, but I believe that the closest we can come to experiencing god in this existence is via our connections with other human beings.

 

[The Gadfly]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I think that ignoring human suffering is universally considered to be immoral. I simply ask you the same question. Who are you to try and foist your immorality on others who simply wish to use government as a vehicle of their morality.

You have been outvoted. Get over it.

Who are you to demand that government , not individuals, be the vehicle for YOUR morality?Has it ever occurred to you that if most people ARE charitable of their own accord (and most Americans are), then that implies that if you have to have the state FORCE your particular morality on everyone else, the problem may be with your particular version of morality, rather than the supposed "selfishness" of the rest of us? Is state charity by compulsion real charity, or simply a means to control others in pursuit of a political agenda?

 

[Al_Fundie]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

Of course there is a moral responsibility to help those in need.

The REAL question you should be asking is , should the government be involved with morality?

I think the answer to that question is a little murkier. Does the government have a responsibility to outlaw murder? Of course they do, why ? That's a question of morals. Do they have a responsibility to make sure you don't hurt yourself? Why? That's a question of morals. Do they have a responsibility to provide for those who can't provide for themselves...............

 

[AnonymousIV]

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://alden-tan.com/wp-content/uploads/the-rain.png

I am fully aware that I live better than >95% of the people on the planet.
So what?

 

[Al_Fundie]

So the lesson is we should feel guilty for our successes, which yes we can't count being born in the US as a success, that's just dumb luck, but even at that should I feel guilty for it? I don't.

 

[Againsheila]

http://alden-tan.com/wp-content/uploads/the-rain.png

I am fully aware that I live better than 95% of the people on the planet.
So what?

I'm not so sure. In some way we live better, in others we live worse. Had a friend from India who said we were doing it all wrong. In India one person can work and support a dozen people who then work to make life better. Here one person can't even support himself. What's more, what's the autism rate in other parts of the world? Do you really think we are living better when 1 in 88 of our people has a neurobiological disorder that affects them to the point that they can't make decisions for themselves?

Do you have any idea what the homeless rate is in your city? No one else does either.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I feel responsible to help out those less fortunate than me on a personal level however I do not find it acceptable to delegate this personal responsibility to the state or to the federal government.

I also do not find it acceptable to force someone to help those less fortunate if they choose not to.

Then again (unlike you thought in the gun thread the other week ) I prefer liberty over tyranny.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://alden-tan.com/wp-content/uploads/the-rain.png

I am fully aware that I live better than 95% of the people on the planet.
So what?

I'm not so sure. In some way we live better, in others we live worse.

I've been everywhere, man.... I -know- that -I- live better.

Clean, spacious house on a significant lot, forced air heat and cooling, reliable electricity, refrigeration, clean water, toothpaste, toilet paper, on-demand medical care, more food than I could ever eat and a climate-controlled occupation that takes up less than a quarter of my time.

There are few among those >6 billion who would not jump at the chance to leave their 3-rd world hellhole and trade places with me.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I feel responsible to help out those less fortunate than me on a personal level however I do not find it acceptable to delegate this personal responsibility to the state or to the federal government.

I also do not find it acceptable to force someone to help those less fortunate if they choose not to.

Then again (unlike you thought in the gun thread the other week ) I prefer liberty over tyranny.

On the other hand, I could make a very strong case that using government resources to help the needy is necessary for the greater good of our country as a whole.

Might actually make a good thread on its own.

 

[PredFan]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

 

[Againsheila]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I feel responsible to help out those less fortunate than me on a personal level however I do not find it acceptable to delegate this personal responsibility to the state or to the federal government.

I also do not find it acceptable to force someone to help those less fortunate if they choose not to.

Then again (unlike you thought in the gun thread the other week ) I prefer liberty over tyranny.

I don't think our disabled should have to be begging on the streets. Whenever someone talks about getting rid of federal programs I think of what would happen in the government wasn't there for my Andrew. He'd still be at home, I'd still be on antidepressants, our house would be an even bigger wreck (still don't have the money to fix the bathroom he ripped the walls out of) and my husband would probably be dead from the stress.