There is a moral responsibility to provide for the unfortunate

[flacaltenn]

"Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself."

So, what is ignoring the needlessly suffering? Not immoral? Not dangerous?

you place much too much trust in the ability of govt to diagnose and cure societal ills.

It's like using C4 explosive to weed a garden. My community is FILLED with churches and synagogues and a few (very brave) Mosques.. After Katrina, those parking lots FILLED UP with Semis FULL of relief supplies, even BOATS, that the public -- ON THEIR OWN -- ran down to Nor'leans. First to arrive -- first to be STOPPED by the GOVT you value so highly from entering..

Don't tell me that without GOVT -- there is "needless suffering".. You don't FIX broken people with a check and an agency full of bureaucrats..

 

[there4eyeM]

"Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself."

So, what is ignoring the needlessly suffering? Not immoral? Not dangerous?

you place much too much trust in the ability of govt to diagnose and cure societal ills.

It's like using C4 explosive to weed a garden. My community is FILLED with churches and synagogues and a few (very brave) Mosques.. After Katrina, those parking lots FILLED UP with Semis FULL of relief supplies, even BOATS, that the public -- ON THEIR OWN -- ran down to Nor'leans. First to arrive -- first to be STOPPED by the GOVT you value so highly from entering..

Don't tell me that without GOVT -- there is "needless suffering".. You don't FIX broken people with a check and an agency full of bureaucrats..

This response must be misplaced vis a vis the post it addresses.

Where was trust in the central government expressed? I certainly don't have much.

We (the collective that is the US) IS using C4 to weed its 'garden', this garden that the world could easily be with the real American sense of brotherhood.

Trying to weed out endless illusive enemies all about the globe entails too much collateral damage. People remember when their children are killed.

No one should be so fooled as to think that any less than the most ferocious repression would be applied if ever bloody revolution raised its gory head.

Minds is where the revolution is.

 

[newpolitics]

Think so?

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

Yes. Simply because those in the positions of wealth of power got there by either prior wealth and power, networking among those in wealth in power, societal advantage based on inherent traits (skin color, cultural affiliation), geographical location, and number of other unseen factors that are circumstantial and out of everyones control. Being that they had these advantages, and others do not, it is then easily to conclude that PART (not all, hard work is usually requisite and I would never deny that) of the reason for their fortune, they should give SOME back. In other words, those in positions of privilege got their because of societal dispositions towards them, for whatever reason... partially. Being white and rich doesn't make getting a medical degree any easier, or becoming a great doctor, but recieving that opportunity is nearly impossible for someone raised in south central LA who can't leave their neighborhood without being shot (which, in the 90's was a reality for those living there, and they didn't all ask for it). You could then ask, why does south central exist as it does? That's another discussion, but I don't think the answer makes the case any better for those wishing to claim that we have an even playing field, because we do not. To dismiss societal advantage to certain groups or classes of people is simply ignorant to reality, and is being idealistic about the country we live in, and ironically, is an attitude or disposition most conveniently adopted by those who possess societal advantage.

Therefore, being that part of the reason that many people are successful has to do with inherent traits deemed societally advantaged, which afforded them the opportunities to be so successful, then it is logical to help those who could never have the same ease of opportunity.

Notice, I am not taking away the necessity of hard work, in any situation. That is always requisite, but it is that much harder for those within disadvantaged circumstance, and therefore, and necessarily, the incidence of success will be lower. All I'm advocating for in this post is some recognition of societal advantage and disadvantage based on characteristics such as skin color, and socioeconomic upbringing.

The reason I always bring this up, is that I find it arrogant for those who are societally advantaged, to consistently deny that any disadvantage even exists. It is so obviously self-serving to do so. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence to suggest such disadvantages do exist and have profound effects on peoples attitudes towards themselves, and society.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself."

So, what is ignoring the needlessly suffering? Not immoral? Not dangerous?

you place much too much trust in the ability of govt to diagnose and cure societal ills.

It's like using C4 explosive to weed a garden. My community is FILLED with churches and synagogues and a few (very brave) Mosques.. After Katrina, those parking lots FILLED UP with Semis FULL of relief supplies, even BOATS, that the public -- ON THEIR OWN -- ran down to Nor'leans. First to arrive -- first to be STOPPED by the GOVT you value so highly from entering..

Don't tell me that without GOVT -- there is "needless suffering".. You don't FIX broken people with a check and an agency full of bureaucrats..

This response must be misplaced vis a vis the post it addresses.

Where was trust in the central government expressed? I certainly don't have much.

We (the collective that is the US) IS using C4 to weed its 'garden', this garden that the world could easily be with the real American sense of brotherhood.

Trying to weed out endless illusive enemies all about the globe entails too much collateral damage. People remember when their children are killed.

No one should be so fooled as to think that any less than the most ferocious repression would be applied if ever bloody revolution raised its gory head.

Minds is where the revolution is.

Not misaddressed at all.. Another poster made an eloquent and correct observation that Govt was NOT the proper vehicle to address the "less fortunate and the suffering" and YOU then immediately leap to conclusion that without Govt COERCING altruism and compassion -- there would be no relief...

I was merely demonstrating how false your choice was as implied....

 

[Swagger]

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a net and he'll never go hungry again.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Not misaddressed at all.. Another poster made an eloquent and correct observation that Govt was the vehicle to address the "less fortunate and the suffering" and YOU then immediately leap to conclusion that without Govt COERCING altruism and compassion -- there would be no relief... "

The poster heard it this way, but it is not the meaning of the content. What was requested was a word to describe not caring about the elderly, sick and helpless. What would you call it?

That endorses nothing, it addresses all options.

 

[flacaltenn]

Think so?

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

Yes. Simply because those in the positions of wealth of power got there by either prior wealth and power, networking among those in wealth in power, societal advantage based on inherent traits (skin color, cultural affiliation), geographical location, and number of other unseen factors that are circumstantial and out of everyones control. Being that they had these advantages, and others do not, it is then easily to conclude that PART (not all, hard work is usually requisite and I would never deny that) of the reason for their fortune, they should give SOME back. In other words, those in positions of privilege got their because of societal dispositions towards them, for whatever reason... partially. Being white and rich doesn't make getting a medical degree any easier, or becoming a great doctor, but recieving that opportunity is nearly impossible for someone raised in south central LA who can't leave their neighborhood without being shot (which, in the 90's was a reality for those living there, and they didn't all ask for it). You could then ask, why does south central exist as it does? That's another discussion, but I don't think the answer makes the case any better for those wishing to claim that we have an even playing field, because we do not. To dismiss societal advantage to certain groups or classes of people is simply ignorant to reality, and is being idealistic about the country we live in, and ironically, is an attitude or disposition most conveniently adopted by those who possess societal advantage.

Therefore, being that part of the reason that many people are successful has to do with inherent traits deemed societally advantaged, which afforded them the opportunities to be so successful, then it is logical to help those who could never have the same ease of opportunity.

Notice, I am not taking away the necessity of hard work, in any situation. That is always requisite, but it is that much harder for those within disadvantaged circumstance, and therefore, and necessarily, the incidence of success will be lower. All I'm advocating for in this post is some recognition of societal advantage and disadvantage based on characteristics such as skin color, and socioeconomic upbringing.

The reason I always bring this up, is that I find it arrogant for those who are societally advantaged, to consistently deny that any disadvantage even exists. It is so obviously self-serving to do so. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence to suggest such disadvantages do exist and have profound effects on peoples attitudes towards themselves, and society.

Is "societally disadvantaged" on the list of ADA handicaps? This is more of Victimology 101.

How do we fix the disadvantage of mom being a crack whore with a check and a bureaucrat? How do we change the relative value of Bling and Academics in the culture? How do we get an INCREASING LEVEL of academic acheivement in this country?

The responsibility we're talking about here is to get to the crack whore, not by JAILING HER, but thru outreach and compassion. NOTHING that can be done with mere redistribution of money. Which is what you're after afterall isn't it?

There are MANY orgs that have been successful in taking inner city disadvantaged kids to college. THEY KNOW how this gets done. The redistributionists don't have a clue...

 

[occupied]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

If you open up this discussion to a Global level -- it's pretty undeniable that the suffering is linked to lack of economic and social freedom due to POLITICAL forces more than it is a lack of International aid and comfort. Zimbawe WAS a breadbasket of Africa before the brutal regime took over. I don't look at govt being the solution to the SCALE of suffering you just painted, unless you're talking about removing dictators and communist puppets from power.

Mass mobilization not required in most cases. The only thing that has to get "mobilized" is the brutal clown running the place (preferably vertically downward into the earth about 10 feet).. Free markets and "rule of law" feed more people than Central planning and dictatorships.. There's a simple prescription for relieving a TON of the suffering you describe..

 

[occupied]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

If you open up this discussion to a Global level -- it's pretty undeniable that the suffering is linked to lack of economic and social freedom due to POLITICAL forces more than it is a lack of International aid and comfort. Zimbawe WAS a breadbasket of Africa before the brutal regime took over. I don't look at govt being the solution to the SCALE of suffering you just painted, unless you're talking about removing dictators and communist puppets from power.

Mass mobilization not required in most cases. The only thing that has to get "mobilized" is the brutal clown running the place (preferably vertically downward into the earth about 10 feet).. Free markets and "rule of law" feed more people than Central planning and dictatorships.. There's a simple prescription for relieving a TON of the suffering you describe..

Most of the misery on this planet is due to things such as dictators and control freaks running things for their own selfish benefit, but why stop at extreme examples? Every economic system no matter how free or controlled is fatally infected with sociopaths who are looking to pad their nest, and they gravitate to a power vacuum like ants to a picnic.

There is no answer for destructive, misery producing greed anywhere in free market theory, it sometimes seems that it is little more than a high sounding excuse for exploitation and continuation of misery. It's a system where even minimal prosperity is held hostage to people who really have no concern for anything other than the bottom line. If this seems harsh then the multinationals have been harsh in their malevolent search for cheap labor and raw materials and are hardly an example of the best way to fight misery, if they bring anything that resembles general prosperity it is nothing but an afterthought.

 

[flacaltenn]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

If you open up this discussion to a Global level -- it's pretty undeniable that the suffering is linked to lack of economic and social freedom due to POLITICAL forces more than it is a lack of International aid and comfort. Zimbawe WAS a breadbasket of Africa before the brutal regime took over. I don't look at govt being the solution to the SCALE of suffering you just painted, unless you're talking about removing dictators and communist puppets from power.

Mass mobilization not required in most cases. The only thing that has to get "mobilized" is the brutal clown running the place (preferably vertically downward into the earth about 10 feet).. Free markets and "rule of law" feed more people than Central planning and dictatorships.. There's a simple prescription for relieving a TON of the suffering you describe..

Most of the misery on this planet is due to things such as dictators and control freaks running things for their own selfish benefit, but why stop at extreme examples? Every economic system no matter how free or controlled is fatally infected with sociopaths who are looking to pad their nest, and they gravitate to a power vacuum like ants to a picnic.

There is no answer for destructive, misery producing greed anywhere in free market theory, it sometimes seems that it is little more than a high sounding excuse for exploitation and continuation of misery. It's a system where even minimal prosperity is held hostage to people who really have no concern for anything other than the bottom line. If this seems harsh then the multinationals have been harsh in their malevolent search for cheap labor and raw materials and are hardly an example of the best way to fight misery, if they bring anything that resembles general prosperity it is nothing but an afterthought.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself comparing Steve Jobs and Spike Lee to ruthless dictators. You out-Chomsky'd Noam there.. Bravo !!

Not so long ago, there was massive leftist whining about how unfair it was that America use 30% of the world's energy but only had 15% of the population. Or that our standard of living was embarrassingly high compared to the peons in China..

You should be CELEBRATING -- not whining -- now that this score is getting settled. There is NO ARGUMENT that the Asian economies and their people are worse off because of capitalistic development. Foreign Capital and Know-How GAVE them a lift. China may have made our Olympic outfits, but WE BUILT the planes that flew their atheletes to London. Who got the better deal?

America probably SHOULDN'T be making tee shirts and basketballs in the big scheme of things. Those are ((Temporarily)) better done by cheap labor. We were supposed to rise above trivial sweat labor and lead the world in technology and science and logistics. A deal which has gotten sidetracked by misplaced leadership into green jobs and shovel jobs.

The GLOBAL suffering IS STILL largely due to political forces and free markets and a viable contract law system are PREREQUISITES to lifting countries out of poverty. And your insistence on bashing the very tools that work -- well that's just amusing..

 

[there4eyeM]

The US makes up approximately 5% of earth's human population.
It is not whining to point out gross over consumption at everyone else's expense.

The absence of empathy fuels empire.

 

[Foxfyre]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

Has it? I recall a time when there was a huge outpouring of relief and hands on help from the citizens to help others in disaster. But there is less of that when the govenrment steps in because a little puny donation seems silly and irrelevent amidst millions the government pours into the relief effort. But ALL the relief efforts of the citizen go to those needing help. Only a fraction of government relief goes to those needing help with the rest swallowed up in the ever expanded, ever more bloated, ever more needy government bureaucracy.

And where is the relief? It seems there are mega millions more poor in the world now. India is thriving economically, yet 40% of its population lives in such abject poverty that America's poorest citizens look wealthy by comparison. Despite China boasting one of the world's fastest growing economies and its perceived threat as an economic power, 36% of its population live on less than $2 a day (in American dollars.)

Is it compassion for the government to make it more comfortable for people to be poor even as there is incentive to keep them poor and therefore voting for those who keep promising to make things better but don't ever quite come through with that.

How much human suffering would be alleviated if the federal government restricted its efforts to its constitutionally required responsibilities; therefore needed a small function of the money it currently spends; and left all those resources with the people to use to prosper themselves?

 

[Avatar4321]

Think so?

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

Yes. We are commanded by God to minister to the needs of those around us. I dont believe we are supposed to outsource our personal responsibilities to the government, nor do I think it's morally right to rob others to "give" to the poor.

 

[Avatar4321]

The US makes up approximately 5% of earth's human population.
It is not whining to point out gross over consumption at everyone else's expense.

The absence of empathy fuels empire.

What evidence is there that anything we do is at someone elses expense? If they want to put in the effort and reap the ward they can do likewise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US makes up approximately 5% of earth's human population.
It is not whining to point out gross over consumption at everyone else's expense.

The absence of empathy fuels empire.

What evidence is there that anything we do is at someone elses expense? If they want to put in the effort and reap the ward they can do likewise.

His idea ssumes a zero-sum - which, of course, is not the case.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the defenselessness is indeed a moral obligation and the basis for nearly every moral code and religion in the world. In spite of this we still have starvation, disease and strife. In this sense moral codes and the most passionate exhortations of clergymen are insufficient to counter the base predatory/territorial instincts of humanity. I have a hard time imagining what the world would look like with only voluntary charity standing between the hungry and starvation. Only nation states capable of mass mobilization of resources and manpower are capable of making a dent in the misery index, the world may not owe anyone a living but a society at least owes it's citizens a chance to survive childhood to become productive and charity alone has historically sucked at this.

Funny thing is, we've had government administered social welfare programs for how long? There is still starvation, disease, and strife. Regardless of the level of efforts and the amount of money thrown at the problem of the "poor", they will always be with us. Any time your nation state mobilizes resources and manpower to combat some "problem", they actually take away from the resources available to voluntary charities. As a matter of fact, if you examine the "problem" more closely, you will discover that many of the issues that government continues to support are actually generated by the government programs you would herald as great saviors.

 

[flacaltenn]

His argument is that we waste more than enough here to support entire countries AT THEIR LEVEL of subsistence. Which is true. And yes it's zero sum logic. But eating your meal because kids are starving in Africa, like your parents told you to -- well that doesn't help kids in Africa. Nor does shipping them a million half-eaten peanut butter sandwiches. Not if they live in primitive economical and political situations.

And saving energy HERE -- does not increase the availability, affordability and supply elsewhere. The market ADJUSTS to scarcities BEFORE there is a crisis. That's what Wall Street "futures" are for.

What gets redistribution done on a WORLD SCALE is movement of capital investments and know-how. And the export of political concepts like democracy, and economic and social freedom.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you open up this discussion to a Global level -- it's pretty undeniable that the suffering is linked to lack of economic and social freedom due to POLITICAL forces more than it is a lack of International aid and comfort. Zimbawe WAS a breadbasket of Africa before the brutal regime took over. I don't look at govt being the solution to the SCALE of suffering you just painted, unless you're talking about removing dictators and communist puppets from power.

Mass mobilization not required in most cases. The only thing that has to get "mobilized" is the brutal clown running the place (preferably vertically downward into the earth about 10 feet).. Free markets and "rule of law" feed more people than Central planning and dictatorships.. There's a simple prescription for relieving a TON of the suffering you describe..

Most of the misery on this planet is due to things such as dictators and control freaks running things for their own selfish benefit, but why stop at extreme examples? Every economic system no matter how free or controlled is fatally infected with sociopaths who are looking to pad their nest, and they gravitate to a power vacuum like ants to a picnic.

There is no answer for destructive, misery producing greed anywhere in free market theory, it sometimes seems that it is little more than a high sounding excuse for exploitation and continuation of misery. It's a system where even minimal prosperity is held hostage to people who really have no concern for anything other than the bottom line. If this seems harsh then the multinationals have been harsh in their malevolent search for cheap labor and raw materials and are hardly an example of the best way to fight misery, if they bring anything that resembles general prosperity it is nothing but an afterthought.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself comparing Steve Jobs and Spike Lee to ruthless dictators. You out-Chomsky'd Noam there.. Bravo !!

Not so long ago, there was massive leftist whining about how unfair it was that America use 30% of the world's energy but only had 15% of the population. Or that our standard of living was embarrassingly high compared to the peons in China..

You should be CELEBRATING -- not whining -- now that this score is getting settled. There is NO ARGUMENT that the Asian economies and their people are worse off because of capitalistic development. Foreign Capital and Know-How GAVE them a lift. China may have made our Olympic outfits, but WE BUILT the planes that flew their atheletes to London. Who got the better deal?

America probably SHOULDN'T be making tee shirts and basketballs in the big scheme of things. Those are ((Temporarily)) better done by cheap labor. We were supposed to rise above trivial sweat labor and lead the world in technology and science and logistics. A deal which has gotten sidetracked by misplaced leadership into green jobs and shovel jobs.

The GLOBAL suffering IS STILL largely due to political forces and free markets and a viable contract law system are PREREQUISITES to lifting countries out of poverty. And your insistence on bashing the very tools that work -- well that's just amusing..

There's on glaring error in your otherwise sensible observation, Boeing has outsourced various structures for their aircraft to China. Sadly enough, even those all-American innovations are assembled in the US using parts built both here, and in China.

http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/international/docs/backgrounders/chinabackgrounder.pdf

I won't say I really blame Boeing, though. Just recall what happened when Boeing tried opening a new production facility in a state not approved by the union that holds the reigns to government regulators. A blatant case where our government, at the behest of unions, has helped destroy jobs for Americans.

NetRight Daily » National Labor Relations Board says Boeing can?t build plant in South Carolina

 

[George Costanza]

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!