repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
There is this principle that you gravely overlook called personal liberty and keeping the fruits of your own labor. In short, if I ever "make it big", it should be up to me and my family, not some damned Government shill, to decide where the hell my hard-earned should go!!I've been thinking lately about the thoughts of several ultra-rich men. Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, John Rockefeller to a certain extent; they all did things to better the poor. I know there is a lot more to their stories, and how they accumulated such wealth, but the principle is still there.
Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?
I personally believe that the strong are supposed to protect the weak. Government itself is based on that proposition, assigning power to a few to protect the interests of the many weak.
On a more personal level, I am one of the smarter students in my school. As such, I always help my peers when they have questions. very recently, a good friend got rejected from a college he wanted to go to, and I spent sometime trying to help him get over it, and figure out what to do.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
There is this principle that you gravely overlook called personal liberty and keeping the fruits of your own labor. In short, if I ever "make it big", it should be up to me and my family, not some damned Government shill, to decide where the hell my hard-earned should go!!
You refer to the parable of the good Samaritan. Indeed I would help.I never said anything about having the government force you to. I'm talking about on a more personal level in general. For example, if you saw someone lying on the street bleeding, you'd probably help him/her out, right?
Not really.Well, I was wondering if that principle could be applied a bit more broadly...
They only have a moral responsibility to help others if they believe they do. In reality, no they don't have a moral responsibility to help others.
So moral responsibility is a figment of your imagination?
You refer to the parable of the good Samaritan. Indeed I would help.
Not really.
Reading Karl marx again, Komrade Bolsheveik??Absolutey. Rich/Poor whatever. We as a "higher" society have a responsibility to our fellow mankind. To each according to their needs....from each according to their abilities. We all have a duty to pay back to our communities, either by service or by monetary means.
You mean take from people who damned well earned every penny and has every right to keep the fruits of their labor!!!There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
Taken completely out of context. The actual account refers to the rich young ruler who would not allow G-d into his heart. G-d certainly never condemned wealth. Joseph of Aramethea was a rich man in his time, a member of the Sanhedrin, and never partook of the crucifixion of Christ.Which is why the bible says "It is easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God."
If it is of your own free will, not forced by big daddy gubment.If you have the means or the ability and do nothing to help others than the content of your character shines brightly.
No, it's a figment of your individual belief system.
Because your formula means government forces charity and never encourages people to be resourceful and take responsibility for their own lives.Okay, you just conceeded the idea of a good samaritan, and that one should at the very least attempt to be one. But why can this not be more broadly applied? I've always been taught that if you can help someone, you should help that person. Given certain chances where you really cannot help someone, shouldn't people do more to help?
If someone was bleeding on a street, would you just pass by without a word to him/her?
No, it's a figment of your individual belief system.
So in your mind, moral responsibility is a myth. Wow...that is a really sad state.
Maybe sad to you, but pretty obvious to me.
Morals are based on personal beliefs and extended by way of social acceptance. Their validity is based in nothing other than belief. In reality, morality is a human concept and cannot be proven to be right or wrong. We believe things are right and wrong, but it's still just belief.
Because your formula means government forces charity and never encourages people to be resourceful and take responsibility for their own lives.
You're just putting words in my mouth now, I never said anything about a government forcing someone to do anything. I'm talking about strictly in the private sector.
I wouldn't just pass by, but it's my responsibility because I take it on as my responsibility, not because I "should" as judged in the eyes of others.
BS, this is what all Democrat welfare, including this healthcare farce, is all about. Forcing Charity!!You're just putting words in my mouth now, I never said anything about a government forcing someone to do anything. I'm talking about strictly in the private sector.
So in your mind, moral responsibility is a myth. Wow...that is a really sad state.
The only responsibility I have to others is the one I choose for myself. I have no inherent "moral" responsibility, since there are no inherent "morals".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?