Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?
Precisely.If something is only right or wrong because of a value system that we place on it than there is no true societal value system and everyone is at his/her whim to do their own thing.
No, there aren't.Sorry..but there are some things that are inherently right or wrong.
If you mean simplistic in that it's relative to the individual, then yes it is as simplistic as that.True...there are others that are based on individual values, but its not as simplistic as you want to believe that it is.
:shock::shock::shock: :shock: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.
There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
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 you have the means or the ability and do nothing to help others than the content of your character shines brightly.
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?
Luke 12:41-48 [41] Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?" [42] The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? [43] It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. [44] I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. [45] But suppose the servant says to himself, `My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. [46] The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. [47] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
It's weird how, sometimes you and I are about as opposite as opposite can be, and other times, we agree 100%.
But the "should" exists, does it not? ?
And if someone walked by the same bleeding person without helping, wouldn't you hold that person accountable if the person who was bleeding died?
I have been hearing this week that some parts of the United States are worse places to live than Gaza :shock:
Sounds to me like you have some serious problems.
No, I would not. I might find him cold-hearted, but he would not be accountable in my eyes.
Does the expression "Duty to Rescue" mean anything to you?
And your problem with that is...?That still doesn't mean that it's an imperative, except in that society has made it so, based on beliefs that good and bad exist.
I believe so.Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?
Um.... no.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.
Should you be forced to do this - that it be required of you, regardless of you opinion on the matter, and that you be required to do it pro-bono?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.
And your problem with that is...?
Whether your personal philosophy is based on Abrahamic religions, humanism, Buddhism, whatever, from where do you get the imperative NOT to act in assistance of another human being in mortal peril?
I may sound disparaging (not sure how I could state this and not sound so) but I am genuinely interested in the basis of your belief.
This is only valid if you happen to agree with Marx.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.
Incorrect -- there is nothing more immoral thsn forcing others to conform to your version of morailty.There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
Yes... and Christian charity requires that said charity be provided out of free will, not at the point of someone elses' gun.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."
Yes... and Christian charity requires that said charity be provided out of free will, not at the point of someone elses' gun.
Exactly correct, though I think I'd use '...who give because the law says so..."Exactly. Those who give because they have a sincere desire to help someone are being charitable. Those who give because they "should" are doing so out of societal pressure, and the meaning is lost.
Exactly correct, though I think I'd use '...who give because the law says so..."
And besides -- I thought the first amendment prevents things like Christian charity becoming law.
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?
I really do believe that people who can should help others. My wife and I are talking about adopting a child 'of unfortunate circumstance' becase we have things pretty well and we believe that if we can help some such child have a better life, we should.Yeah, that too.
Did I say I have a problem with it? I just see it for what it is. Conditioning. We need it as a society to keep everything from falling apart, but it's still belief-based.
Sorry, my poor interpretation of your posts. I apologise. I agree it's belief-based, very fundamental (if not universal) belief-based, but nevertheless socialised.
You call it "personal liberty", I call it greed. Imagine a world filled with people like 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!!
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.
There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
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 you have the means or the ability and do nothing to help others than the content of your character shines brightly.
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?