- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Yes, that clever scam of "being really poor" to get out of paying an income tax. Genius!
I'm honestly shocked that this is even a question. Of COURSE the people who have the most wealth and power had to hurt other people and break rules to get it. It takes some really slimy things to get that much wealth and power in the first place. All those politicians on TV that we spend so much time complaining about. They're lying to us constantly, and we all know it. How many of us, who are not wealthy and powerful, are that okay with deceiving people? Or taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions? How many of us could do like Mitt Romney and fire thousands of people in order to make stock prices go up? How many of us would be okay with building wealth based on selling items made in terrible working conditions in the third world? How many of us are willing to pollute willy nilly in order to get rich? I would imagine that the answers to these questions are "very few of us". Serious wealth and power requires some pretty heinous actions.
Actually, The Bible is kind of like the tv show Seinfeld. You don't have to look too far to find something that applies to something.You know, its great how almost every social problem and issue has a verse that applies in the Bible. This one is perfect for this debate. Christian or not, we all have to admit that the Bible is a great book that has much wisdom to be imparted on us.
Actually, The Bible is kind of like the tv show Seinfeld. You don't have to look too far to find something that applies to something.
Problem with this scenario, and the quote that the other person quoted, is that that particular quote is one of the least understood , and most mis-used, quotes from The Bible. I don't believe it condemns richness or being rich, as most people who quote it are saying or implying. No, I think it just provides a caution to not fall into the trap that wealth can open up for you, and that you need to be on guard to not fall into the trap. That's all.
One experiment invited 195 adults recruited using Craigslist to play a game in which a computer "rolled dice" for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate. The numbers each participant rolled were the same; anyone self reporting a total higher than 12 was lying about their score. Those in wealthier classes were found to be more likely to fib, Piff said.
"A $50 prize is a measly sum to people who make $250,000 a year," he said. "So why are they more inclined to cheat?
Less wealthy individuals also can behave badly, they wrote, noting the relationship between poverty and violent crime in previous research.
"It's not that the rich are innately bad, but as you rise in the ranks -- whether as a person or a nonhuman primate -- you become more self-focused," Piff said.
"You can change that by reminding upper-class people of the needs of others."
Subjective or not.... Stealing is unethical. No matter how you measure right and wrong.Well there are two basic definitions ..one that is based on an overall sense of right and wrong -which can be subjective, and is more fluid, and another that pertains to the rules and regulations governing a profession.
I view ethics more as an (admittedly subjective) adherence to doing what is right. Ethics supersedes the law IMO, and while the law often mirrors what is ethically right or wrong, and often serves as a guideline, and in many cases seeks to define ethics, it is too absolute and inflexible. I cannot think of a good hypothetical, but there can be gray areas where the more ethical road could potentially involve not following a particular law. In general not breaking the law is ethical behavior, but in those gray areas where following the law goes against your sense of right and wrong, or where the law itself is unethical (as you yourself admit can be the case), then it is possible that the ethical path is NOT following the law.
The article did kind of define ethical as the subjective definition i am using when it mentions lying and cheating, and from the experiments conducted and questions posed (granted I am not referencing the actual study) such as cutting off other cars, or not pointing out a cashiers error I also get the impression that they were driving at the former more subjective definition as well.
YMMV
I think you're making a leap. Maybe you've just bought into the class warfare hyperbole?
:coffeepap
What a silly generalization, some but certainly not all rich or powerful individuals had to hurt others and break others to reach their status. Some of the poor individuals I know are poor specifically because of personal vices and choice they've made in the past, but that doesn't make all poor individuals and homeless folks inherently lazy or immoral either. Why rebuke someone who was using a generalization and respond with one of your own?Yes, that clever scam of "being really poor" to get out of paying an income tax. Genius!
I'm honestly shocked that this is even a question. Of COURSE the people who have the most wealth and power had to hurt other people and break rules to get it. It takes some really slimy things to get that much wealth and power in the first place. All those politicians on TV that we spend so much time complaining about. They're lying to us constantly, and we all know it. How many of us, who are not wealthy and powerful, are that okay with deceiving people? Or taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions? How many of us could do like Mitt Romney and fire thousands of people in order to make stock prices go up? How many of us would be okay with building wealth based on selling items made in terrible working conditions in the third world? How many of us are willing to pollute willy nilly in order to get rich? I would imagine that the answers to these questions are "very few of us". Serious wealth and power requires some pretty heinous actions.
See, Obama's a great teacher.
These idiotic threads lead to mental masturbation by those who try to justify their welfare socialist nonsense by demonizing the rich. No longer does the parasite movement merely parrot the mantra of from each according to their means-the welfare redistributionists try to justify punitive tax rates on the rich as vengeance from God wreaked upon the unholy
I didn't see anything demonizing of the rich, just the usual facts suggesting many are basic scumbags. "Justice is for the rich and influential" doesn't mean that those who can afford to buy justice are the good guys. They are the chief polluters, misusers, maladministrators, colluders, and slimebag lawyers that pontificate publicly and manifest skullduggery, chaos, and mayhem privately. That would be like ginning up a war because it will make your corporation more money. A true art of the wealthy, also known as the military/industrial/corporate complex. Others just refer to them as the 1%. Who'd a thunk it?
wealth, like power, does not make one more or less ethical. all it does is expand ones' ability to engage in ethical or unethical behavior.
wealth, like power, does not make one more or less ethical. all it does is expand ones' ability to engage in ethical or unethical behavior.
ethical [ˈɛθɪkəl]
adj
1. in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp those of a given profession or group
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to ethics
3. (Medicine) (of a medicinal agent) available legally only with a doctor's prescription or consent
ethically adv
ethicalness , ethicality n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.:shrug: or more ethical. depending on whether you are measuring by effect or intent. personally I prefer the latter.
You seem to be assuming Rich v Poor here but the title includes the middle-class where survival pressure is much lower than in 'poor' situations. I won't condemn a man for stealing food if he doesn't have the means to procure it legally but a man stealing an apple when he has money to pay for it is being unethical.Wealth may change the scope and scale of the unethical behavior, but that does not make them More or Less ethical than the poor.
You seem to be assuming Rich v Poor here but the title includes the middle-class where survival pressure is much lower than in 'poor' situations. I won't condemn a man for stealing food if he doesn't have the means to procure it legally but a man stealing an apple when he has money to pay for it is being unethical.
That's a faster response than FEMA! *thumbs up*Within 48 hours of Hurricane Katrina my brothers sent two flatbed tractor trailers to New Orleans filled with diapers, food, tents, medicine, generators, fuel etc..
Agreed.But I do agree in principle. Theft for survival is one thing, but stealing TV's in the aftermath of Katrina had nothing to do with survival. I had little issue with the people stealing food to survive in that situation.
Beating the snot out of a prostitute to maintain your dominance over her has nothing to do with survival. Stealing office supplies from your workplace is not a means of survival.
I have no problem with what someone else EARNS. At this point in my life I am not envious of what any other man has. I have a problem with what people in power grant themselves that a) they didn't earn and b) they don't need.Another lame attempt to create a pseudo moral imperative to control what others earn. I'm sure the 99%'s will jump all over this.
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?