Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bozack]

Hmmm. I guess I don't think it should be mandatory. But fuck, in my mind it's the really only moral choice (like V pointed out). If you have more than enough money, at a young age, to provide for yourself and your family until you die, morally you really should be putting that money to use for those who weren't born with a silver spoon.
In terms of whether or not more money increases social obligation: I don't think there's a hard and fast correllation. But, personally, I'm going to think you're a vapid ass if you could, I don't know, spend what amounts to 1 percent of your yearly income and, say, help reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa. I try and help out in my community as well as I can, according to my resources, and to some degree I expect the same from others, even if that just means helping friends with projects or being a nice person, etc.
And V, you're right about the legacy thing. Maybe not education, but do SOMETHING, damn it.

[V-Adore]

Bozack pretty much said it, AD: I don't think it's a responsibility that necessarily comes with money, but there is a connection in that very rich people have more opportunity to act on it. I'm not saying that philanthropy is a requirement, but philanthropy is morally right, and rich people just logically have the money, time, and other resources necessary to do it. (Philanthropy is just as much of a moral right for the poor as for the rich, but you're very right in that survival is a primary goal; thus, I will excuse from any expectation of philanthropy those who have to work and scrimp just to survive before I excuse those who were destined to never have to work from birth.)

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is: don't be a dick. Try to be an anti-dick to the limits of your capabilities -- and certainly, if you don't have any obligation to work to survive, working to be an anti-dick is the most noble application. (Also tax-deductible.)

[JorgeFabregas]

Who is Egplant dike ass?

[AlohaDawg]

Bozack pretty much said it, AD: I don't think it's a responsibility that necessarily comes with money, but there is a connection in that very rich people have more opportunity to act on it. I'm not saying that philanthropy is a requirement, but philanthropy is morally right, and rich people just logically have the money, time, and other resources necessary to do it. (Philanthropy is just as much of a moral right for the poor as for the rich, but you're very right in that survival is a primary goal; thus, I will excuse from any expectation of philanthropy those who have to work and scrimp just to survive before I excuse those who were destined to never have to work from birth.)

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is: don't be a dick. Try to be an anti-dick to the limits of your capabilities -- and certainly, if you don't have any obligation to work to survive, working to be an anti-dick is the most noble application. (Also tax-deductible.)

I still don't get the MORAL obligation. Certainly, you are all speaking to social pressure on people with a lot of money but from whence do you derive a moral obligation? What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'? If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?

Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?

I believe that the obligation to help those in need is independent of your financial situation, and that the 'moral imperative' for the 'rich' to be philanthropic is a construct of societal expectation and has nothing at all to do with morality itself.

[CortJstr]

What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'?

Ever major religion.

If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?

Do what you can with what you have where you are. The rich have more resources, in terms of disposable income, free time, or both,  thus can do more.

Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?

If you believe in karma or an invisible man who lives in the sky then accepting praise for a gesture is fine, while making a gesture while seeking praise is signifigantly less good. For the same reason bitching about not eating meat during Lent is considered a sin, because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.

[Bobby Isosceles]

because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.

I think that's what did in the Aztecs.

[St_Zartan]

YEAH WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST STOP WHINING AND GET A JOB

GOD DON'T MAKE NO TRASH AFTER ALL

The fact is that these are not fuck*ng caveman times, where survival is a zero-sum game and LIFE IS EAT AND FUCK. We live in an era of absolutely mind-boggling plenty and wealth. We ought to be goddamned fuck*ng ashamed of the vast disparity between rich and poor, if not globally, then at least in this country.

But no, we have a complex set of societal / emotional failsafes in place, through which those who have can rationalize, to what may be their purely vestigial remnants of a conscience and social contract, the existence of those who have not, and their attendant squalor and suffering. DUR BLUR HORATIO ALGER, ANYONE CAN MAKE IT IF THEY WORK HARD ENOUGH, MEANWHILE I HAVE HIRED AN ARMY OF MEXICANS (UNDERPAID IN CASH, BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE MUST BE LAZY) TO POLISH THE BIG RAGING BONER I SECRETLY HAVE FOR FEUDALISM

This is why Paris Hilton, the perfect human embodiment of a fuck*ng open sore, has TV shows and magazine covers and a line of heart-stoppingly tacky jewelry and accessories your twelve-year-old daughter wants to buy from Amazon.com. The Big Lie is that everyone is Potentially Rich - and, of course, when you make it (and it's always when, never if) you certainly wouldn't want to support FREELOADERS AND WELFARE QUEENS WHO JUST DON'T WANT TO WORK, now would you? Paris Hilton is the excuse and Judas goat for all your future excesses.

No, there's no law that says the rich should contribute to society in proportion to their wealth. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A FAULTY CONCEPT. There's no law that says hoarding money, power, and materials is fuck*ng vulgar and anti-social, either. Maybe if the prevailing emotion in modern culture weren't fear (The OTHER is out to take my money / children / life / anal virginity), compassion would come a little more freely, and charity and the quality of life of other human beings wouldn't be considered mentally and fiscally weak ideas.

[AlohaDawg]

What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'?

Ever major religion.

If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?

Do what you can with what you have where you are. The rich have more resources, in terms of disposable income, free time, or both,  thus can do more.

Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?

If you believe in karma or an invisible man who lives in the sky then accepting praise for a gesture is fine, while making a gesture while seeking praise is signifigantly less good. For the same reason bitching about not eating meat during Lent is considered a sin, because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.

This is a hell of an interesting argument coming from a group of people who, in another thread, were either agnostic or very secular, and fairly exercised about it. Most of these arguments move you away from the secular - it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God. Either the values are real and meaningful and derived from a source that the majority believes is real,  or they are a social construct developed to maintain the social fabric.  There isn't much of an in-between there.

My point was that you can't make it a moral obligation for the rich to contribute time/talent/treasure without a comcomitant obligation for the middle class or even the poor. It's not a "moral" obligation if it obligates only the rich. Just as rich vs poor is a social construct, basing an obligation on rich vs poor becomes a social construct as well.

For the record, I'm a fairly conservative Christian who does contribute to church benevolence for local, national and international efforts through my pledged giving. I don't consider it a moral obligation as much as a transactional duty - the world and God give me a lot and I return what I can to the world and to God. It's part of the spiritual job of a Christian, if that makes any sense.

[St_Zartan]

Most of these arguments move you away from the secular - it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God.

No, it really isn't that difficult. Other people have feelings / hopes / lives that continue after we are no longer obliged to deal with them, and human beings, unless they are autistic or sociopaths, seem to recognize this. All the evidence tends to bear this out, as well - freshman year philosophy dilemmas (OMG IS EVERYONE A ROB OT BUT ME??? BRAIN IN A VAT) notwithstanding. Morals and values are why other people's feelings matter to us - or, rather, other people's feelings generally matter to us as a quality of being alive, and human, and morals and values are how we rein in our worse impulses. # OF PEOPLE WHO THINK ABOUT MURDER, EVEN IN LOVING DETAIL < # OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMIT THE MURDER ACT

You don't need religion to experience empathy.

[AlohaDawg]

I didn't really factor emotion into the questions regarding morals and/or social pressures, but it is an interesting added dimension to the whole question.

Do you think that the rich can be empathetic to the plight of the poor in the same way that other poor people can be? It's an interesting question - I tend to think not - the most empathetic icons of charity I can think of are people along the lines of Mother Theresa, say - she gave up all comfort to live and work amongst the poor. Sister Marianne Cope and Father Damien DePuyster here in Hawaii - also gave up their lives for the poor and suffering. I don't consider myself a good model of empathy as long as I share my gifts with the needy from a distance.

[arkabee]

i don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative for the rich to give money to the poor, but i do see a moral imperative to make the world better.  that onus would apply equally to rich and poor.  a rich person would have signifigantly superior access to money purchasible assets than a poor person would.  to me, that's the difference.  it's not that rich have to give away their money, it's that the rich have access to tools that others do not.

i do not expect an idiot to invent a zero pollution engine, i expect the idiot to drive with one.

not to sound communist, but all to the best of their abilities, because it's hard to do acts beyond your ability.

it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God.

how so?  because i'd say it's easier to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural.

[AugustWest]

The cartoon cats are teh funnay!!!

[Bobby Isosceles]

The cartoon cats are teh funnay!!!

Rock Over London
Rock On Chicago
This thread may now be closed.

[pmcd9]

Goddamn Paris Hilton, she's gotten us into a religious argument.  Fuckin' bitch I hate her.  Someone lock the thread before this goes any further.

~Paul

[AugustWest]

Done and Done.