Well really I think even if its not a moral obligation, we're better off helping the poor and disadvantaged because its better than paying to keep them in prisons, and pay more police due to higher crime rates.
There's a whole segment of the population for whom the threat of eternal supernatural punishment is the only thing that causes them to consider morality a valid construct. That's scary shit, but it's been made clear by many people many, many times that this is how many religious people think. Terrifying.
He doesn't have to represent all of Christianity to be terrifying. He's an extreme example, but it's not uncommon at all to hear from the religious the sentiment that if God isn't real, then morality isn't either.
Yes, a significant proportion of Christians claim to believe that you can't have morality without God, but that is not the same thing as believing that the driving force behind it is supernatural punishment. Many Christians believe it in a relatively abstract sense, to the extent that it becomes an abstract belief about the ontology of morality and not really a belief about morality.
Regardless, let's take the proportion of people who claim to believe that morality is derived from the threat of divine punishment, and let's even assume that they actually believe what they claim to in that regard. Although the sentiment is a sociopathic one, those people are still rarely actual sociopaths. If you were to convince one of those people that God does not exist, they would not suddenly stop being moral; the same processes in their brains that lead them to be moral would continue to function regardless of whether they recognise that those processes exist.
Let me put it this way. If you hand two people bowls of food and the first person looks you right in the eye and drops their food in the dirt while also knocking the other persons food onto the ground are both people equally deserving of a replacement bowl of food?
So you're saying that someone who knocks someone else's bowl of food to the ground deserves to starve to death, even if there is sufficient food to feed them?
Let me put it this way. If you hand two people bowls of food and the first person looks you right in the eye and drops their food in the dirt while also knocking the other persons food onto the ground are both people equally deserving of a replacement bowl of food?
So you're saying that someone who knocks someone else's bowl of food to the ground deserves to starve to death, even if there is sufficient food to feed them?
Nope. What I am saying is that one of those two gets a refill right away and the other goes to the back of the line.
This will go around in circles until you read up on "post scarcity", what it means, and why it's important. The concept that you must trade value for basic sustenance in order to satisfy some sort of moral imperative is problematic.
@muppet, I am not limiting myself to food but am using food as an analog for any item of value given to someone in need.
If it makes it easier for you we can use cancer.
Oh look, we have 10 people with horrible cancer but only enough resources to treat 8 of them. If two of those people have lifestyles that have led to their cancer (heavy smokers) are they equally deserving of our limited medical resources?
So let's not stop at food. Let's give everybody a home. Vacant homes outnumber homeless by some absurd figure in the US. 10 to 1? Of course, to make that work we'll have to have socialized healthcare, in particular mental health treatment. Ooh let's do that, too, because it's already demonstrably possible thanks to every other first world country in the world.
Let's give everybody a TV because they're getting tossed in dumpsters all over the world when excess manufacturing capacity isn't sold. Oh hey that happens with cars, too (but really adequate public transportation would be far better for a number of ecological and scaling reasons.) If we can manage TVs and cars we can probably mange a suit of clothes. Hey how about a college education? A handful of European/Scandinavian countries are managing that pretty well it seems.
...getting through? Scarcity is mostly invented so that a few people get to live like Paris Hilton and far more people can't even treat their asthma. This wasn't always the case and Capitalism was swell to get us through the Industrial Revolution and all, but now it's outmoded and obsolete and will inevitably cause some major social problems if not outright collapse at the rate we're going now (see the global wealth disparity that's entirely out of control.)
We have the resources to treat everybody's cancer to a reasonable degree (ie, not trying to extend some insanely wealthy person's life by 3 months. OH NO DEATH PANELS!), so that's another dead end example.
Vacant home does not equal unowned. Oh look, that apartment building has five vacant apartments let's give them away!
Even with homes, how many free homes does one person get? If they destroy their home after 30 days and come looking for another do they get another? At what point does society say, "dude, you are not responsible enough to own a home. No more homes for you."
We have the resources to treat everybody's cancer to a reasonable degree (ie, not trying to extend some insanely wealthy person's life by 3 months. OH NO DEATH PANELS!), so that's another dead end example.
I gave a very specific example. The why's and how's of the example are irrelevant. It could be as simple as the hospital being in a remote area and bad weather is preventing resupply, lack of medical personnel, corruption in the hospital siphoning off resources. It doesn't matter. The point is that you are in a situation of limited resources and more people need your help than you can help. In that situation, do you factor in what led them to need help or is everyone treated equally regardless of how they ended up in their current situation.
If that is too much for you then we can go to an extreme.
A medic arrives at the scene of a suicide bombing. There are two injured people, one a victim of the bombing and the other the bomber. It is obvious which one is which but the medic can only save one of them. Should this knowledge have an impact on who they save?
Well, let me start out by saying I don't give a fuck about ownership, so we can just get that right out of the way.
Why are you so fixated on people dumping out food, destroying homes, etc? Seems extremely classist if not racist. The barbarian, drooling poor deserve their lot, seems to be your message.
I am not fixating on anything other than trying to create a scenario that you will not simply discount out of hand. I make no mention of class or race in my examples. Any assumption as to class or race is something that you are adding to the examples which makes that a statement about you not me.
Your entirely invented, absurd scenarios aren't relevant in a discussion of reality. They're strawman, tropey non-arguments designed to justify an economic system you take for granted because you were born into it, indoctrinated into it, and it's your comfort zone.
Your entirely invented, absurd scenarios aren't relevant in a discussion of reality. They're strawman, tropey non-arguments designed to justify an economic system you take for granted because you were born into it, indoctrinated into it, and it's your comfort zone.
How are they strawmen? They are certainly hypothetical in nature but how are they strawmen?
A) society told them that the specific course of study they pursued would lead to employment that would easily pay off the debt yet when they graduate no such employment exists.
Only people selling something say this. That's not “society”.
Still not seeing how my examples are strawmen and not hypotheticals.
It is my understanding that Muppets view is that when resources are infinite you should always give those resources to those in need regardless of their situation and use of those resources.
I contend that infinite resources do not exist. There can be an overabundance of resources but never an infinite supply of resources. As such I have provided several hypothetical situations where resources are limited, the reasons why those in need are in need and then asked directly if those reasons should be taken into account when giving out finite resources.
Rather than give an answer Muppet has avoided by claiming that resources are never limited.
"People might burn down the house you built for them or pour the gruel you've given them on the ground. OMG what if everybody's dying but there's only one vial of antidote!"
Those are your arguments. You have got to be fucking kidding. I know you're not actually this dense.
Many resources are limited. Some are limited by physical realities of the universe. Many others are limited only by cultural/societal constructs. The latter are a shared source of shame and responsibility.
Comments
Regardless, let's take the proportion of people who claim to believe that morality is derived from the threat of divine punishment, and let's even assume that they actually believe what they claim to in that regard. Although the sentiment is a sociopathic one, those people are still rarely actual sociopaths. If you were to convince one of those people that God does not exist, they would not suddenly stop being moral; the same processes in their brains that lead them to be moral would continue to function regardless of whether they recognise that those processes exist.
So, on the whole, it isn't really that scary.
If it makes it easier for you we can use cancer.
Oh look, we have 10 people with horrible cancer but only enough resources to treat 8 of them. If two of those people have lifestyles that have led to their cancer (heavy smokers) are they equally deserving of our limited medical resources?
Let's give everybody a TV because they're getting tossed in dumpsters all over the world when excess manufacturing capacity isn't sold. Oh hey that happens with cars, too (but really adequate public transportation would be far better for a number of ecological and scaling reasons.) If we can manage TVs and cars we can probably mange a suit of clothes. Hey how about a college education? A handful of European/Scandinavian countries are managing that pretty well it seems.
...getting through? Scarcity is mostly invented so that a few people get to live like Paris Hilton and far more people can't even treat their asthma. This wasn't always the case and Capitalism was swell to get us through the Industrial Revolution and all, but now it's outmoded and obsolete and will inevitably cause some major social problems if not outright collapse at the rate we're going now (see the global wealth disparity that's entirely out of control.)
Even with homes, how many free homes does one person get? If they destroy their home after 30 days and come looking for another do they get another? At what point does society say, "dude, you are not responsible enough to own a home. No more homes for you."
If that is too much for you then we can go to an extreme.
A medic arrives at the scene of a suicide bombing. There are two injured people, one a victim of the bombing and the other the bomber. It is obvious which one is which but the medic can only save one of them. Should this knowledge have an impact on who they save?
Why are you so fixated on people dumping out food, destroying homes, etc? Seems extremely classist if not racist. The barbarian, drooling poor deserve their lot, seems to be your message.
It is my understanding that Muppets view is that when resources are infinite you should always give those resources to those in need regardless of their situation and use of those resources.
I contend that infinite resources do not exist. There can be an overabundance of resources but never an infinite supply of resources. As such I have provided several hypothetical situations where resources are limited, the reasons why those in need are in need and then asked directly if those reasons should be taken into account when giving out finite resources.
Rather than give an answer Muppet has avoided by claiming that resources are never limited.
Is that about right?
Those are your arguments. You have got to be fucking kidding. I know you're not actually this dense.