|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2014 14:05:55 GMT -5
We're not really disagreeing. You're emphasizing what should be and I'm emphasizing what is. 8-> What "is" is that all moral codes are not equal. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 14, 2014 10:27:32 GMT -5
But what is "good' will change. For example, if you're in a small band of humans 50,000 years ago and a deformed baby is born, it would be better for the group not to waste scarce resources on it, since it will die anyway. In that case, "good" (good for the group) might be to leave the baby to die. Or if you're in a dark ages European village and your crops have been cursed by a witch, "good" (good for the group) might be to burn a suspected villager. People have to make decisions based on their current knowledge, including false beliefs. We can look back and declare that our ancestors made many moral mistakes in their ignorance, but our descendents may look back at us and see just as many problems that we're making today. We make the best choices that we can based on what we know, but we could be wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 16:37:45 GMT -5
Bob, do you think it's moral for the Fed Government to subsidize food stamps?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2014 19:17:15 GMT -5
But what is "good' will change. For example, if you're in a small band of humans 50,000 years ago and a deformed baby is born, it would be better for the group not to waste scarce resources on it, since it will die anyway. In that case, "good" (good for the group) might be to leave the baby to die. Or if you're in a dark ages European village and your crops have been cursed by a witch, "good" (good for the group) might be to burn a suspected villager. People have to make decisions based on their current knowledge, including false beliefs. We can look back and declare that our ancestors made many moral mistakes in their ignorance, but our descendents may look back at us and see just as many problems that we're making today. We make the best choices that we can based on what we know, but we could be wrong. I agree with you Fred. What people think is "good" has always changed, and, most likely, always will. My point is that this is not arbitrary. People can compare the different moral codes and choose which ones are better. For example, if there are two societies and one says it's okay for husbands to beat their wives and the other one thinks that's a crime and does everything it can to prevent it, which one do you think will ultimately prevail? Moral codes are just like any other product. People can pick and choose, but their choices are based on human nature and human needs. Some codes are better than others. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2014 19:24:49 GMT -5
Bob, do you think it's moral for the Fed Government to subsidize food stamps? I think that people should help each other. I make donations at my supermarket to feed the hungry. Many restaurants in New York donate their spare food to feed the hungry. This is good and moral. And it is voluntary. The government program is hypocritical. It is not set up to help the poor. It's main purpose is to give money to big agricultural companies. Of course, they never tell that to you in their press releases. I think that charity should be voluntary. It is immoral to take money from people, whether they want to give it or not, and use it even for a supposedly good cause. That would be stealing, and stealing is immoral. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 19:39:09 GMT -5
Thanks, Bob. This just illustrates my intended point, which is that it's not only that different societies may have different ideas of what is moral and what is not, but also they differ within societies according to politics, viewpoints, lifestyles, etc., as well. Many prople would consider your view on food stamps to be immoral. There are just certain ideals that a type of people have that no one should go hungry and not have to rely on the charity of other people's whims to have food or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 14:05:42 GMT -5
Bob, is your non-response an agreement?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2014 14:13:40 GMT -5
Bob, is your non-response an agreement? No. My non-response means I'm busy. I just responded to a bunch of posts on the Politics board and will get to this after lunch. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2014 16:35:30 GMT -5
Thanks, Bob. This just illustrates my intended point, which is that it's not only that different societies may have different ideas of what is moral and what is not, but also they differ within societies according to politics, viewpoints, lifestyles, etc., as well. Yes. I agree with this. Some people have concluded from this that all moral codes are arbitrary and that one code is not better or worse than any other. This I do not agree with. Believe me, I already know this. Yes. I agree that people should not go hungry. The question now becomes: What is the best way to keep people from going hungry? Data can be gathered to see which system is best. As far as relying on charity and other people's whims, that simply doesn't happen. There are organized charities and they collect from many people. One person may decide not to give right now, but there are always others to fill in the gaps. As far as "whims" go, nothing is worse that being at the whim of politicians. Take a look at what happened when funding for food stamps was cut recently: online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579383042416854118What do you notice from this article? The government cut the funding, but the people in the private charities stayed there and are working harder. Government funding is not reliable. It is given at the whim of politicians. The private charities are run by people who care and they don't cut and run when the going gets tough. If you want reliable help for the poor and hungry, private charities are the way to go. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 17:12:28 GMT -5
I don't get anything from the article because it just shows a few lines, being that you have to be a subscriber.
But that's beside the point. Yes, we need people to give and also need to have govenment subsidies especially to feed the children. To me that is a moral imperative. So we differ. But I knew that anyway.
And on top of it, you don't want aid going to poorer countires to feed people--and especially the children. You don't mind corporations using people in other countries, but dear God, don't ever send aid.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2014 20:41:53 GMT -5
I don't get anything from the article because it just shows a few lines, being that you have to be a subscriber. But that's beside the point. Yes, we need people to give and also need to have govenment subsidies especially to feed the children. To me that is a moral imperative. So we differ. But I knew that anyway. Okay. Let's see the facts and figures that say the government does a better job of feeding children that private charities do. The moral imperative is that the children be fed. It shouldn't matter where the money comes from and if the private charities can do a better job, then who needs the government? Last January, the government reduced the amount of food stamps. The government abandoned the poor and the hungry. All the food pantries here in New York were thrown into a crisis, but the private charities didn't give up. They are still there. That's the difference between people who care and a bunch of corrupt politicians. You can't count on the government Lily. Oh but I do want aid to go to the poor countries. Once again, private charities can do a much better job. Most of that so-called "aid" we send to the poor countries ends up being stolen by corrupt politicians and sold! And then there is this research from Harvard. It turns out that most of our aid to the poor countries goes to the most corrupt regimes. How much of this aid do you think actually ends up helping the poor? dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553011/alesina_corruptgovernments.pdfSo Lily, if you are in favor of helping the poor, you have to be against government aid because it just ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 1:22:10 GMT -5
Stop taking me for a fool. You know damn well that no matter what, Libertarians don't believe in aid to any other country no matter what. Except the other way around where companies can enrich themselves by using people in other countires and pretend it's only to help those poor slobs.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 16, 2014 11:49:26 GMT -5
Stop taking me for a fool. You know damn well that no matter what, Libertarians don't believe in aid to any other country no matter what. That is out and out NOT TRUE. Libertarians are against government providing that "aid" because it usually ends up in the bank account of corrupt government officials. Of course businesses don't move to other countries out of charity. And nobody ever claimed that it was. But the effect is that the people in those poor countries become much, much better off. Adam Smith pointed this out over 200 years ago. One thing I want to know. Do you deny that hundreds of millions of people in India and China have been lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years? It wasn't government aid that did that. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 13:28:29 GMT -5
Of course businesses don't move to other countries out of charity. And nobody ever claimed that it was. But the effect is that the people in those poor countries become much, much better off. Adam Smith pointed this out over 200 years ago. Adam Smith also pointed out that it is completely unreasonable to expect a free market to handle education, welfare, or basic infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 25, 2014 15:16:27 GMT -5
Of course businesses don't move to other countries out of charity. And nobody ever claimed that it was. But the effect is that the people in those poor countries become much, much better off. Adam Smith pointed this out over 200 years ago. Adam Smith also pointed out that it is completely unreasonable to expect a free market to handle education, welfare, or basic infrastructure. Well then, he was right in my quote and wrong in yours. Bob
|
|