Poverty/Mandela

what's wrong with poverty. It helps maintaining a continuosly flow of cheap resources for the western world to advance with. I live in the western world.

Gdub is my hero

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Nelson Mandela's rallying cry for action against World Poverty contained some powerful and beautiful rhetoric. This section in particular: "overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom. " Read the whole speech here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4232603.stm Why do we so easily turn a blind eye to suffering that happens every single day, yet will send money when one-off disasters occur?   Although he does make a good point, I don't like what he says from a philosophical standpoint. Protection of a fundamental human right? What human right is that? Rights are agreements between societies and their governments that give the government the power to rule as long as the government honors certain agreements, i.e., not to take life, liberty, or property. If somebody is poor, they're rights aren't being violated... and although a democratic society should do its best to give those who aren't as fortunate opportunity and a means to a better life, they're rights are not really an issue. Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost.  Poverty and freedom are not mutually exclusive! Aside from that, yes I entirely agree, taking care of the poor should not only happen when something catastrophic happens or during the holidays, thats very true.

He is talking about how one human being should treat another.It is society's moral obligation as human beings to not stand by as millions die through povery.

By your reckoning Sweetnighter Jesus must have been a marxist.

Why is it that it should be reasonable that one individual has billions in capital whilst another individual is dying through lack of it?
As human beings we should not be living by the mantra "survival of the fittest"

Just because Capitalism is the way of the world does not make it morally right.

Your statement:

Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost

is morally bankrupt in my opinion.Why shouldnt it be society's obligation? Are you saying that there are whole populations out there that would feel their liberties were infringed if their poverty-stricken way of life was changed?It is easy to be idealistic when you yourself do not have to face the consequences!

I know quite a few people, and no doubt there are some on this forum, who would be outraged if their government or an individual political party, were to announce that they planned to raise income tax by 1% to help fight world starvation.I have actually heard someone say  that such an idea would be disgraceful as "I already pay too much tax". It is wonderful to be in that position whilst people are literally dying through lack of care!

Interesting reply Sweetnighter, you make some basic mistakes.

1.You talk of the "study of ethics" and it's interpretation, but this has no relevance to what I have written.How you can judge my personal opinion or someone else's for that matter by using a man-made code as a "rule of thumb", is beyond me?

2.Taxation is not "stealing" from any individual at all. That is a nonsensical statement. Taxation, in a democracy, is the means by which a fairly elected body raises funds to pay for services and the costs of running government (amongst a host of other things). Poverty is not a natural state of existence either. Logically, since a family unit provides for itself,sharing and nurturing must be the natural way of things-how else could the human race have developed?

You say:

Poverty, just as luxury is, is a state of existence

I say "shame on you" for even thinking that.We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS here.We are talking about children being born into poverty,helpless HUMAN BEINGS, who had no choice at birth, and you say "tough luck!"

Reed Lover wrote: tuxon wrote: what's wrong with poverty. It helps maintaining a continuosly flow of cheap resources for the western world to advance with. I live in the western world. Tux-you're The Netherlands' version of Gdub!

Hey- there needs to be a pecking order of some sort. It's all part of the food chain. So, who ranks higher on the food chain....Reed or me?

maani wrote: Reed Lover: Needless to say, given the recent past, it is ironic for you to be noting Jesus in this discussion.    However, you are correct.  Of all the social issues occurring at that time, Jesus had more to say about poverty and the poor than about any other subject (except the kingdom of God).  And Jesus did consider it a moral obligation to help the poor.  (For more on this subject, I invite you to visit the website of a group called "Call to Renewal".) However, as Sweetnighter points out, there is a difference between the moral obligation of society as whole, and that of the "government." That said, given that the "government" is ultimately made up of human beings who are members of the society they govern, there would seem to be a tacit obligation on their part as well - though whether that obligation should include the "formal apparatus" of "government" is another question. Peace.

You soon forget Maani! I believe that Jesus existed and that he said some things that are worth following.However I do not believe in God, gods or supreme entities and like Jesus himself (probably) do not believe Jesus was God or divine.

As Maani quite rightly points out, governments are made up of human beings, so why they should have a different obligation to the Society they both serve and govern is beyond me. In democracies governments are elected to do the will of the people and a few would be well served to remember that!

tuxon:

Actually, that is one of those "misnomers" that is not exactly true.  What she actually said was, "Let tham eat brioche."  And, no, I am not kidding.  In French, cake is "gateau," which is what was reserved for the aristocracy.  And since the peasants were complaining about a lack of bread, she "raised the bar" one step above bread, which would be brioche.  It was a sarcastic slap at the peasantry, suggesting that they would never get "cake," but if they wanted something more than bread, it would only be brioche.

syzygy:

Ditto!

velvetclown:

I'm curious: do you know what was meant by "the needle's eye?"

Peace.

Reed Lover wrote: Interesting reply Sweetnighter, you make some basic mistakes. 1.You talk of the "study of ethics" and it's interpretation, but this has no relevance to what I have written.How you can judge my personal opinion or someone else's for that matter by using a man-made code as a "rule of thumb", is beyond me? 2.Taxation is not "stealing" from any individual at all. That is a nonsensical statement. Taxation, in a democracy, is the means by which a fairly elected body raises funds to pay for services and the costs of running government (amongst a host of other things). Poverty is not a natural state of existence either. Logically, since a family unit provides for itself,sharing and nurturing must be the natural way of things-how else could the human race have developed? You say: Poverty, just as luxury is, is a state of existence I say "shame on you" for even thinking that.We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS here.We are talking about children being born into poverty,helpless HUMAN BEINGS, who had no choice at birth, and you say "tough luck!"

You do make a good point regarding the definition of what is "ethics". Despite this, from a philosophical standpoint, you can't simply define ethics any way you want. We have to determine exactly what the study of ethics really is... so, is it how you define it, or how i define it? Either way, it needs a commonly accepted definition.

Now regarding what you say about being born into poverty... and this goes along with that Syzygy said about being "civilized" as well. First thing is, yes, there are enough material goods on the planet for everybody to have their share, but how do you intend to redistribute them? To say that we're not civilized until poverty has been extinguished is far too idealistic and utopian. The truth of the matter is that we're animals... other than our superior intelligence, what makes us any different from other animals? Although its unfortunate to say, "tough luck" is really the only response to be given. The most humane thing to do is allow people the liberty to move up the socio-economic ladder. You can't force people to take care of themselves or to do the right thing... you can only give them the chance to do those things. And of course, compassionate individuals worldwide provide these possibilities to the less fortunate everyday... and their love of live is worthy of recognition... but having governments forcibly redistribute wealth is a lost cause... it was tried and it failed. I guess all I'm saying is that as intelligent human beings we have to be pragmatic.