27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfIt's REALLY pretty simple. You're making it more difficult than it is.
Presumably, you would not accept the government compelling citizens, for example, to accommodate homeless people in their private homes or to give away their land or other property. So "whatever it takes" needs to be defined.
In the US there's no reason other than greed, that people aren't provided food, shelter, medical care, etc.
27 Jul 17
Government compelling citizens to do things. Apportioning limited resources. Setting levels of tax. Adjudicating who is entitled to what and who is not. These are not simple things. And such decisions all have a moral dimension that I think could be interesting to discuss.
27 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfListen, you really are making it more difficult than it is.
Government compelling citizens to do things. Apportioning limited resources. Setting levels of tax. Adjudicating who is entitled to what and who is not. These are not simple things. And such decisions all have a moral dimension that I think could be interesting to discuss.
In the US there are more than adequate resources to provide those who need help with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Greed is what keeps it from being done.
Not sure how I can be any more clear.
You seem to believe that it's much more complicated than it is. Perhaps it's because you've been conditioned to believe as such.
27 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhat limits should be placed on the government compelling citizens to do things? What limits should be placed on the government imposing certain conditions and restrictions on citizens?
Listen, you really are making it more difficult than it is.
In the US there are more than adequate resources to provide people with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Greed is what keeps it from being done.
Not sure how I can be any more clear.
You seem to believe that it's much more complicated than it is. Perhaps it's because you've been conditioned to believe as such.
What limits should be placed on levels of tax or other appropriation of property in order to generate the necessary resources?
And unless there is some definition of who is entitled to what and who is not, then deciding what resources are "adequate" is moot.
I don't think these are simple things. I am interested in discussion of the moral dimension to such collective decisions.
27 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfI don't think these are simple things.
What limits should be placed on the government compelling citizens to do things? What limits should be placed on the government imposing certain conditions and restrictions on citizens?
What limits should be placed on levels of tax or other appropriation of property in order to generate the necessary resources?
And unless there is some definition of who ...[text shortened]... imple things. I am interested in discussion of the moral dimension to such collective decisions.
I know you don't.
However, in the US there are more than adequate resources to provide those who need help with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Greed is what keeps it from being done.
It's really pretty simple. Evidently you've been conditioned to believe otherwise.
27 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThe thread is not about "greed", it's about the moral dimension of the political realities of gathering and then allocating resources and then the moral dimension of identifying those who would be entitled and providing to them. For the sake of argument, I am happy to accept that "in the US there are more than adequate resources"; but the thread is not about that. The thread is about the moral questions surrounding putting those "adequate resources" to the use that we are discussing.
However, in the US there are more than adequate resources to provide those who need help with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Greed is what keeps it from being done.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofone"Entitlement" might well be a propaganda word out of the mouths of many a politician, I'll grant you. But it is the correct word for what I am getting at. Let's say the government is going to provide free homes to people 'who need them'.
"Entitlement". Now that's part of the propaganda machine.
The notion "entitlement" would then be about who gets a free home from the government ~ i.e. who has the right to such provision ~ and who doesn't; a moral discussion of "entitlement" would be about setting a boundary between those that receive a service and those that don't.
Who needs something and who doesn't [in so far as the government being morally obliged to provide it] is not only a political question but also a morality-in-action question.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfFrom what I can tell, you're trapped in a Rube Goldberg pattern of thought.
The thread is not about "greed", it's about the moral dimension of the political realities of gathering and then allocating resources and then the moral dimension of identifying those who would be entitled and providing to them. For the sake of argument, I am happy to accept that "in the US there are more than adequate resources"; but the thread is not about th ...[text shortened]... oral questions surrounding putting those "adequate resources" to the use that we are discussing.
Here's a thought experiment for you. You say that you accept that "in the US there are more than adequate resources". Let's say that "greed" is deemed as an insufficient excuse to deny providing those who need help with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Is it still really so complicated? Once again, the resources are more than adequate. Seems you've bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneOn the contrary, I am interested in discussing how to rationalize getting it done in a morally sound way.
Seems you've bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYes. Of course, getting it done is clearly complicated. Identifying a cause as being "greed" is simple. Are you willing to discuss the moral dimension of how to go about providing those who need help with food, shelter, medical care? This thread is not about whether or not the US has the resources to help who need help with food, shelter, medical care. It's about the moral nuts and bolts of doing it.
You say that you accept that "in the US there are more than adequate resources". Let's say that "greed" is deemed as an insufficient excuse to deny providing those who need help with food, shelter, medical care, etc. Is it still really so complicated?
27 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfNot sure if you understand how I was using the word "rationalizations"
On the contrary, I am interested in discussing how to rationalize getting it done in a morally sound way.
From wiki:
In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]
Rationalisation happens in two steps:
1.A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all.
2.A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others).
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame).
So I am speaking of "rationalizations" as excuses for "greed".
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneOK, if I've used the word "rationalization" incorrectly, fair enough I withdraw it.
Not sure if you understand how I was using the word "rationalizations"
Seems you've bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.
I don't think I have bought into anything. I am interested in discussing the moral mechanics of "getting it done".
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI am making no excuses for greed. I am interested in the political morality of mitigating its consequences.
So I am speaking of "rationalizations" as excuses for "greed".
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneDon't be absurd. Half the people in office are people like you put their by people like you. 😉
And that means that another problem is that people like you vote for that 2% and do your best to keep those "greedy bastards" in office.
They're all liars left and right. Those in office are a reflection of a corrupt culture. As goes the heart of the people so goes the nation.
Besides, the 2% aren't in office anyway. Except a few, and they buy their way in. They're the ones that have been bankrolling the whole world since the beginning, and they don't give a rat's as about any of us. After all it's the devil's world don't you know?!
27 Jul 17
Originally posted by @josephwWhat role (and moral obligation) do you think the government has in tackling poverty (aside from, in addition to, in cooperation with charitable non-governmental organisations)?
Don't be absurd. Half the people in office are people like you put their by people like you. 😉
They're all liars left and right. Those in office are a reflection of a corrupt culture. As goes the heart of the people so goes the nation.
Besides, the 2% aren't in office anyway. Except a few, and they buy their way in. They're the ones that have been ba ...[text shortened]... nd they don't give a rat's as about any of us. After all it's the devil's world don't you know?!