Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:If the person next to me was hungry, I would probably help them out, the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.

they are half way round the world, so they are out of mind. i.e. its easy not to care.

If you really meant what you say can I suggest this..... gee whizz if only there was a way to donate

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate

https://secure.savethechildren.org.uk/donate/

My wife and I do donate. How much do you donate, should we have a pissing contest? And do you do it because it makes you feel good, or because the others really need it?

YOU Wrote; 'the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.'
DUH.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: YOU Wrote; 'the problem is that many hungry people are half way around the world, and I have no way to get the food to them.'

I don't, so I rely on organizations that do have the means to transport supplies to where they are needed.

If we care about people at all, resources must be shared. If we don't care about people, then bugger those without. It's a choice. But remember, people are a resource too. So if you decide to bugger those without, be prepared to lose the resource that makes your life better, and do all the labour yourself. All of it.

Dalek Prime wrote:If we care about people at all, resources must be shared. If we don't care about people, then bugger those without. It's a choice. But remember, people are a resource too. So if you decide to bugger those without, be prepared to lose the resource that makes your life better, and do all the labour yourself. All of it.

People already do that, they simply see who is the best resource, there are humans enough. In fact, man of them don't have any emply. And also, people are humans, they usually fight too.

Aisling wrote:Hi lovely people,

this has been bothering me for a while. Could you perhaps share your positions on this question. How much wealth is it ethical for one to posses when there are people all around who do not even have enough to meet their basic needs?

The amount is completely irrelevant, what matters is that you should help your fellow man, not just stand idle by.

TSBU wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:If we care about people at all, resources must be shared. If we don't care about people, then bugger those without. It's a choice. But remember, people are a resource too. So if you decide to bugger those without, be prepared to lose the resource that makes your life better, and do all the labour yourself. All of it.

People already do that, they simply see who is the best resource, there are humans enough. In fact, man of them don't have any emply. And also, people are humans, they usually fight too.

Not much of a fight was put up after the merchant banks robbed the people in 2008, was there. Sit in's don't count. Nothing was truly 'occupied'.

Aisling wrote:

this has been bothering me for a while. Could you perhaps share your positions on this question. How much wealth is it ethical for one to posses when there are people all around who do not even have enough to meet their basic needs?

Differentials in personal wealth and earnings are a large part of governments legislation.

The basic universal wage should be allocated to all individual citizens irrespective of marital status, age, sex, gender, or whether or not an individual deserves the wage.

Additions to the basic universal wage should be

1. proven expertise

2. personal effort such as long education or apprenticeship

3. danger money

4. level of responsibility



There should also be a cap on all earnings over a certain amount, and the cap would override market demand.One possible exception might be earnings from pure luck such as lotteries.

Essential basic services such as defence, education, health, transport infrastructure, utilities , and social care should be paid for from taxation of earners, and from inherited wealth.

Differentials in personal wealth and earnings are a large part of governments legislation.

No. I mean, ok, people calling themselves goverment put laws that regulate what people are doing already (laws that are usually never heard), and there aren't much. Minimum Salary, and the rest is... pretty much taxes.

The basic universal wage should be allocated to all individual citizens irrespective of marital status, age, sex, gender, or whether or not an individual deserves the wage.

I'm not good at English, but I think you should take a look at your "deserve" meaning.

Additions to the basic universal wage should be

1. proven expertise

2. personal effort such as long education or apprenticeship

3. danger money

4. level of responsibility

Wanting to pay more. Because you love that person, because that person is an ignorant, a lazy, a... I don't know what's the meaning of the third point, and irresponsible, but it's the best giving results. Or because you just want to give money. Or things.

There should also be a cap on all earnings over a certain amount, and the cap would override market demand.One possible exception might be earnings from pure luck such as lotteries.

This is sadly shocking when you understand it; As long as it is because of luck, people don't care if you have more. The important thing for them is to be seen as "not worse".

Essential basic services such as defence, education, health, transport infrastructure, utilities , and social care should be paid for from taxation of earners, and from inherited wealth.

1. If everybody agrees in when is defence necesary, there wouldn't be necesary to pay for defence: Only you can defend yourself (paying or using others too).
2. Pretty much the same.
3. We are not equaly expensive in how much our health cost... and the same is true for education or defence...
4. Yep. I want to go to Hawai.
5. What is utilities?
6. What is social care?

Well, nothing of this will never happen, and you should already know it.

Belinda wrote:Aisling wrote:

this has been bothering me for a while. Could you perhaps share your positions on this question. How much wealth is it ethical for one to posses when there are people all around who do not even have enough to meet their basic needs?

Differentials in personal wealth and earnings are a large part of governments legislation.

The basic universal wage should be allocated to all individual citizens irrespective of marital status, age, sex, gender, or whether or not an individual deserves the wage.

Additions to the basic universal wage should be

1. proven expertise

2. personal effort such as long education or apprenticeship

3. danger money

4. level of responsibility
.

No. I think you miss the point.
Everyone gets the same. Hence "universal and basic".
The 4 points you raise are useful, but that would be gained from their jobs like it is now.
The UBI, is a top up, that all can claim.

One idea is that would help people to seek employment that is voluntary, or low paid but provides rewards other than financial, as well as simplifying benefits.
And as everyone gets the same, there would be no adverse judgements upon scroungers.

I self-employ. I produce a product in keeping with the client's specs; the client pays me a fee in keeping with my estimation of what the product is worth.

I don't want a mandated stipend, and I don't want any third party's big nose plonked down in the middle of what is a private transaction.

I'll say it again: you wanna eat? Get up offa your backside and go do for yourself...earn your daily bread...gettin' paid just cuz you're alive is a bad, bad, idea.

Completely. How ethical is it for lions to prey upon the weak, old, and young? They gotta eat!

Henry Quirk either voted for Mr Trump, or he is Mr Trump

Belinda wrote:Henry Quirk either voted for Mr Trump, or he is Mr Trump

Trump is more stupid.

Some related thoughts after reading some of the above:

Is empathy for those outside of one's circle of any value, is it just something that bleeding hearts do to make themselves feel superior?

Can society find a way of rewarding the best contributors rather than the best gamers of the economic system?