Do the poor deserve to live?

[DuctapeFatwa]

Earlier today there was an interesting thread asking whether the rich deserve their wealth.

After doing some thinking and rethinking of the various aspects of that question, it occurred to me that maybe the more salient question, in terms of politics, is

"Do the poor deserve to live?"

I thought it would be interesting to try to make a discussion of the question as accessible as possible, to people who may not have done a lot of academic study of economics, ethics and lions and tigers, oh my! but who are thinking people who have interesting ideas.

To oversimplify to an extent that will horrify the academics, there are basically two opposing schools of thought.

One: law of the jungle. If I am bigger and stronger than you, I therefore have the inherent and inalienable right to hit you in the head and take your food.

Extrapolate that to the modern day equivalent which spans everything from me being smarter than you and getting the promotion based on that alone, to me being born in a rich family and you to an indigent crackhead, to me being willing to lie cheat steal kill hurt puppies sleep with Arnold to get the bucks and you being restrained by scruples and conscience, etc etc.

Two: We have a moral/ethical/religious/evolutionary/other flavor obligation to do what we can for our fellow man for the greater good of all/progress of the species, no one should stand before a hungry child stuffing their mouths with cake, every human being has an inherent and inalienable right to that which is necessary for his basic needs to the extent that his fellows are able to provide it, etc etc.

So what do you think? If I have two loaves of bread, and you have none, do I have the right to eat one and throw the other one away?

Does anyone have the right to take one from me and give it to you?

Which will benefit humankind more? For you, less able to obtain bread than I, to starve, thus ensuring that my genes and not yours swim in the pool?

Or for someone to take my second loaf and give it to you so that your genes swim too and/or to protect me from harm you might do me in your desperation?

[grasswire]

1. an interesting post, thanks

Unfortunately, I've just had a plate of roasted chicken, stuffing, gravy and green beans. So I'd better not comment for a while.

[DEMActivist]

2. The question, as posed, is moot

Because, regardless of what you think, the poor DO live. And eventually, like in Venezuela today, they rise up, fight their oppressors and it eventually becomes a bloody battle to the death. The (few) rich are killed or run out and the resources of the nation will, once again, be shared so that a fair and equitable society will prevail.

You see, no matter how they try, a few rich, cold hearted, non-humans can't keep it all for themselves while watching the population starve to death.

The main problem with your scenario is those rich folks don't want to do the dirty work of providing their own security so their hired hands eventually rise up and plot their overthrow. Because, you see, those hired guards have families, children, parents who they refuse to watch starve to death.

[Arianrhod]

19. Such an uprising

can require decades or even centuries of intense suffering before it builds into anything significant. Meanwhile, the rich continue to oppress the poor, so that the status quo remains static for the most part. If an uprising does begin and happens to be successful, the result is that the poor become the new rich, and the cycle starts all over again.

Human nature is animal nature. We are designed by evolution to exist at any cost, on an individual level. There are many responses to oppressive situations that enable us to continue to live, but perhaps the most common one is acquiescence. It's the way we adapt psychologically to unpleasant circumstances.

In America, we worship the rich. (Paris Hilton is currently on the cover of some magazine for an article about "what it's like to be filthy rich".) This is partly because we have been taught from infancy that we have the potential to make that kind of money, too. Of course, this is an illusion at best; according to the government's own statistics, very few people actually move upwardly on the economic scale. But we cherish the illusion, always hoping that it will somehow happen to us, against very great odds.

And even if it does, not many people use their newfound wealth to rectify the burdensome situation that drove them to find it in the first place. They're too busy celebrating.

Besides, the problem is not really the rich, anyway. The problem is Lord Byron's: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is as true for you and me as it is for * and Scalia.

I wouldn't put too much stock in a national uprising. It's not the answer, Marx notwithstanding.

[Ladyhawk]

3. This is a topic which I've mulled over a lot

because I am poor. I was raised in a right-wing xtian home that taught, "If ye do no work, then ye shall not eat." Well, I ended up with Depression (which fundies don't consider a real disease), OCD, PTSD, diabetes, degenerative disc disease, etc., so I am not a contributing member of society.

So, if I'm not a contributing member of society, why the hell am I here? I wonder myself, sometimes.

How should the poor die? might be a more interesting question if you're into social darwinism.

On the heart level, I deplore social darwinism, but I look at nature and see no pity for the sick or the weak. Last November I saw an Orca snack on a yearling sea lion. The sea lion died partly because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time and partly because it was uneducated. Nature is simultaneously brutal and beautiful. Chimps and wolves take care of their sick...do they make them feel worthless, too?

I feel worthless. Why am I here, absorbing your tax dollars and giving nothing back?

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Your argument is no good. Try again

You just gave something back.

What you would have to argue is that the only gifts and talents that matter are those directly related to the acquisition of matter above that which is necessary to survive.

Now from there, you can either say acquisition is a standalone virtue and enough by itself to justify existence, or you can argue that that very above survival acquisition is necessary if man is to help his brothers, which will tie you into a nice round circle unless you acknowledge that those non-acquisition gifts have AT LEAST equal value to plain old grabbing talent.

[InkAddict]

7. Don't despair, LadyHawk

Perhaps you (and other poor) are here so that each of us can look into our hearts and find charity (the greatest from among faith, hope, and....). As you have seen, there is a nobility in survival against the odds, a Lighthouse if you will, so that others will can make choices to take the risks in living day-to-day. Perhaps you are really rich in ways that matter most overall in the universe and not to those who are so out of practice at struggling that their easy "pre-emptiveness" is itself damning. Introspection doesn't seem to be the strong suit of the rich and powerful.

The part that is hard is dealing with the shame that comes through comparison. Don't compare, just make the best choices you can to further your journey. Put the shamers on IGNORE!

It's the hardest thing to do; I struggle with it too.

[whathappened]

8. i fell your pain

i too worked hard all my life up tell the point i fell and hurt myself so bad i could no longer hold employment , and it hurts no being able to work , i loved to work and share the joys of having things in life , now i suffer everyday of my life and see no future of having any fun in life because of the pain i have everytime i try to do something , and what can i do about it , nothing , i'm locked into this body that won't work for me and my brains says go boy , you have plenty to do , it makes me sick to see all the rich out there down playing those who are less in life to them , but never giving a helping hand to man kind , i have nothing but alway try to help some one who is in need

[liberalmuse]

13. I'm glad you're here, Ladyhawk!

As a matter of fact, I was wondering where you have been and am glad to see you posting tonight. :) If your value was measured with how many people who have never personally met you caring about you and what happens to you, I suppose you'd be worth a helluva lot. Anyway, your tax dollars would just be used to kill people, and at least you don't have that on your conscience.

[Arianrhod]

22. You are not worthless.

Please do not fall prey to the American delusion that having money is the only valuable thing a person has to offer society. In fact, unless that money is given away, it doesn't contribute anything at all. So paradoxically, the truth is that the true contribution is to have nothing, but to funnel everything.

I also struggled with poverty, watching my children starve and living on the streets. I also grew up in a right-wing Fundamentalist environment. I am manic-depressive and have arthritis in my spine. These things can be debilitating, or they can be a springboard to something else. I have chosen to make them a springboard.

I empathize with your difficult situation, but I won't demean you by pretending to know what you should do about it. Only you can find the correct answer, because only you know what you really need and really want, and what options genuinely exist for you. But I am more than willing to act as a sounding board, to listen, to suggest, to support, if you like. Because those things are a contribution, too. :)

[newyawker99]

25. Ladyhawk, I don't mind that you are "absorbing" my tax

dollars. I would rather the money go to you than to some new bombs that will kill innocent people. I wish I could choose where my tax money will go, but I can't. :-( No one is worthless. We all have value.

So, if I'm not a contributing member of society, why the hell am I here? I wonder myself, sometimes.

Maybe you haven't found your purpose for being here yet. Some of the greatest people who lived made great contributions to society without contributing any money. Please think about this.


Edit: to fix a word.

[Loyal]

33. Couldn't have said it better myself

n/t

[SadEagle]

4. There is a sort of third option.

One can claim that one should be friendly to the 'weak' for purely Darwinist reasons: encouraging that behavior develops a more cooperative society, moving the genetic pool slowly toward a group of people that is more likely to help each other -- which means that even though most of people may not be amazingly strong, amazingly smart, since they stick together they overall have a much better chance of getting through whatever we may face... There is an another side, too: the brittleness of genius. Many of the most respected artists and writers have lived in poverty, had appeared to their contemporaries as weak and worthless, even though these days we cherish their works and hold their names in hallowed respect. Many other flames of genius have been snuffered out and faded by poverty or violence -- if you have looked at math history, one would remember that Leibnitz died in poverty, and that many many of the well-known names have tied from disease (which would, I guess, make them 'weak') --- people like Abel, Ramanujan, etc. In other words, brutal survival of the species may work if one's life consists of looking for something to eat and how to have children, but as soon as arts and science come into equation, letting people suffer in misery can put us all back decades if not centuries.

[amazona]

52. thank you...a voice of sound common sense

The small hummingbird who visits my garden and sips at my feeder may be said to "take," for I provide her food, and she leaves nothing in return except an indignant squeak if I am too slow to refresh her nectar. Yet that bird, who has paid not one dime of tax and never will, is of more value to this planet than a thousand Dick Cheneys in all their pomp.

If you are kind, if you are beautiful, if you amuse, if you make someone laugh, if you make someone think -- and Ladyhawk, I can promise you that you have made some of us think -- you have achieved more good in the world than many a famous name with millions of cash dollars at his fingertips.

The ability to acquire pieces of paper called "money" is a temporary one that comes and goes. Some people enjoy this ability for many years and for great sums. Others do not. So what? If someone wants to feel superior to you because they can collect more scraps of money than you, perhaps your best reaction should be a polite and quiet pity for their ignorance. In a decent society, those of us fortunate enough to be "in the chips" toss in to help out those who are not currently so fortunate. It just shouldn't be such a damn big deal.



jesus didn't hold a job either, i would advise those so-called fundies to get their nose out of the old testament and to consult the gospels, i'm just saying

[liberalmuse]

6. Interesting...

Humans have the ability to think, imagine, and create just for the sake of creating, so we aren't in the same class as animals in this respect. Even in the animal kingdom, there are acts of altruism. The fact that many humans are able to feel compassion and imagine themselves in another's shoes ensures the survival of many people who would fail the 'survival of the fittest' test. We can't discount how important a factor like kindness, or even common sense is to human evolution. Some people believe we are interfering with nature when we help the 'weak'. What they fail to see is, helping others of our species to survive is in itself, an extremely important engine of human evolution. Humans need more than physical strength to survive. We need to be able to outwit a number of animals far stronger than we are, and even the forces of nature itself. We also need mental stimulation and something to strive for. Imagine our world devoid of a Stephen Hawking or Helen Keller. I think I'm expressing it badly, but what I'm trying to say is, the 'survival of the fittest' is crap when it comes to human beings. It's an excuse some people use to justify greed and selfishness.

[seventhson]

11. The Deviant and Worthless are the Ones who do NOT Care for their...

community.

The rich and the powerful are really the deviant members of society who drag us all down with their greed and surfeitude.

Each human being has much to offer in terms of love, artistry and compassion. But the prevailing system run by the rich and powerful degrades and dehumanizes all of us - makes us feel worthless.

In fact the worthless are those who do not value all of humanity nor cherish it and embrace it.

We may not feel valued because the media portrays us as worthless.

But we know better.

Don't we?

Keep the faith, folks.

This episode will be over soon and saner heads will be in charge.

[Jose Diablo]

14. You are correct

Altruistic behavior is a "high survival trait".

As for competition in nature, that world view is also incorrect.

As an example, look at mycorrhizal symbiosis. It sounds like a 50 cent word but it is really a beautiful concept.

Mycorrhizal symbiosis describes a symbiosis between trees and fungus. The fugus inhabits the ground and through fibers brings water and minerals to the roots of trees. The trees for their part provide carbohydrates (the product of photosynthesis) to the fungus. The 2 organisms support and nurture each other. THIS is the rule in nature.

95% of all land plants depend on mycorrhizal symbiosis. It could be argued that without symbiosis between fungus and plants, there would not be land plants.

The human world view that survival of fittest is THE rule in nature is mostly self-serving.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. mycorrhizal symbiosis

".. verily, in that is a lesson to those endowed with sight..."

Koran 24:44

[starroute]

9. Non-zero-sum games trump Darwinian selection

Neither of your alternatives is viable, because they're both based on a root assumption of antagonism. The real truth of evolution, which has been demonstrated over and over in both biological and cultural contexts, is that organisms which cooperate out-compete those which fight each other over scarce resources.

In bad times, cooperation is more likely to get you through than duels to the death over who gets the last slice of pie. In good times, cooperation means more for everybody, rather than too much for a few and not enough for the rest. Cooperation fosters creativity, innovation, and learning how to do more with less.

If I help you today, when I'm up and you're down, you'll be more likely to return the favor tomorrow when the situation is reversed. But if I stand back and let you perish, there'll be nobody to help me out when I get in a jam.

Even in narrowly genetic terms, it's better to maintain a large and diverse gene pool than to eliminate the one variation which seems non-adaptive now but might be essential to get the species through some unforeseen future catastrophe.

There was an excellent book on all of this a few years ago, called "Nonzero." It's highly worth reading.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. Thanks I have read OF it, but haven't read it

nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. Ductape Fatwa...here is a site you might find interesting...i do

http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm

enjoy
click around and read a little and then tell me what you think?

Daniel Quinn's mission statement

Mission: This site exists to aid in the exploration of issues central to the novel Ishmael and the ideas of Daniel Quinn. Here you can learn more about Quinn's idea, contribute thoughts and questions, and come to a deeper understanding of our culture and why things are the way they are.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. I don't think Quinn's work gets nearly enough attention

Especially in schools. I wish they would translate it into more languages!

I think he does very skillfully and clearly on a big scale what I was trying to do with my clumsy question - the most encouraging thing I think is that it is possible to get away from the defeatism and shame of "oh, well, it's just human nature."

I say it, I think it, I write it, as often as anyone else, but we are wrong - it is NOT human nature. Maybe as we learn more about the human genome we will find something to help us understand it - my own personal theory is that it is evolutionary - Leavers are kind of like the first hominids who strained and teetered as they lifted their front limbs off the ground and streeeettchhhed up!

But that could be just wishful thinking ;)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Yes.

But I'm not sure about this thread.

[Brucey]

15. Some years ago in Minneapolis,

an up-scale mall was built downtown. The wealthy people of Edina and other parts visited the mall but complained about the downtown homeless beggars outside the entrance. Eventually letters were written and one even suggested that the city should declare poverty a crime so we could lock up those filthy people. I also heard that in some Central American countries the homeless were declared to be useless and gangs would simply kill them. I guess none of us really "deserves" to live in this world. We have to constantly fight off the nihilism. Or just laugh to stay sane.

[leftyandproud]

16. BETTER question..

the way a right winger/libertarian would ask it...

Do the poor deserve to live AT THE EXPENSE of someone else?
Do the poor deserve to live even if it means the living must be enslaved?

Believe it or not...this is how they view it.

[Mechatanketra]

23. But what is an "expense"?

One of Aesop's fables, I believe, concerns a man who came into possession of a large quantity of gold, which he buried in his back yard. Every week or so he would dig it up in secret to admire, then rebury it. One night, he found it was missing, and bemoaned to a friend that he'd been robbed; the friend merely bid him to take a large rock and bury it in the gold's place, and continue as he had before -- he would never miss the difference. The moral: Money has no value unless it is spent.

Like the elegant arithmetic proof I saw once that 1=2 (if you overlook a momentary division-by-zero step ...), so many economic arguments (what I call in my head C.L.A.P.trap -- Conservatives, Libertarians, And Physiocrats) are built on flimsy constructions dependent on the notion that all dollars are created equal. In other words, they ignore the notion of personal inflation: the more money you have, the less precious any given fixed increment of it is.

The most immediate example of this kind of deception is the standard supply-side argument for upper-tier tax cuts. Time and again we're presented with the argument that we have to create 'incentives' and 'stimulus' by giving extra money (ostensibly to be then spent on new jobs and business development) to people who already have more money than the rest of us. What we really have, in these cases, are effectively people with an economic disorder, a pathological spending deficiency -- by definition, "lack of money" cannot be the reason the wealthiest sectors are not spending money.

To wrap this around, the corrollary I'd add to Aesop's moral is that expense without scarcity is no burden. People with a vast net income are, by logical necessity, people whose incoming wealth vastly exceeds their capacity to spend ... and thus people who will never notice the difference caused by whatever amount might be skimmed off the top of that incoming wealth. The lion's share of their assets is the lump buried in their yard -- it doesn't matter if it's gold or rock.

[Brucey]

31. Nice, Mechatanketra.

Good job of analysis.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. Cool! I especially like the notion of personal inflation!

I always had a sneaking suspicion that Robin Hood was a mathematician ;)

[Jose Diablo]

17. A good reason for a large middle claa and safety nets

What many neocons and wealthy ignore is it is in their best interest to a have a large middle class and a safety net for the poor.

Besides, it is the middle class that supports the poor anyway. The wealthy do pay taxes, but the system is far less 'progressive' than implied by all discussion of taxes.

Prior to the *Bush administration the USA was a far more stable society. What gives the USA its stability is not police and military but a large middle class that has it in its best interest to keep the status quo.

If the corporate facists continue to export our livelyhood and reduce the safety net, then those in the middle class go into the poor. Their is little reason for them to support and maintain the status quo. Society becomes unstable and change will occure.

The wealthy may find themselves out in the cold, if civil insurrection becomes a reality. They may not like the changes the poor will force on them. Like a hangmans noose.

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. In all honesty...

...I think the rich should be made to donate money to the poor on a regular basis.

It sickens me to no end how many people are starving in the industrialized world, as well as the poor nations of the world.

Everyone is entitled to a life, and the sooner the rich and the repukes realize they aren't God, and can't illiminate the rest of us, the better life will be.

[arissa]

20. Some of the stupidest, most worthless people I know are wealthy

And some of the best people I know are poor. Money is the worst judgment of actual worth, intelligence and ability there is. I have no idea why it's so warped in our society to be such a status symbol.

Any fuckin' moron can spend 4 years partying at a state college on their parents dime, don a three-piece suit, and suck up to corporate bigwigs the rest of their pathetic life, consuming the planet to death, drinking every night, and cheating on their wives. Yeah, they'll pull a six figure income, but they're what's wrong with society not what's right.

There's a saying I like:
Less is more, stay pure, stay poor!

Not only that, but social darwinism, which you're advocating here, is a major RW talking point that I'm, quite frankly, rather disappointed to see on DU, not to mention see some people seemingly taking it seriously. And they say that poor people engage in class warfare for daring to say that in a land of plenty children shouldn't starve? You're suggesting that people should die because of their class, it doesn't get any more warfarish than that - I'm shocked - this is disgusting.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. I am neither advocating nor suggesting social darwinism

I said that it and its variants are one school of thought.

If you have read any of my posts in almost any other thread, you will know that I am about as far from an advocate of social darwinism as you are going to find on this board or this planet.


Interestingly, the social darwinism advocates took more of an interest in the "do the rich deserve their wealth" thread.

This one seems to have attracted more of the other side :)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

21. Rush Limballs thinks that all poor, white, conservative.....

people should have a right to live. Afterall, they are his core audience!

[Mechatanketra]

24. Justice reform now! Deregulate the streets!

My brother often growls, after listening to any significant period of free market/capitalist rants, about the essentially craven and mewling nature of those who like to pat themselves on the back as 'evolutionary successes' of social Darwinism: "When I punch you in the face and take your wallet, that is social Darwinism. You lost."

His point being, the modern idea of 'meritocracy' is intellectually dishonest, because even a libertarian society is dependent on the generosity of others: specifically, the degree of generosity which moves me to recognize and/or respect your property rights. The very concept of ownership, divorced from mere physical possession or control, is a courtesy we choose to extend to one another (whether through a sense of moral obligation or a hope of reciprocation), not (as so many like to pretend) a law of nature like gravitation or the universal 1c speed limit.

Arguments about the drastic consequences of not extending this courtesy (usually in the form that it's in my self interest to recognize your property rights because it's prerequisite to you recognizing mine) are beside the point; I have no way of knowing that you will reciprocate ... and I may be a lot surer of my ability to win a fight than your sense of courtesy. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large; at some point, for the system to work, both of us have to choose to extend that courtesy without a guarantee we won't get stabbed in the back.

In other words, in any society more sophisticated than "By this axe I rule!", there's always a "moral/ethical/religious/evolutionary/other flavor obligation" -- a social contract, if you will -- at work. It's both the means and price of having a society more sophisticated than "by this axe I rule!" So the question becomes, not "is it there?" but "just how obligated am I, and what's the most effective way to fulfill my obligation?" Answering this question is what we call politics. :-)

The point here is, I guess, is that arguing whether someone 'deserves' to live is moot. None of us has a deed to existence signed by their deity of choice or reasonable substitute -- but we're here, and most of us want to stay. The very act of asking whether X deserves their status is a recognition that ultimately, whatever entitlements exist in life draw their validity from the general perception of the community. You 'deserve' what you can get people to believe you deserve. As it happens, the aforementioned arguments of 'mutual self-interest' actually happen to justify the tax-and-give structure even more than it does naked capitalism, because the former recognizes that in practical terms, there is no natural obligation to comply with the system. Jeremy Bentham and contemporaries formulated this idea as 'the greatest good for the greatest number', but I'd put it in more blunt terms: the most robust social contract is the one that leaves the fewest people p*ssed off.

[Karmadillo]

30. Here's a profile of how each Dem candidate proposes to help the poor

It comes from In These Times. Sounds like Nascars Dads will get a lot more attention this season than Daycare Moms:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=382_0_1_0_C

I posted it as a separate link just in case anyone wants to discuss it further:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=469639

[bloom]

32. tax and spend

I think this has been an interesting thread.

It seems that the only reasonable thing is to tax those who have plenty and provide for those who do not. I think the government seems by far the best organization to make that happen.

I have known white, intelligent Republicans who were plenty happy to get food stamps and government assistance when THEY needed it - who could turn around and think "Rush is Right" when they DID make plenty and that it shouldn't be taxed to go to OTHERS who needed it. ?????


_____________________________________________________

It seems that there is a question about at what point does it become overwhelming. Like providing for the whole world, for instance. I wonder if there will ever be a point when the richest of the world ever take care of ALL of the starving - before they starve.
_____________________________________________________

[Arianrhod]

62. Put Rush himself on that list.

He spent 6 months on the government dole before landing his radio job.

[noiretextatique]

34. the ruling class perpetuates the notion of "scarcity"

to divide and conquer. who are the most vicious proponents of welfare reform? i don't think it's the wealthy...it's working people, most likely, working people who are closest to the "edge"
themselves. the very people who may need some form of assistance if they lose their jobs, or if some other type of disaster strikes. we DO worship the wealthy in this country, and we tend to project the best of human attributes onto them...whether they deserve it or not. attrubutes like worthiness, honesty, ability, drive, ambition, intelligence, and so on.
so...do poor people "deserve" to live? YES. in spite of our projections, attributes of the kind that advance all humanity are not assigned according to the economic circumstances of one's birth. here in america, we should truly understand that. just THINK of the talent WASTED, IGNORED, and RUINED by the racial caste system that functions to limit the human potential of some americans, and serves to artificially boost the potential of other americans...this applies to gender and class as well. it seems our tolerance of poverty, which is a tolerance for inequality of all kinds, actually LIMITS our evolutionary potential.

it seems to me that our ultimate purpose on this earth is to care for each other, and to the extent that we do that willingly, with love and compassion, we (the human race) all gain.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. ahhh the DeBeers and Oppenhiemers...diamonds are rare LOL

[noiretextatique]

38. so...fuck the workers and make them fight against each other

so liz & company can sport that "rare" gem :hi: and so it goes...

[Kamika]

36. Thats interesting

My two cents..

If someone poor actually WANT to help him/herself, get out of their mess etc, absolutely. And i will HAPPILY help them do it.


If they just spend what they got on booze, and pot, not doing anything to get out of their mess.. well as harsch as it sounds.. I dont see why they should get any help.


About the loaf thingy.. ofcourse if you own the bread you have the right to do anything you want with it.

No one has the "right" to take it from you

[Selwynn]

39. We have a moral obligation to the poor.

To oversimplify to an extent that will horrify the academics, there are basically two opposing schools of thought.

I am going to oversimplify here as well.


One: law of the jungle. If I am bigger and stronger than you, I therefore have the inherent and inalienable right to hit you in the head and take your food.

i.e. Free Market Capitalism in its purest form.

Two: We have a moral/ethical/religious/evolutionary/other flavor obligation to do what we can for our fellow man for the greater good of all/progress of the species, no one should stand before a hungry child stuffing their mouths with cake, every human being has an inherent and inalienable right to that which is necessary for his basic needs to the extent that his fellows are able to provide it, etc etc.

i.e. Socialist Democracy in this purest form


So what do you think? If I have two loaves of bread, and you have none, do I have the right to eat one and throw the other one away?

No, you do not. And I don't mean to be glib with my responses, but I don't have a long winded argument to make. Ti have two loves of bread, and throw one away rather than give to one who has none is morally wrong. I know the arguments from the side of free-market theory. They are wrong.

Does anyone have the right to take one from me and give it to you?

Yes and we do it all the time. It's called government. And this is what a universal health care system would be. This is what a living wage standard would be. This is what a national housing plan would be. This is, in short, someone else taking from those who have so much stuff that they say "wow I have too much stuff, I'd better build a second storehouse for all this stuff I have" and giving to those who are in need.

Which will benefit humankind more? For you, less able to obtain bread than I, to starve, thus ensuring that my genes and not yours swim in the pool?

Poverty or wealth or genetic huh? (I know you're not actually saying this) That's like saying that your poor because you are simply genetically inferior. We know that a lot of the time a person is poor because society is not just or equitable. And even when a person is poor due to his own mistake making, it still has nothing to do with genes.


Or for someone to take my second loaf and give it to you so that your genes swim too and/or to protect me from harm you might do me in your desperation?

First rule of genetics - spread the genes apart, diversity is strength. But seriously - one of the things that modern post-existentialist philosophy rightly points out is that human personhood (i.e. what it means to be an "I") was very rigidly characterized as an exclusively autonomous structure, radically independent from surrounding environment in which relational interaction is incidental and surface only - much like the interaction between two pool balls connecting and repelling each other. But recently that view of modernity has been richly and soundly critiqued on all sides, but most importantly and specifically by feminist theory.

The truth is, there is a wealth of evidence scientifically, and very strong and sound argumentation philosophically to point out that our personal "I" is composed both of my exclusive individual being and the influence, relationship and interaction between myself and my environment, culture and others personal "I's." In other words, part of what makes us who we are, part of what it means to be an "I" at all is wrapped up in an inter-dependant relational framework. I am who I am because of choices that I make, yes but not yes alone. I am also who I am directly because of the relationships in which I participate and the influences of my culture and surroundings. I would not be the same person absent the same relationships.

Part of the importance of this understanding of relational interdependence of the self (in addition to, not exclusion of the independent dimension of personhood) is that it leads to the conclusion that the fate and lives of others matter to me as well. It 's better for me that everyone have a good life and opportunities and eased suffering and chances for success, and its in my best interests to give out of any of my abundance to help see that this happens in society.

Moreover, I believe that those of who how have become successful thanks to the opportunity this society provides have a responsibility to give back into this society to make it the best place it can possibly be - to me the fist step is caretaking of the poor.

Do fate and plight of others should matter to all of us. Compassion and aid is not based on the deservedness of the receiver. When is, it is not compassion. Compassion is that which sees a need and longs to meet it, regardless of the circumstances of deservedness of the individual. And it is the cornerstone to a beautiful society.

I once hear a person say that the definition of evil in the world was ultimately a lack of empathy. That struck me pretty hard. I've since added to that to make my own phrase

"The greatest and ultimate evils in the world today are the absence of empathy and the persistence of ignorance. "

We have a moral obligation to empathetic compassionate aid to those in need, regardless of our estimation of their "worth."
Love,
Sel

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. Brilliant! Best shredding of social darwinism I've seen in a long time

I also especially like

"Compassion and aid is not based on the deservedness of the receiver."

This came up in one of the myriad of Rush threads, when I was forced to admit that my defense of free speech did not mean that I was such a good person that I could claim to feel compassion for Rush.

"greatest and ultimate evils in the world today are the absence of empathy and the persistence of ignorance"

This is what the Ghost of Christmas Present really meant

;)

[Jose Diablo]

41. Well said

"...fate and plight of others should matter to all of us. Compassion and aid is not based on the deservedness of the receiver. When is, it is not compassion. Compassion is that which sees a need and longs to meet it, regardless of the circumstances of deservedness of the individual. And it is the cornerstone to a beautiful society."

Yes indeed, we get to the meat. Pain and suffering is the normal condition of humankind. What it means to be human is to see the pain and from this awareness be moved, changed if you will, to want it to stop.

It is not just the obtaining of wealth that makes a better future.

From this we can see a purpose for Ladyhawks suffering, her suffering makes us more human when we respond to her suffering and try to help her. She and the poor are the preservatives for mankind, as in "salt of the earth".

For this reason, I value her very highly because she teaches me something about myself and what I should do.

Ladyhawk, you are far, far from being worthless. I would say you are priceless, as in unable to determine the value because we cannot or do not have a yardstick to measure the value you have.

[QuestioningStudent]

43. Clarify, please.

I have a question about your definition of compassion. When you say:

"Compassion is that which sees a need and longs to meet it, regardless of the circumstances of deservedness of the individual. And it is the cornerstone to a beautiful society"

I take it to mean that any need which one sees one should have compassion for, and ergo one should attempt to satisfy or meet that need, regardless of the deservingness of the entity possessing the need. If that is correct, are there any limits as to the needs one should have compassion for? Would this include all material goods? What about leisure goods? Would this extend beyond material goods, to such things as approval, friendship, love, etc.? What limits, if any, should be set on the attempts to meet such needs?

I appreciate any clarification you or anyone else here could offer. Thank you. :)

[DuctapeFatwa]

47. Needs and desires are different

If I see you bleeding on the roadside, you NEED medical assistance.

If you are hungry, you NEED food, if shivering you need a sweater, etc.

In addition to any and all of those needs, you may also have desires for anything from a wide screen TV to a Shetland pony.

My interpretation is that compassion means that I will empathize with your NEED, and do what I can to help, it does not mean that I will, or should, seek to fulfill your DESIRES.

[QuestioningStudent]

57. More please.

I'm going to keep at this for a moment, if you'll be kind enough to bear with me.

What should the limits of a NEED be defined as? You've shown that an immediately life-threatening injury/condition would count, that at least some minimal level of sustenance to keep someone alive would count, OK. At what point would we say, 'you have enough food, and you have had sufficient medical care, and you're warm/cold enough, etc.?' Subsistence levels of food? Adequate nutrition? Emergency medical care? Regular doctor's checkups? What about dental? Is there a minimal level of information one requires to survive in this society, or perhaps to survive well?

I'm not sure how one would draw the lines in these questions, and I'm not terribly good at reasoning from the analogies you were kind enough to provide to these cases. I'm worried that there might be a bit of a slippery slope type problem in the argument you presented--am I missing something that would prevent me from thinking that?

[DuctapeFatwa]

58. That came up a little bit in the other thread

Someone asked me a similar question, and I said that basic needs are not the same for every person everywhere.

One example I used was that for a person in Miami, a warm coat and earmuffs would not be basic needs, but for someone in North Dakota, they would be.

I think it would be safe to say that needs would include shelter, nutrition adequate to maintain health, medical care sufficient to maintain health, prevent problems where possible and treat any that show up, and I would count dental care as medical care since untreated dental problems can lead to infection which is no different from infection anywhere. I would also count anasthesia for invasive procedures and pain relief.

Beyond that, it depends. Electricity is a basic need for some people, transportation for others, a team of oxen for somebody else - whatever is necessary for the person to provide their own basic needs, or as much of them as possible.

[Arianrhod]

63. How about the Zen story

about the bodhisattva who rescued a scorpion from a rising river. The scorpion stung his hand as he pulled the creature free. The bodhisattva's companion asked him why he continued to help when he was being stung. His reply: "It is the nature of the scorpion to sting. It is the nature of the bodhisattva to save."

I would say that there is no limit to compassion. No, I would go further than this, and say that if compassion is somehow limited, then it is not true compassion. Compassion is a way of being in the world, not a sometime emotion that we can turn on and off depending on the circumstances.

I've read a number of your posts and have noted your pleasure in carrying an argument out to its logical absurdity. I like that in a debate. :) But IMO, when it comes to compassion, absurdity is the goal. How absurd is it to love your enemy as yourself, as Jesus required?

I read a magazine article many years ago which your post makes me think about. The author had just received a black belt in a martial art, and was feeling pretty good about himself. On the subway home, one of the passengers was a surly man who was spewing all sorts of invective over everyone. The situation was becoming dangerous, as the man appeared to be about to get violent. The author decided it was time to use some of his skills to intimidate him into submission. But before he could walk over to him, another man began speaking quietly to the one who was raging. This second man, who it turns out also had a black belt, had taken compassion on the other, seeing through his rage into the grief that underlay it. Soon the man was weeping, talking about his failed marriage and his fears of losing his children, job, and self-respect. The situation was completely diffused, not because someone stood up to violence, but because someone saw a need for friendship and offered it.

Your questions are good ones. Friendship is something that comes only with great difficulty for me, so your post really made me think about what it actually means to have compassion. Thanks. :)

[Character Assassin]

42. You're confusing 'rights' with ability

One: law of the jungle. If I am bigger and stronger than you, I therefore have the inherent and inalienable right to hit you in the head and take your food.

No, that simply is a representation that person A is capable of acting successfully in such a manner; it doesn't constitute a right.

[DuctapeFatwa]

49. I'm saying one school of thought says that ability confers the right

That you are bigger and stronger than your neighbor is a fact.

Whether that fact gives you the right to hit him in the head and take his food is a matter of opinion.

[Malva Zebrina]

44. Here we are

and we all, after all, are only human beings.

[shance]

45. Your argument is an inaccurate comparison.

Fair comparison is do the poor deserve their poverty, not do they deserve to LIVE. A pretty drastic difference there.

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. LOL I said that the other question INSPIRED mine, I did not claim

that mine was a homologue.

Your observation makes me think of another question, though:

How do you define poverty?

If I have my basic needs met, but nothing to spare, am I still poor?

Should uncertainty be a factor? Example: If I go out and try to sell apples every day, and some days I sell enough for that day's needs, but I never know from day to day if I will, and many days I don't, how does that figure in to the determination of whether I am poor?

My own personal notion has always been that the line between poverty and affluence is discretionary resources.

If I am able to meet my basic needs, and have significant time, energy and/or money left over, that I may choose how to use without compromising my basic needs, I am affluent.

Note: I would not include someone who deliberately spends all their time in order to maintain a high level of discretionary money, however I would include the person who chooses to earn less money in order to have more discretionary time and/or energy.

[Mandate My Ass]

46. The poor deserve to die

The message that is put out by the RW thinktanks every day is one that does its best to say that without actually articulating it.

Think about the prevailing attitudes in this country towards welfare, access to affordable health care, affirmative action, treatment vs. incarceration, the death penalty, civil rights, a living wage, disenfranchisement and a host of other social issues and you will see that the economic elite promote the idea that anybody in need is not only expendable, but need to be dispatched as mercilessly as possible.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. I am certain that euthanizing the poor in the US will be proposed soon

within a few years at most.

And it will be seen as a more humane and civilized alternative than hiring gunmen to shoot the ones who stray too close to commercial establishments and affluent residential areas, as is done in Brazil and Honduras, among other places.

[Deja Q]

48. If all the poor and non-wealthy died

Then the wealthy would have to work.

Maybe they'd wake the fuck up and stop being so mean and petulant toward them and give them a decent living!

Law of the jungle: Christianity and all the other tripe religions claim we're better than animals. So why do the wealthy still act like animals, thus making their religions look as phony and two-faced as possible?

Also, in this country, whoever makes the most money via marketing wins. It's not how intelligent or creative you are. Only marketing counts. This is why Xerox isn't the monopoly of the desktop GUI, mouse, and any number of other computer items we take for granted, instead of Microsoft. (Apple had its hand in development, but Xerox did create the GUI and mouse - that is a fact.)

[LittleApple81]

53. Agree. The DOS operating system was also stolen. n/t

[Jose Diablo]

54. Yes, MS-DOS was copied from CP/M

Digital Research was the company that developed the disc operating system DR DOS.

Digital Research was also the original publisher of CP/M, from which Bill Gates had orginally copied MS-DOS. The source for this information is from "The Microsoft File" by Wendy Goldman Rohm page 41.

[gottaB]

55. What are you talking about?

Are you talking about justifications, or justice. IMO most academic discussions of this sort are all about justifications. It's not worth thinking about too much.

There is a basic injustice in being here among the living that mental gymnastics can not make right. Consider the other side of the question. Do people deserve to die?

As to the ethical question, you could see it in clearer terms by decoupling poverty from the person. Ask the question, do human beings deserve poverty?

[Jose Diablo]

59. No

With todays technology there is no reason whatsoever that anyone should be hungry.

As we move into the 21st century, instead of looking at what we can do to better conditions for all the poor in the world, our elite instead propose that we wage war and spend our resources waging war and making the wealthy more wealthy rather than solving the problems that cause hunger and poverty.

The leaders we have today are quite frankly, bums. And this crosses party lines and national lines.

With the fall of the Berlin wall we in America have/had the opportunity to create for the first time in the history of our world a place free of hunger. Did our leaders do this? No. Rather they chose to take us to a form of world domination for the benefit of some corporation pr*cks that are only interested in their own selfish agenda.

Ducttapes' question gets right to the heart of direction we are going and should we go that way.

[DuctapeFatwa]

60. Well, you can reword the question

I put it like that because of the "do the rich deserve" thread, but you could say it "Does society have an obligation to preserve the lives of the poor?" and go on with the same arguments pro and con.

If you accept the use of the term "deserve" as merely ornamental, and move away from notions of deservingness (is that a word? it is now.)
and justice and just go straight to "what is better for humans as a species?" you can avoid, to a certain extent, getting caught up in tangles of cultural lace and moral crinoline.

[gottaB]

64. goodness

You are asking an ethical question, and you want to move away from the question of justice? I think that's a sure way to get tangled up in questions that don't matter.

When you talk about "the lives of the poor" I think you're missing my point. Having a life is primary. Being human is arguably primary. Being poor is more like a condition that many of us find ourselves in. So there is a crucial distinction to be made between "living in poverty" and "the lives of the poor." The latter assumes that "being poor" is primary and "having life" is something that can be added to or subtracted from that.

More decoupling. "Humans as a species" and "society" represent two competing paradigms for talking about people in aggregate. That much we both recognize I guess. Does the question "What is better?" belong to either of these paradigms? Is there anything in the scientific method or the overall practice of science which would warrant turning to science to provide answers to such questions as "What is better?"

Doesn't the question "What is better" rather assume that we agree upon what is good?

What does the sociological viewpoint have to say about what is obligated? Certainly sociologists describe obligations, or describe social relations in terms of obligations. But in what way does sociology answer the question "What is obligated?"

In either case I believe you're conflating descriptive models and the phenomena they purport to describe. Reifications of this sort aren't an eggregious fault per se, but when you drag them out into full public view, you should be able to defend the appropriateness of your representations. Thus the question, are you talking about justice, or justifications?

p.s. I think "deserving" or "deservedness" ought to be able to express what you mean. If you want to be colorful, how about "just deserts"?

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. I mean which is better for the species. You have a good point though

It is hard to talk about what is better without establishing a common definition of good :)

My question does have an assumption, and although I did not intend for it to be a moral one, I can see that it would be almost impossible to establish that definition of good without making a value judgment, and therefore a moral assumption.

You could certainly argue that the greater good to the universe would be accomplished by the extinction of our particular species, since the incidence of evolution to "Leaver," if I can borrow Quinn's module, has been so small over such a long period of time.

[bread_and_roses]

56. Ductape

you really go to the heart of the matter with your question. I wish to pose a few thoughts in response.

To the poster who is only willing to help those who want to "help themselves" I would ask if we are not rapidly moving toward a social structure in which there is no possibility of lucrative or even self-sufficiency level work for huge #'s of people? Are we not better off, to assure social stability (as a different poster noted), to make sure that they can live with a modicum of dignity and pleasure?

To the person who says that if someone owns the bread, no one has a right to take it from him/her, I would say that if you have more bread than you need and will give none to the starving child on your doorstep then it is not only my right but my obligation to take it to feed that child. Unfortunately, the social breakdown that ensues when things come to this pass is such that I am likely to be taking bread from your starving child to feed my own, rather than rectifying social injustice. Another reason to keep things from deteriorating to this point.

In thanks for the interesting links and authors, I would recommend Ursula K. LeGuin's book "The Dispossessed" (fiction, Sci-Fi category but actually a philosophical exploration)for one vision of what a society not based on possessions might look like.

The underlying message of the world view promoted by the Right wing is that indeed, the poor can die. For a look at what this means, visit one of the empoverished inner cities...NYC or Chicago will do...to see what has happened thirty years after jobs left the cities and we left the poor to rot...those were "just" black and brown people of course, so no matter...except that we can't pay for schools and health care so we can keep all those people in prison....

A final thought...almost no one, it seems, challenges the conventional wisdom that "people" (again, mostly black and brown people) "shouldn't have children if they can't afford them." Can anyone point out any other culture in the world or in history where this most basic human need is supposed to be permanantly denied if you are poor? It is ludicrous.

[DuctapeFatwa]

61. You make some very accurate comments about the current crisis

I am sad that I cannot be more optimistic that a political solution will be possible.

I share your sorrow that things have been allowed to reach such an extreme that that is unlikely.