A thought experiment on poverty

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ribozyme

Guest
I found this question on another thread and thought it would be worth making seperate thread about it. So which outcome would you prefer?
Question: does this imply that a society with no charities but no poor people would be less Christly than a society with lots of charities but still a large burden of poverty?
Click to expand...
Of course, I would choose the former as my own beliefs are utilitarian.
 
Ribozyme, I think you are presenting a false choice. Poverty will always be with us, because poverty is relative as well as absolute.

The poor of the United States are probably better off than a large chunk of the world’s population. But that doesn’t mean the poor of the US don’t need help.
 
ribozyme said:
Code: 
 Quote:
                Question: does this imply that a society with no charities but no poor people would be less Christly than a society with lots of charities but still a large burden of poverty?
Click to expand...
I think the latter society is more Chirst like. In the former although the society in itself is good their is no possiblility of doing good deeds (in the area of poverty) so their is no opportunity to be Christ like.

As to which I perfer I don’t think a poverty free world is possible without removing free will. As free will allows for the possiblity of selfishness.

I think I would prefer free will because it allows one to choose between good and evil and to truly choose to love God.
 
I meant to say “yet” instead of “by” in the second option.
 
This is a false delimna. I voted for the second option because the first necessitates the removal of free will, as Paul said.
 
:confused:

If there were no poverty, there would be no need for charities.

Sorry, but poorly thought choices. 🤷
 
I don’t think you provide enough information for people to give a meaningful answer. For example, just how will poverty be eliminated in the society without charities? What effects will the necessary policies have on people’s behavior? Also, what effect will eliminating poverty through your measures have on peoples long term income growth.

Let me give you an example. A number of years ago, I lived in poverty for a few years. I accepted a job paying about $600 per month and only for the months I worked. I was a part time lecturer at a university. However, I gladly accepted the poverty wages for two reasons: First, I needed the experience, second, the low wages gave me an incentive to finish my degree and get a job, which I did quickly.

So in this case, was it bad that I was in poverty? I would say no, because today I am reasonably comfortable. Would your proposed policies have eliminated these types of jobs, if they would, I would be against them.
 
mapleoak said:
I prefer real life.
Click to expand...
👍

This thought experiment is similar to a *reductio ad absurdum *argument. As others have pointed out, since there never has been and never will be a society on earth without poverty, the choices proposed are a false dilemma.
 
Part of the issue is how we define poverty.

Currently my wife and I and our 2 children live in poverty according to the federal guidelines. We have a place to live, food a car DVD’s to watch etc.

We are in poverty by comparison to many who have more, but all of our basic needs are meet.

It is possible to build a society where everyone has enough to get by on. Outside of the homeless and drug abusing segments of our society we where nearly there (things have taken a big down turn last few months). Trying to build a society where everyone has the same is nuts. Building a society where no one goes without a basic need is very possible.
 
teancum79 said:
Part of the issue is how we define poverty.

Currently my wife and I and our 2 children live in poverty according to the federal guidelines. We have a place to live, food a car DVD’s to watch etc.

We are in poverty by comparison to many who have more, but all of our basic needs are meet.

It is possible to build a society where everyone has enough to get by on. Outside of the homeless and drug abusing segments of our society we where nearly there (things have taken a big down turn last few months). Trying to build a society where everyone has the same is nuts. Building a society where no one goes without a basic need is very possible.
Click to expand...
I’ll use this definition from Mark Thoma:
To me, being poor isn’t just about stuff, it’s about being able to participate fully in society. The things on the list that almost all households now have, refrigerators, stoves, TVs, and telephones, are things you have to have to function in this society (the other things on the list such as VCRs and DVDs only have 80% penetration so they don’t necessarily reach the poor). How do you make a doctor’s appointment without a phone? Drop by in you spare time? A refrigerator and a stove are items a household has to have given how we bring food to the table in this society. I just don’t see these things as doing anything more than providing the minimum necessary to function. Even something like a TV is necessary if you want to, say, keep up with the political debates (there’s a presumption in our political discourse that you can watch campaigns on television and they are largely devoted to delivery over that medium - without a TV you cannot participate fully) or even talk to people around the water-cooler at work about the latest popular TV show. Yes, the poor might have been well-off in, say, 1821 given the societal standards of the time, or some other historical period one might choose to compare, but this isn’t 1821 - things have changed and so have the minimum standards necessary to be part of the society.
Click to expand...
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/adam-smith-on-p.html#more
You are not poor, but if you want to be happy, isolate yourself from the world. Being exposed to other people’s goods will naturally make you envious.
 
ribozyme said:
You are not poor, but if you want to be happy, isolate yourself from the world. Being exposed to other people’s goods will naturally make you envious.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I live in a prosperous area, so many people who live near me have lots of the worlds goodies. I see their 3500 square foot homes and their Lexuses, but I don’t envy them. Because, in my life I have learned that many of those things have costs that outweigh their benefits. For example, if I had a Lexus, I probably wouldn’t want to take it to the dump, so then I would have to keep the old car for dump runs. Which of course, would be one more car to insure and pay taxes on. So seeing other people’s stuff does not necessarily make one envious.
 
I’m kinda scared about what no poverty means, and the means how that is acheived.
 
Dale_M said:
Ribozyme, I think you are presenting a false choice. Poverty will always be with us, because poverty is relative as well as absolute.

The poor of the United States are probably better off than a large chunk of the world’s population. But that doesn’t mean the poor of the US don’t need help.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s a false choice.

My answer would be, “I prefer a society where those who can work, do – and carry their fair share of the load in caring for others.”
 
I would prefer a society where peace will guide the planets,
And love will steer the stars

Let the sun shine in, my friend, let the sun shine in.
 
ribozyme said:
You are not poor, but if you want to be happy, isolate yourself from the world. Being exposed to other people’s goods will naturally make you envious.
Click to expand...
Another myopic point of view.
There are so many assumptions necessary to believe this particular piece that it is hard to believe anyone could hold it.

Envy does not propogate from being exposed to anothers prosperity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top