Are accusations of envy conducive to social justice discussions

[stinkcat_14]

I have noticed that whenever social justice is discussed, accusations of envy often occur. A similar story can be told about greed as well. The problem with such accusations is that a sin like envy is not an external sin that we can objectively identify, but it is an condition of the heart. The problem with the envy card appear to be as follows:

1. It runs afoul of the “do not judge” commandment in the bible, since we cannot externally verify envy.
2. It is not conducive to furthering social justice discussions, because if you are accused of envy, there is no way to defend yourself.
3. It is often carelessly overused.
4. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus warns about the dangers of wealth. Does that imply that Jesus was full of envy?

 

[dshix]

This is a good observation. Accusations of personal flaws, such as envy, indeed seem to be used quite frequently, and I think it is done to deflect from the actual argument that has just been made.

In other words, when you have no argument, just point fingers at the person who does have one.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. It runs afoul of the “do not judge” commandment in the bible, since we cannot externally verify envy.

We are not to judge the state of a person’s soul. We can, however, judge actions. External actions can certainly point to an internal disposition of envy, and we have a right and a duty to point it out.

1. It is not conducive to furthering social justice discussions, because if you are accused of envy, there is no way to defend yourself.

Agreed. But then again, neither is shutting down the discussion by claiming that someone is a bigot or one of the many “-phobic’s” that have been invented or misapplied in recent years; yet you still see SJW proponents tossing those terms around to shut down discussions.

1. It is often carelessly overused.

I’m not saying I disagree, but I personally have never heard it used actually. I’m sure it is, but I don’t think it’s nearly as wide spread an issue as other terminology/accusations used to shut down intelligent discussion.

1. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus warns about the dangers of wealth. Does that imply that Jesus was full of envy?

No, because claiming that wealth is dangerous is not equivalent to being envious. Jesus did not desire their wealth. Envy is the jealous desire for something that is someone else’s. SJW proponents, on the other hand, are not warning about the dangers of wealth, but instead claiming that those who are wealthy do not deserve their money, and that these other individuals have a right to it. (A statement indicating that they believe they are entitled to / desirous of someone else’s property; i.e., envy.)

That said, I agree that we shouldn’t use this accusation to shut down discussions, even though it may be true in some cases.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We are not to judge the state of a person’s soul. We can, however, judge actions. External actions can certainly point to an internal disposition of envy, and we have a right and a duty to point it out.

This is interesting. Can you give me an example of an external action that points to an internal disposition of envy?

Agreed. But then again, neither is shutting down the discussion by claiming that someone is a bigot or one of the many “-phobic’s” that have been invented or misapplied in recent years; yet you still see SJW proponents tossing those terms around to shut down discussions.

I agree, the envy card is overused just as the race card or the sexism card or the greed card. In all cases, they need to be used very carefully.

I’m not saying I disagree, but I personally have never heard it used actually. I’m sure it is, but I don’t think it’s nearly as wide spread an issue as other terminology/accusations used to shut down intelligent discussion.

I have had it used against me on many occasions. In a recent thread, I proposed cutting a government program and the poster claimed it was because I was envious of the recipients. It seems that one cannot deviate from the party line without being accused of envy.

No, because claiming that wealth is dangerous is not equivalent to being envious. Jesus did not desire their wealth. Envy is the jealous desire for something that is someone else’s. SJW proponents, on the other hand, are not warning about the dangers of wealth, but instead claiming that those who are wealthy do not deserve their money, and that these other individuals have a right to it. (A statement indicating that they believe they are entitled to / desirous of someone else’s property; i.e., envy.)

That said, I agree that we shouldn’t use this accusation to shut down discussions, even though it may be true in some cases.

I would argue that whether someone deserves their money can be independent of envy. There are some rules in society that benefits some groups at the expense of others. For example, occupational licensing rules that keep out competition. This allows current workers to earn a premium. So say that don’t deserve that premium does not necessarily stem from envy.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I have noticed that whenever social justice is discussed, accusations of envy often occur. A similar story can be told about greed as well. The problem with such accusations is that a sin like envy is not an external sin that we can objectively identify, but it is an condition of the heart. The problem with the envy card appear to be as follows:

1. It runs afoul of the “do not judge” commandment in the bible, since we cannot externally verify envy.
2. It is not conducive to furthering social justice discussions, because if you are accused of envy, there is no way to defend yourself.
3. It is often carelessly overused.
4. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus warns about the dangers of wealth. Does that imply that Jesus was full of envy?

Short answer, yes, in many cases, it is envy. Nietzsche called it ressentiment. It is rampant in the modern left ‘social justice’ mentality.

That said, I do agree with you that Jesus is very critical of those who place wealth and materialism at the center of their life, and don’t practice charity toward the community and those in need. That is everywhere in the Gospels. We balance that, however, with ‘man does not live by bread alone.’ Which is also everywhere in the Gospels.

A lot of the left, inside and outside the Church, take this rejection of materialism and wealth as a mandate to set out to conform society to various secular socialist ideologies to promote ‘material equality’ as some sort of Kingdom of God on earth. This is error. A lot of the regular preaching from the pulpit on this is ironically aimed at the middle, lower middle classes in the pews too. The just above poor, those hanging by a thread (including the elderly, sick, unemployed, paycheck to paycheck, and large families), take most of the heat for neglecting the poor. It should also be clarified that Jesus does not reject the wealthy per se, any more than he would a sinner, correct? You can find not a few who would disagree with that statement. I rest my case re ressentiment. I think wealth might be one of the ‘unforgivable sins’ for those who embrace the new more open, merciful Jesus - and there are quite a few others I might add.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Short answer, yes, in many cases, it is envy. Nietzsche called it ressentiment. It is rampant in the modern left ‘social justice’ mentality.

The question is, how do we distinguish legitimate criticism from envy? Just because someone criticizes a government program or a behavior in the marketplace does not mean that critic is envious. So what criteria do we use to distinguish envy?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is interesting. Can you give me an example of an external action that points to an internal disposition of envy?

I would argue that theft for the intent of personal use is one such indicator. It could also point to greed, those two can be difficult to distinguish.

I agree, the envy card is overused just as the race card or the sexism card or the greed card. In all cases, they need to be used very carefully.

Agreed

I have had it used against me on many occasions. In a recent thread, I proposed cutting a government program and the poster claimed it was because I was envious of the recipients. It seems that one cannot deviate from the party line without being accused of envy.

Hmm. Interesting. I guess I’ve either missed it, or just haven’t been around when its been used.

I would argue that whether someone deserves their money can be independent of envy. There are some rules in society that benefits some groups at the expense of others. For example, occupational licensing rules that keep out competition. This allows current workers to earn a premium. So say that don’t deserve that premium does not necessarily stem from envy.

I agree that whether someone actually deserves it or not can be distinct from envy, however, the belief that someone it entirely to what another person owns or has earned cannot be. If I believe that I am entitled to what you posses, I would say that falls under envy.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The question is, how do we distinguish legitimate criticism from envy? Just because someone criticizes a government program or a behavior in the marketplace does not mean that critic is envious. So what criteria do we use to distinguish envy?

No, I agree. It is fair game to criticize inappropriate behavior/policies by the wealthy (individual/nations). But my sense is that culturally and in religion (this is quite bad in the Church and I think it is a Francis effect), this has become a default, a mantra, a state of mind, a real source of envy as you put it - or I would even use the word hate (subconscious). We are so consumed with love for the poor that it turns into suspicion and hate of the rich, almost by necessity. We are characterizing, branding people using abstractions. Everything is black and white. My fear is that we use this to stigmatize countries such as the US, people like Trump. And it comes off as Christian duty. (it is ok to judge the rich) This obsession blinds us from the complexity and value of individual persons as they exist in different stations in life. From appreciating them for what they are - a mixture good and evil. It is divisive, dishonest. Too much emphasis on surface circumstances.

Besides money does not make you happy. (let’s not even go into redemptive suffering) Mother Teresa once said that people were better off in India than the US - meaning that living in a wealthy society has done nothing to promote well-being for humanity - quite the opposite. Some of the poorest, emptiest people on the planet are in the secular West. With Volvos and lattes. There is, ironically, not much reason to envy the rich. Even if we created our perfect equal society, we would be just as sinful and miserable - probably even more - than we are now.

My two cents: Enough already!

Give the rich a chance!

 

[po18guy]

All I know is that a disordered attachment to “social justice” can become idolatry.

blog.adw.org/2015/05/beware-the-strangest-idol-of-all-a-reflection-on-how-even-works-of-charity-cannot-eclipse-obedience-to-christ/

 

[stinkcat_14]

All I know is that a disordered attachment to “social justice” can become idolatry.

blog.adw.org/2015/05/beware-the-strangest-idol-of-all-a-reflection-on-how-even-works-of-charity-cannot-eclipse-obedience-to-christ/

What does this have to do with accusations of envy? We have a social justice forum where these issues are discussed. Is that a disordered attachment to social justice?