M
MindOverMatter
Guest
A human race that isn’t defined by individual acievement. How about a world where everybody works together for the sake of everyone.
- Status
W
WillieWonka
Guest
That system has been treid and has failed miserably. We are selfish and acquisitive. Market capitlalism has figured out how to turn that to great benefit for people.A human race that isn’t defined by individual acievement. How about a world where everybody works together for the sake of everyone.
L
Langdell
Guest
In addition, there’s nothing to stop groups of people from trying it on their own, like religious orders, for example.
.
T
TEPO
Guest
I’m sorry, but your logic opposes everything I believe in. I am not anybody else I am me. So why would I want to be the same as everyone else. I am homeless right now, but in the future I wont be. Would I be closer to God if I werent homeless, or maybe closer to God if I were? I know people mean well, but change is not always good. People should not be responsible for the welfare of everyone else. We are all capable of excelling, and prospering.A human race that isn’t defined by individual acievement. How about a world where everybody works together for the sake of everyone.
I think a common problem people face, is they believe the human race is like one being as a whole. Some people, like Al Gore, think the whole earth is a living creature whose air, water, and mineral deposits act like a functioning being, and that humans are only an extension of the earth. It is called “The Gaia Theory”. It is Anti-God.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I’m not sure how you decided the comment meant we should all be alike? It doesn’t say that at all. It says we should work together for the good of all - different people may indeed have different goods.
Christianity is quite clear that we are all responsible for the welfare of everyone else.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
What official Church teaching says we are all responsible for the welfare of everyone else? And what teaching defines what welfare means?
T
TEPO
Guest
It was the phrase “A human race that isn’t defined by individual acievement.” This led me to belileve that the author believes that the human race should be defined by some sort of “achievement” by the human race as a whole. If we are to be “as a whole”, we must work together in similarity or in unity.
This is contrary to the whole idea of individualism which America was conceived by, and has thrived by since its conception.
I guess what I’m getting at is, whose idea is it that humans are responsible for each other and that we must work together as a whole. Is it the Bible, or science?
Also, what is it that the human race should be attempting to achieve. And with any answer you may provide, what is it about this “achievement”, that makes you feel it is God’s desire, and not ones own.
Also what do you mean “responsible”?
—with all due respect, i dont mean to come off harsh, I am just seeking the truth—
T
TEPO
Guest
I am trying to address the argument that our current govornment is moving towards a more scientific philosophy in an attempt to block out any Biblical forms of morality or philosophy. This would be congruent in forming new styles of “evolvement” in human govornment and the species as a whole.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Capitalism and Conservatism aren’t evil, but Greed is evil.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think the Bible is quite clear that were are responsible for each other, in the sense of caring for each other, both in the material and abstract sense. Two examples off the top of my head - Cain complaining that he was not his brother’s keeper is pretty clearly the wrong answer; and Christ tells us to give our neighbour our coat etc. And simply that we should love or neighbour as ourselves, which has all kinds of implications. And the Church has always supported the idea that we are responsible for the well-being of our fellow man.
As for working together as a whole - there are certain human goods that apply to everyone, though they may be expressed differently in different cases. Education, peace, knowledge of God, justice for all people… And many of these things could only be acieved, or even partially achieve, if all people worked to bring them about. Of course, that is very likely an impossibility, and we couldn’t achieve it without Grace - that gives us no excuse not to try to achieve those things though.
I’m not sure that it isn’t obvious that these are the things God wants for us - perhaps you could be more specific.
As for American individualism. I think the individual is indefensible, and there is good reason that conscience exists at the level of the individual. That is a great truth that communism, for example, tries to ignore, and why it fails, and is utterly immoral. But I am not particularly interested in the American ideal of individualism. To be honest, it strikes me as a post-Reformation Protestant value, and one that has a close connection to relativism. But then I’m Canadian - our motto is “Peace, Order, and Good Government.”
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
It might be opposed to what you believe in, but it isn’t opposed to the “ought” of love. I think you should study the concept. Love necessitates what i believe in, and it does not oppose individuality once understood in its proper context.
I’m sorry that you are homeless. I know what thats like. Its just a shame that you think that humanity does not have a moral obligation to help you. Of coarse they are free to be selfish, but that doesn’t mean we must sit back and allow people to abuse us. We have what little human rights we have because ordinary people have fought and died for it; and even now, all that we have fought for is being threatened by selfish people that think merely of their own progress. Most people are homeless because you live in an evil world, an evil society that thinks that profit is more important then the well being of their fellow human being. Human beings are evil; they worship the image of the beast. The only reason any of us are going to be saved is because of Gods mercy and love.
C
Contarini
Guest
Certainly the Bible and Christian tradition generally. What would science have to say about this? Science doesn’t tell us what we should do. It only tells us things about how the physical world works.
Individualism may be the foundation of American civilization, but that just shows how radically heretical the American ideology is by the standards of traditional Christianity.
St. Paul speaks of the Church as the Body of Christ. We are all organs of that body, not isolated individuals. Individualism is a perversion of Christianity.
Edwin
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Without profit, none of us would have anything.
Profit means we value the output more than we value the resources expended to create the output.
If there is no profit, then we value the resources expended more than we value the product. Keep doing that, and soon we have nothing.
People who object to prifit will lead us all to starvation and misery.
I would be delighted for someone to tell me how we can live without profit. It has nothing to do with the beast or god’s love. It is simple economics.
F
fish90
Guest
Profit can never be the sole motivator of a society.
CCC 2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204
A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206
So profit is good only in moderation like most pleasures.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
What does “collective organization of production” mean, and how does it relate to either capitalism or conservative ideas?
What system reduces man to nothing more than a means of production? How does it do it?
This all sounds very nice, probably gets nods in seminars and sermons, but has no relation to the real world.
Profit is good only in moderation? Where does that come from? You prefer to get less output from the expenditure of resources? Burn gas and get fewer miles per gallon? Is that the Church teaching? Waste resources to feel good?
F
fish90
Guest
Probably the last statement I made was off, but I was trying to show that profit is necessary for a business to survive and guarantee or increase employment. The problem comes when profit is gained without thinking about human dignity. Laying off or denying benefits in a good economy when there already is a profit is wrong. These workers are humans and they have a right to a proper wage.
- No answer to your first question. I believe this means industrialization. I am no CCC expert.
- Uncontrolled capitalism and excessive socialism are two ways. Uncontrolled capitalism without laws to protect basic rights reduces man to a mere mean of production. Excessive socialism like communism denies the worker the chance to serve his God given talent, so he is a mere mean of production.
- The real world still needs Christ.
- As I have already stated in the first part of my response, I was off in this statement. I meant to dive into that profit has its purpose and that disordered desires for money are wrong. The proper mindset of an official in a business in my opinion should be to give as much as it can to its employees for as long as it can.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
- Well, can we dismiss “collective organization of production” from discussion since nobody seems to know what it means? If I were to guess, it is much closer to socialism and communism than capitalism.
- There is no example of uncontrolled capitalism without laws. That is a contradiction. At a minumum capitalism must have both enforceable property and contracting rights.
- The real world may need Christ, but not if he has to be ushered in on ignorance and deception. Advocates for any economic position have a responsibility to be informed and educated about the targets of their advocacy. Meaningless slogans and moralizing do more harm than good.
- Any manager who gives his employees as much as he can for as long as he can will soon be passing out pink slips to those employees. Profit is what finances the expansion and creation of jobs. That’s where capital comes from, and that’s where it gets invested. Without that profit and the people who figure out how to make it, we’d all be scratching for our mext meal.
- What does “properly adjust its balance sheet” mean?
- Capitalism has brought more prosperity to more people than any system in history. More than any other economic system, religion, ideology, or moral system. It has also allowed for the implementation of more of those CCC principles than any system in history.
L
Langdell
Guest
Putting these statements together, I think I understand what you mean.
I think we all agree that (other things being equal) a thriving business is better for its workers than a struggling one. In order for a business to thrive, it needs not only workers but also investors (owners). And in order to attract investors, a business needs to generate profit. The investors may include the workers themselves, either directly (through voluntary investment or stock compensation programs) or indirectly (through profit-linked bonuses). Direct investment by workers in the business that employs them is actually a bad idea from the workers’ point of view, because it puts too many eggs in one basket (e.g., that’s how many of Enron’s employees were doubly ruined). But many workers today own stock in a wide range of businesses, through mutual funds in which their retirement savings are invested.
I’m no CCC expert, but it seems to me that the Church is striving to capture the idea of fairness in both wages and profits. We then are left to wonder what is “fair”? I think we’re thrown back on our own consciences for that.
.
F
fish90
Guest
Thank you, I really needed your back-up there.
Here are some more paragraphs from the CCC that pertains to this discussion.
2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.[208]
2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.[209] Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.”[210] Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work[211] in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.[212] Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.
2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.[213]
Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.
Now to just wage
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.[220] In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”[221] Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
taken from christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/seventh.html
I hope this adds to the discussion.
God Bless
W
WillieWonka
Guest
“Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’”
Are you sure you want to stand by that?
- Status