Are pro-capitalists heretics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“If the businessman paid his workers more than a livable wage, comiserate with experience of the worker, etc. then it is perfectally moral.”

Oh, so the numerical inequality is okay as long as both parties are capable of surviving and then some?
 
fakename said:
“If the businessman paid his workers more than a livable wage, comiserate with experience of the worker, etc. then it is perfectally moral.”

Oh, so the numerical inequality is okay as long as both parties are capable of surviving and then some?
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I think there’s more ot it than that: Consider a student who is living at home and working a minimum wage job in order to save for college. It would be hard for one to live on minimum wage, however, this case is different.

But, in general, I’d say that if you’re paying your employees a liveable wage, there is nothing wrong with management getting more than the worker bees.

Again, why ask about a numerical disadvantage, as long as the businessman is conducting his business in a moral way?
 
“Disclaimer: I think there’s more ot it than that: Consider a student who is living at home and working a minimum wage job in order to save for college. It would be hard for one to live on minimum wage, however, this case is different.”

Now what happens if that student can afford to ask his parents for extra money? Does his low wage still count as unjust?

(Sorry if this is turning into a “primer on catholic social teaching”.)
 
fakename said:
“Disclaimer: I think there’s more ot it than that: Consider a student who is living at home and working a minimum wage job in order to save for college. It would be hard for one to live on minimum wage, however, this case is different.”

Now what happens if that student can afford to ask his parents for extra money? Does his low wage still count as unjust?

(Sorry if this is turning into a “primer on catholic social teaching”.)
Click to expand...
Don’t know, probably not.

But, as far as I know, Catholic teaching recognizes the fact that businessess need to make profit and respects private property. Businesses, however, need to respect workers rights. Whatever else is left to prudental judgement of all parties involved.
 
Is it possible to agree to recieve wages below the just out of heroism?

And is morality (including the social teachings) something that is subject to trade-offs? (for instance, it may be prudent to serve your poor family and not give to the poor -which would be a trade-off between wisdom and charity)?
 
fakename said:
Is it possible to agree to recieve wages below the just out of heroism?

And is morality (including the social teachings) something that is subject to trade-offs? (for instance, it may be prudent to serve your poor family and not give to the poor -which would be a trade-off between wisdom and charity)?
Click to expand...
Yes, you can agree to receive unjust wages as an act of solidarity with the poor. I’m thinking specifically of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement, and the mystic Simone Weil.

In the second example, I’d say simply that charity doesn’t necessarily mean money. One isn’t free from one’s obligation to practice charity, even if one can’t afford money. The widow’s mites, and all that. So . . . perhaps morality is subject to trade-offs in form but not substance?
 
"In the second example, I’d say simply that charity doesn’t necessarily mean money. One isn’t free from one’s obligation to practice charity, even if one can’t afford money. The widow’s mites, and all that. So . . . perhaps morality is subject to trade-offs in form but not substance? "

So how would charity manifest itself in that example?
 
fakename said:
"In the second example, I’d say simply that charity doesn’t necessarily mean money. One isn’t free from one’s obligation to practice charity, even if one can’t afford money. The widow’s mites, and all that. So . . . perhaps morality is subject to trade-offs in form but not substance? "

So how would charity manifest itself in that example?
Click to expand...
There is a saying… “Time, talent and treasure”

One might not have the treasure to share with others, but can share thier time and talents.
 
"There is a saying… ‘Time, talent and treasure’

One might not have the treasure to share with others, but can share thier time and talents. "

But the person in need may not want your talent or time but only your treasure. Or the poor person would want them at a later date. So what is the giver to do if he doesn’t have the thing that person wants?

Obviously he can only give that person something later so there is a trade-off, not perhaps of morality, but rather of time?

So then, as a corollary, it isn’t immoral to not help someone in need, if you don’t have the thing they want?
 
fakename said:
"There is a saying… ‘Time, talent and treasure’

One might not have the treasure to share with others, but can share thier time and talents. "

But the person in need may not want your talent or time but only your treasure. Or the poor person would want them at a later date. So what is the giver to do if he doesn’t have the thing that person wants?

Obviously he can only give that person something later so there is a trade-off, not perhaps of morality, but rather of time?

So then, as a corollary, it isn’t immoral to not help someone in need, if you don’t have the thing they want?
Click to expand...
Surely someone will need what you have to offer? There’s enough hunger and poverty and unmet need in the world to go around, in my experience. I’d say if one can’t find someone to practice charity toward, one isn’t really looking.
 
"Surely someone will need what you have to offer? There’s enough hunger and poverty and unmet need in the world to go around, in my experience. I’d say if one can’t find someone to practice charity toward, one isn’t really looking. "

Granted you can give via, donations and indirect methods but I’m talking about a direct situation where a poor person needs something you don’t have whereas your family does need something you do have. Granted this, there must be a trade-off in time or on some level?
 
fakename said:
"Surely someone will need what you have to offer? There’s enough hunger and poverty and unmet need in the world to go around, in my experience. I’d say if one can’t find someone to practice charity toward, one isn’t really looking. "

Granted you can give via, donations and indirect methods but I’m talking about a direct situation where a poor person needs something you don’t have whereas your family does need something you do have. Granted this, there must be a trade-off in time or on some level?
Click to expand...
:confused:

I’m not quite sure of your premises for your questions.

If people refuse your help, that’s their problem, not yours (if you are, in good faith, offering your services to others).
 
“I’m not quite sure of your premises for your questions.”

Putting social teaching into action begins on an individual basis. As such I’m trying to see what the proper relationship I or any other hypothetical human should have with other humans. Secondly, even without social teachings there would still probably be a case of moral dilemmas and I see this situation as one.
 
fakename said:
“I’m not quite sure of your premises for your questions.”

Putting social teaching into action begins on an individual basis. As such I’m trying to see what the proper relationship I or any other hypothetical human should have with other humans. Secondly, even without social teachings there would still probably be a case of moral dilemmas and I see this situation as one.
Click to expand...
Ok, did my response help?
 
“Ok, did my response help?”

I think so -am I to understand that it isn’t a moral failing to not help in this case?
 
fakename said:
“Ok, did my response help?”

I think so -am I to understand that it isn’t a moral failing to not help in this case?
Click to expand...
I believe so, as Moscati and I referenced.

We are required to help the poor, or attempt to, in the best ways that we can or know how.

If someone refuses our help, that is their problem, I think.
 
“Granted you can give via, donations and indirect methods but I’m talking about a direct situation where a poor person needs something you don’t have whereas your family does need something you do have. Granted this, there must be a trade-off in time or on some level?”

I found this in the Catechsim too:
2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
So, yes, it is legitimate to take care of one’s family first. BUT, one must never forget one’s duty to the poor. Anyone who holds goods (that is the vast majority of those in the developed world) has more than enough to spare, and should give to others, especially the poor.
 
This has been most enlightening, since I’ve mostly always held the attitude that whatever hurts you is probably close to morality. I had no idea that true ethics could be so easy to apply in everyday life.

Another question this time, about minimum wages. Isn’t it true that the utility and justice of minimum wages has always been a teaching upheld by the church as being within its non-infallible powers?
 
fakename said:
Is there anything else I should know, I still feel like I’m missing something.
Click to expand...
I think that the concept should not that difficult. First of all I am coming from a perspective of a guy that has not drawn a pay check in 35 or more years. I have been for the bulk of my life self employed.
I cannot imagine a better system than free market capitalism. Even for those that are employed. In a system where the bottom line is the bottom line, the employees that make the boss money are rewarded and the guys that want to play grab *ss all day shouldn’t benefit. You know your worth and what you can do. If you are not compensated adequately, leave and go to the competition. I know this is an oversimplification of the question but the basic concept is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top