Are the rich more virtuous than the poor?

[Lujack]

To be honest, I don’t think this discussion has, is, or will go anywhere productive.

 

[Lochias]

That, of course, is precisely my point: we don’t just give to the first person who asks. We exercise prudential judgement in our charity. Yes, precisely, we can choose not to give to Planned Parenthood no matter how much they claim they “need” our money.

The example you used is patently ridiculous, because no-one in their right minds would give to Planned Parenthood. Your “point” is lost in the rather foolish example you chose to use. How is not giving to an organization that very obviously values evil over good AT ALL COMPARABLE to not giving to someone on the side of the road because YOU judge them to be lazy?

 

[Lochias]

I believe you are exactly right that more reserarch is need. What Charles Murray has accomplished is to draw attention to a problem with our current practices of imprudent charity (and welfare).

In your eyes, perhaps; but you equate giving to Planned Parenthood to giving to the poor, so your own ability to draw conclusions is suspect, at best.

 

[Lochias]

Thanks for your answer.
I can hear your powerlessness,Lochias,as I can see the strength of character your sister has to take this big step against her adversities.

Sounds like there is no distinction between those persons like your sister who are determined to study to make progress in their lives and the persons who may not be needing this special support.And as you describe it,looks like restrictions could be readapted to be objectively grounded in reality for these cases.To begin with.Am I correct?

I do understand as well that you are saying she can´t wait for a whole system to change because her reality strikes here and now,doesn´t it?

Yes, to both of your questions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In your eyes, perhaps; but you equate giving to Planned Parenthood to giving to the poor, so your own ability to draw conclusions is suspect, at best.

You have it exactly backwards: I am not equating giving to Planned Parenthood to giving to the poor. I am equating the refusal to exercise prudential judgement in charity to not distinguishing between giving to Planned Parenthood and other charities that feed the poor. Planned Parenthood “helps” the poor to get abortions. Giving to panhandlers helps them stay drunk, etc.

And, unfortunately, it is not merely that people like Lujak refuse to exercise prudential judgement but that they are determined to rob the rest of us of the opportunity to exercise our judgement.

When the Chatholic Church threatened to withdraw from its charitable activities due to the HHS mandate administration supporters didn’t wring their hands and fret, they cheered, “good riddance!”

 

[Lochias]

You have it exactly backwards: I am not equating giving to Planned Parenthood to giving to the poor. I am equating the refusal to exercise prudential judgement in charity to not distinguishing between giving to Planned Parenthood and other charities that feed the poor. Planned Parenthood “helps” the poor to get abortions. Giving to panhandlers helps them stay drunk, etc.

Horse-plop. Giving to Planned Parenthood and giving to panhandlers are apples and oranges. You have no way, no way at all, of knowing if an individual panhandler is going to use what you give him to drink, or to go buy something hot to eat on a cold day. Further, it’s not your place to judge…God tells us very specifically, many times over, that giving to the poor is an act of charity and merits much grace.

Giving to Planned Parenthood is not giving to the poor. It is giving to Planned Parenthood, an organization which murders babies.

Your example was horrible and ill-used.

And, unfortunately, it is not merely that people like Lujak refuse to exercise prudential judgement but that they are determined to rob the rest of us of the opportunity to exercise our judgement.

When the Chatholic Church threatened to withdraw from its charitable activities due to the HHS mandate administration supporters didn’t wring their hands and fret, they cheered, “good riddance!”

Judge not, lest ye be judged. It’s your money, and God’s not forcing you to give it to anyone. You’re not being robbed here, you’re just trying to sound wise. THAT you ARE being robbed of, time and time again, but hey, none of us has a right to sound wise on this earth, do we?

And what does the HHS mandate have to do with any of this? Please think very carefully, as you’re batting 0 thusfar.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Horse-plop. Giving to Planned Parenthood and giving to panhandlers are apples and oranges. You have no way, no way at all, of knowing if an individual panhandler is going to use what you give him to drink, or to go buy something hot to eat on a cold day.

In fact, I have a very easy way of knowing: I can give a panhandler money and watch to see what he does with it.

Further, it’s not your place to judge…God tells us very specifically, many times over, that giving to the poor is an act of charity and merits much grace.

That is a nonsequitor. It is our place to judge who is deserving of our charity. It is our place to judge that giving to Planned Parenthood to help the poor get an abortion is an act of sin and not an act meriting grace.

Giving to Planned Parenthood is not giving to the poor. It is giving to Planned Parenthood, an organization which murders babies. Your example was horrible and ill-used.

I chose that example quite deliberately. Planned Parenthood is parimarily focused on helping the poor get abortions (as well as contraceptives).

Judge not, lest ye be judged. It’s your money, and God’s not forcing you to give it to anyone. You’re not being robbed here, you’re just trying to sound wise. THAT you ARE being robbed of, time and time again, but hey, none of us has a right to sound wise on this earth, do we?

God is not but Uncle Sam is. Your tax dollars go to supporting Planned Parenthood. You have been robbed of your judgement.

And what does the HHS mandate have to do with any of this? Please think very carefully, as you’re batting 0 thusfar.

The HHS mandate had the effect of forcing Catholics to support sinful acts. The bishops threatened that they would rather shutdown various charities than comply with the law thinking, perhaps, that this would upset those who support Obamacare. But the reality was the opposite, those who support Obamacare would be all too glad to see the church get out of these charitable activities so that the government could take them over.

 

[graciew]

Yes, to both of your questions.

In fact,it would be even more logical that the rule,process and restrictions for a particular kind of benefit,example,were oriented towards those persons that do keep studying as your sister,cause ultimately it is encouraging and solves the problem better. I´m thinking,I may be wrong…
In other words,in the light that studying does give all of us an extra opportunity to improve,people like your sister should become the rule and not the exception.Why I am saying this,cause this is what I see happen again and again.The execeptions to the rules,are the ones that need our attention the most,cause they are fighting against our ignorance,against their adversity and against the system.Thus is happens to empoverishing low middle class persons(sorry,to clasify,people have names…) in underdeveloped(developing countries,like where I come from .People know and have the vision of what it takes to better support themselves,but the system is busy with another group.They fall into no category to be helped.Not that I am saying that the poorest persons do not need help,please,but that there is another group of persons who are left unattended.
There so much to do…we should not be arguing but moving foward…
And here is my heart in fact,there are tons of persons screaming in the desert and nobody hears them.Well.yes,God does.

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Lujack;9179704]To be honest, I don’t think this discussion has, is, or will go anywhere productive.

Lujack,I have learnt through your reflections,experience,and other people´s.In that sense,it is not unproductive to me.if it counts…I

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Bubba Switzler;9164733]No general observation will apply to all and every general solution must be applied with care for individual cases.

The question I want to explore here is how the rich might better help the poor in light of Charles Murray’s observations (which anyone is free to dispute, as many have already).

Of course.

Going back to your question,there is an issue about Murray´s study that does call my attention as to where he is going or intending to go,I have not read the books but watched videos and have read many of his conferences as from this thread started.
Why would he note this particular trend of the poor not going or dropping school,and then say in his Real Education book that:
1.ability varies(ok this is kind of obvious)
2.half the students´grades are below standard.(ok ,an observation)(though statistics show who in terms of income and race have the lowest grades)
BUT then he goes into:
3 too many kids attend college
4.America´s future depends on the gifted children.

So,what is the purpose of noting that the poorest people stay away from school,so as to conclude that “too many kids attend college”(in other words,many kids should in fact stay away from college,according to him) and then,we need the best gifted(IQ?),the rest are what?
Objectively speaking,without animosity,and having his right to think and say as he pleases,the direction of his thoughts,at least to me,.are kind of .what is the word…manipulative?if it is offensive,please chose another one,excluding?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Going back to your question,there is an issue about Murray´s study that does call my attention as to where he is going or intending to go,I have not read the books but watched videos and have read many of his conferences as from this thread started.

I have not read his books either, I am relying on the reviews, intervies, etc.

Why would he note this particular trend of the poor not going or dropping school,…
The three rules came from the Brookings Institute (jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-01-27/story/three-rules-staying-out-poverty) but Charles Murray is with the American Enterprise Insitute. I have not researched whether Murray concurs with the Brookings Institue.

…and then say in his Real Education book that:
1.ability varies(ok this is kind of obvious)
2.half the students´grades are below standard.(ok ,an observation)(though statistics show who in terms of income and race have the lowest grades)
BUT then he goes into:
3 too many kids attend college
4.America´s future depends on the gifted children.

So,what is the purpose of noting that the poorest people stay away from school,so as to conclude that “too many kids attend college”(in other words,many kids should in fact stay away from college,according to him) and then,we need the best gifted(IQ?),the rest are what?

I think you are confusing a few things here. The stay-in-school rule of poverty simply says that finishing high school is sufficient. I have speculated previously that this is not because high school is such a valuable educational experience but that people who can’t botther to finish high school are likely to have trouble in other aspects that keep them in poverty. In other words, it can be a predictor without being a cause.

As for the concern with “too much” college, I think there is a more general criticism, and he may be among those, who condemn the practice of going to college and expecting to get a job. Different research suggests that while it may once have been true that college education was an important differentiator, it is less so now, and when the much higher college costs are taken into account, the value of college is much less than generally believed.

It is not necessarily a good idea for someone in poverty to run up a huge debt getting a BA degree in art history. Trade school would be a much better alterantive for the purpose of escaping poverty.

Objectively speaking,without animosity,and having his right to think and say as he pleases,the direction of his thoughts,at least to me,.are kind of .what is the word…manipulative?if it is offensive,please chose another one,excluding?

Hopefully I’ve clairifed some of your concerns.

 

[Lochias]

In fact, I have a very easy way of knowing: I can give a panhandler money and watch to see what he does with it.

That is a nonsequitor. It is our place to judge who is deserving of our charity. It is our place to judge that giving to Planned Parenthood to help the poor get an abortion is an act of sin and not an act meriting grace.

I chose that example quite deliberately. Planned Parenthood is parimarily focused on helping the poor get abortions (as well as contraceptives).

God is not but Uncle Sam is. Your tax dollars go to supporting Planned Parenthood. You have been robbed of your judgement.

The HHS mandate had the effect of forcing Catholics to support sinful acts. The bishops threatened that they would rather shutdown various charities than comply with the law thinking, perhaps, that this would upset those who support Obamacare. But the reality was the opposite, those who support Obamacare would be all too glad to see the church get out of these charitable activities so that the government could take them over.

I am getting too angry to continue this discussion in any civilized sort of manner. I can only hope and pray that you are never in the position of being at the mercy of the ethics and morals you espouse. It is a lonely and desperate place to be. God bless you.

 

[graciew]

I have not read his books either, I am relying on the reviews, intervies, etc.

Why would he note this particular trend of the poor not going or dropping school,…

In general terms he touches base on the issues you are mentioning and with the direction you are mentioning.though he does take these 4 items I mentioned in his book.But I will leave the person of Murray aside not to be unfair,again,cause I do not have the whole of the picture he presents.
What worries me of this trend,is that society comes apart,because we start to live in our bubbles.We theorize,but we do not know.And when somebody steps out to answer,and presents a very specific case which debunks all general theory,it is not enough…This is how I see Lochias´sister,very very respectfully.
A bishop down there in my South America said once that we lost track,we got lost, when the problem of just and only one person in poverty ceased to be a scandal that merited all of us acting and reacting.
And Murray also remembers in one of his videos the good old times when if a neighbour was in distress,every neighbour would get involved and would help.
There was no need of statistics,no generalizations,no need of a profound intellectual analysis,there was “that neighbour in distress” then. What on earth happened?

 

[Viki63]

And Murray also remembers in one of his videos the good old times when if a neighbour was in distress,every neighbour would get involved and would help.
There was no need of statistics,no generalizations,no need of a profound intellectual analysis,there was “that neighbour in distress” then. What on earth happened?

I still see it happening - every time there is a local tragedy: a housefire, a car accident or the death of a parent, we see people coming together to help and offer support. Because of the internet and instant news, we are also touched by distant disasters, so there is a constant pull on our hearts and our finances. It is sometimes hard to choose, we can’t help everyone, but it seems to me that many people are doing all they can.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What worries me of this trend,is that society comes apart,because we start to live in our bubbles.We theorize,but we do not know.And when somebody steps out to answer,and presents a very specific case which debunks all general theory,it is not enough…This is how I see Lochias´sister,very very respectfully.
A bishop down there in my South America said once that we lost track,we got lost, when the problem of just and only one person in poverty ceased to be a scandal that merited all of us acting and reacting.
And Murray also remembers in one of his videos the good old times when if a neighbour was in distress,every neighbour would get involved and would help.
There was no need of statistics,no generalizations,no need of a profound intellectual analysis,there was “that neighbour in distress” then. What on earth happened?

Let us assume that these observations are correct. The question becomes, what changed? Too much has changed for a simple and reliable answer but I would answer, and I think Murray would concur, that one of the biggest and most consequential changes to social structure has been the nationalization of welfare. We have all, to one extent or another, outsourced our love of neighbor to government bureaucracy. “Don’t ask me, I gave at the IRS.”

In the good ol’ days you knew that if you didn’t help then there was a good chance that this person wouldn’t be helped.

The other thing that happened with nationalization of welfare is that it became bureaucractized: demoralized and dehumanized. The prudential judgement of neighbors is replaced with the regulation of law and the human touch is replaced by an ATM card or a check in the mail.

 

[bri89]

No, definitely not, it’s the rich who are guilty of the worst kinds of debauchery and depravity; but if the rich were more virtuous than the poor, would that change the way you treat poor people? How would that affect your beliefs? If they were more virtuous that still would not change what Christ preached about riches. Rich people are lauded enough, they are downright worshipped; must they also be morally vindicated as well. Poor people are despised enough and on top off that blamed for their poverty which is monstrously cruel. If you dislike social welfare programs remember they are enacted by people at the top. If you resent anyone then resent rich people who create the policies that force you to give to the poor, and not poor people themselves. We are commanded to love the poor and not speculate about their virtue, what is the purpose of that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We are commanded to love the poor and not speculate about their virtue, what is the purpose of that.

The purpose is to determine if the poor need only material aid or something more that the rich have to offer.

 

[bri89]

The purpose is to determine if the poor need only material aid or something more that the rich have to offer.

like what

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

like what

Like how to hold down a job.

 

[bri89]

Like how to hold down a job.

Sweatshop workers know how to hold down a job. Mexicans farm laborors have steady job histories. What precise virtues are unique to the rich?