Are the rich more virtuous than the poor?

[Lujack]

Perhaps. If you think Chrysostom is calling on you to enable drug and alcohol addiciton (among other things), there is not hing I can say to stop you.

Suffice it to say that this prescription for the ills of poverty is what Charles Murray is calling into question.

I’ll take the doctor of the church in a heartbeat.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

THE CULTURAL EARTHQUAKE that Murray has brought to national attention in Coming Apart goes as follows: Whatever the causes, the social disintegration that once seemed to apply only to African Americans has now engulfed blue-collar, white working-class communities as well. Men are dropping out of the workforce, single motherhood has risen to nearly 50 percent, crime has skyrocketed, religious faith is declining, and the chances for upward mobility are rapidly diminishing. As Murray concludes: “The absolute level [of social cohesion] is so low that it calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.”

Murray identifies what he calls the “founding virtues”—marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity—that were once shared by all Americans and held us together in a common culture. That culture was still intact on November 21, 1963, the day before the Kennedy assassination that Murray chooses as his benchmark. In graph after graph drawn from the sociological literature, he shows how these four qualities have deteriorated—not among the college educated, who spend most of their time disparaging those virtues, but in blue—collar communities where people are rarely educated beyond high school. By way of illustration, he applies this data to two real places, Belmont, an upscale suburb of Boston dominated by college graduates, and Fishtown, a working-class neighborhood on the fringe of Philadelphia where the once strong ethic of marriage and family is now falling apart.

spectator.org/archives/2012/04/12/the-coming-cultural-disintegra

 

[markomalley]

I thought in the context of this thread this sermon of St. John Chrysostom might be relevant:

Emphasis mine.

You will note, however, that the Golden-Tongued one berated the wealthy for not sharing of their abundance. He nowhere advocated for any government to play a Robin Hood role. That is an important distinction.

 

[Lujack]

You will note, however, that the Golden-Tongued one berated the wealthy for not sharing of their abundance. He nowhere advocated for any government to play a Robin Hood role. That is an important distinction.

And that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the rich are or are not more virtuous than the poor.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the rich are or are not more virtuous than the poor.

I think it has to do with the question of whether those who give other people’s money to the poor are virtuous.

 

[Lujack]

I think it has to do with the question of whether those who give other people’s money to the poor are virtuous.

Because nobody who supports government programs to help the poor pays taxes themselves.

Supporters of a large budget for the Pentagon use other people’s money to pay for that; supporters of a large road network use other people’s money to pay for that; supporters of subsidies for oil drilling use other people’s money to pay for that.

Anyway, all of it is irrelevant to the tongue-lashing that Chrysostom is giving to people who adopt the position of yourself and Charles Murray, the position of taking it upon yourself to separate the worthy poor from the unworthy poor.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because nobody who supports government programs to help the poor pays taxes themselves.

Certainly they don’t target themselves for tax increases, they could accomplish that more directly through charity.

Anyway, all of it is irrelevant to the tongue-lashing that Chrysostom is giving to people who adopt the position of yourself and Charles Murray, the position of taking it upon yourself to separate the worthy poor from the unworthy poor.

If you want to call that a “tongue-lashing”. But, yes, there is a stark choice between using prudential judgement in acts of charity and refraining from it. We know where you stand. It’s not obvious that Chrysostom would support you were he alive to see the consequences of nonjudgemental “charity” (if it can be called that).

I have yet to encounter a charity that doesn’t exercise judgement.

But if you insist, here is where you can donate to “needy” mothers to be:

secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift

 

[markomalley]

And that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the rich are or are not more virtuous than the poor.

And I don’t see how the quote from St. John has anything to do with relative virtuosity either. I mean, a rich person with the virtue of liberality is obviously more virtuous than a poor person with the sin of envy, right?

See post #221 for another patristic quote that captures my thoughts on the subject (of relative virtue). [In an ideal world, that is]

 

[Lujack]

Certainly they don’t target themselves for tax increases, they could accomplish that more directly through charity.

They don’t?

Anyway, you can’t accomplish all ends directly through personal charity. Individuals alone don’t have the capital lying around to, say, start a public school system, or build low-income housing, or start a job training program.

If you want to call that a “tongue-lashing”. But, yes, there is a stark choice between using prudential judgement in acts of charity and refraining from it. We know where you stand. It’s not obvious that Chrysostom would support you were he alive to see the consequences of nonjudgemental “charity” (if it can be called that).

I have yet to encounter a charity that doesn’t exercise judgement.

But if you insist, here is where you can donate to “needy” mothers to be:

secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift

Why did you put “needy” in quotations?

 

[Lochias]

But if you insist, here is where you can donate to “needy” mothers to be:

secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift

Oh, bravo. Yes, of course. Because Planned Parenthood is the only place a person can go to donate their money. Boy howdy, you sure showed us poor backward folks how it’s done.

Are you naturally this obtuse, rude and condescending, or do you practice?

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Lochias;9177352] Planned Parenthood is not the only place a person can go to donate their money.

Lochias,I agree with you that this is not the only place at all to donate money(and I do not think any of us would…).
Excuse my ignorance as a foreigner,could you help me understand how you would feel better helped,or where do you think more resources are needed to help people out?
Where would you feel money would be better donated or directed?where is it not going and you believe it is needed?
I do bear in mind all the hard times you are going through.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Lochias]

Lochias,I agree with you that this is not the only place at all to donate money(and I do not think any of us would…).
Excuse my ignorance as a foreigner,could you help me understand how you would feel better helped,or where do you think more resources are needed to help people out?
Where would you feel money would be better donated or directed?where is it not going and you believe it is needed?
I do bear in mind all the hard times you are going through.
Thanks in advance.

Hey graciew,

I think that the money itself isn’t always the issue, so much as the processes and restrictions that are in place before a person meets the requirements for help. For example, my sister is going full-time to school, trying to get her certification to become a medical lab tech so that she can support herself better, but in the meantime would also be expected to hold down a ludicrous amount of job searches or at least 30+ hours a week at some job or another in order to qualify for things like food stamps. She would have to do this on the one aging vehicle that she and my mom both share, and she cannot find any help with things like bus fare or the like, as that kind of program apparently doesn’t exist in our neck of the woods.

Therefore, she is unable to receive a very basic form of help because the folks in charge expect her, paradoxically enough, to be working almost full-time or to be filling out applications almost full time in order to qualify! Never mind that a more-than part-time, minimum-wage job would hinder her efforts to go to school and barely bring in the gas needed to cover getting to that job and back.

Making things worse, my sister might normally qualify for a medical exemption to the work / search requirements, but the utterly inadequate state health-care she must has given her a doctor who never signed the last exemption paper she brought to him, simply citing irritably that he was too busy to do so.

Many people in the halls of government, and some of those who make enough money to do more than barely eat from paycheck to paycheck, seem to have completely lost touch with the realities of severe poverty and just how weakened a position it leaves people in.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I suspect that the answer to this question is ultimately unknowable because we don’t have all the data we need to answer the question. For example, we can measure out of wedlock births, but we cannot measure sexual immorality very well. If wealthier people have better access to contraception then we cannot look at birth rates and say one group is more virtuous. In addition, this kind of analysis is dependent on what measures you are choosing. Church attendance is lower in higher income areas, is this a relevant measure of virtue? Or do we ignore this because it does not support our preconceived notions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

They don’t?

No, as as noted, the evidence is that you it is much easier to give charitably.

Anyway, you can’t accomplish all ends directly through personal charity. Individuals alone don’t have the capital lying around to, say, start a public school system, or build low-income housing, or start a job training program.

I guess you’ve never heard of charities? Those are organizations that pool charitable gifts to accomplish larger missions. Like building and operating schools and housing and job training programs.

Why did you put “needy” in quotations?

That is an exercise in judgement on my part. I judge that abortions are not needed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Oh, bravo. Yes, of course. Because Planned Parenthood is the only place a person can go to donate their money.

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.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I suspect that the answer to this question is ultimately unknowable because we don’t have all the data we need to answer the question.

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).

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Lochias;9178318]Hey graciew,

I think that the money itself isn’t always the issue, so much as the processes and restrictions that are in place before a person meets the requirements for help. For example, my sister is going full-time to school, trying to get her certification to become a medical lab tech so that she can support herself better, but in the meantime would also be expected to hold down a ludicrous amount of job searches or at least 30+ hours a week at some job or another in order to qualify for things like food stamps. She would have to do this on the one aging vehicle that she and my mom both share, and she cannot find any help with things like bus fare or the like, as that kind of program apparently doesn’t exist in our neck of the woods.

Therefore, she is unable to receive a very basic form of help because the folks in charge expect her, paradoxically enough, to be working almost full-time or to be filling out applications almost full time in order to qualify! Never mind that a more-than part-time, minimum-wage job would hinder her efforts to go to school and barely bring in the gas needed to cover getting to that job and back.

Making things worse, my sister might normally qualify for a medical exemption to the work / search requirements, but the utterly inadequate state health-care she must has given her a doctor who never signed the last exemption paper she brought to him, simply citing irritably that he was too busy to do so.

QUOTE]

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?

 

[Lujack]

No, as as noted, the evidence is that you it is much easier to give charitably.

I’m sorry, I think this was garbled by typos. I can’t understand it.

I guess you’ve never heard of charities? Those are organizations that pool charitable gifts to accomplish larger missions. Like building and operating schools and housing and job training programs.

I’ve take it you’ve never heard of economy of scale? That its cheaper and more efficient to do things on a larger scale?

Or the concept that even the Catholic Church, the largest and most tightly organized private organization in the world by quite some ways, doesn’t have the capacity to take on the building of large amounts of houses or of developing a truly national school system?

At its height in the 1950’s, when there were more Catholic schools opened than at any other time, and when vocations were at an all-time high, making it cheap for the Church to staff its schools with religious brothers and nuns…the Catholic school system was still overcrowded. And it was serving only 50% of Catholic children.

Now how do you propose that private charity is going to run a national school system if the Catholic Church couldn’t find a way to serve more than half of the Catholic children in the United States at the height of its power and financial ability in this country? How do you propose to do something like that without any government aid at all?

Private charity can accomplish a lot, but it can’t build thousands of homes, it can’t run a nationwide school system single-handedly (although it can contribute mightily).

That is an exercise in judgement on my part. I judge that abortions are not needed.

Ah, I see now. That wasn’t anything genuine, it was just an insult. You’re accusing me of believing that the only way to help poor single mothers is to pay for their abortions. Its a nonsensical insult, but at least I understand what that entire farce was about.

 

[Lujack]

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).

No, Charles Murray has put together a fatally flawed study to confirm his own biases.

And that sentence sums up his entire sorry career.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m sorry, I think this was garbled by typos. I can’t understand it.

It is far easier to give to charity. But even if you insist on giving to government, you can write a check at any time. The purpose of taxes is to make the other guy pay.

I’ve take it you’ve never heard of economy of scale? That its cheaper and more efficient to do things on a larger scale?

No, what economy of scale says is that fixed costs can be spread over a a large base. If econiomy of scale were always cheaper then we would have one world communist government direting all activities. Communism failed spectactularly in spite of its supposed economies of scale because there are other forces at work, such as local knowledge that prevent huge bureaucracies and big companies from effectively satisfying needs.

Or the concept that even the Catholic Church, the largest and most tightly organized private organization in the world by quite some ways, doesn’t have the capacity to take on the building of large amounts of houses or of developing a truly national school system?

In fact the Catholic church operates an interanational school system of far better quality and it is limited only by the imprudent diversion of funds to government schools.

Private charity can accomplish a lot, but it can’t build thousands of homes, it can’t run a nationwide school system single-handedly (although it can contribute mightily).

Governments don’t build homes. Homebuilders build homes. There is no need for national home building department and for diversion of taxes into nationalized home building.

Ah, I see now. That wasn’t anything genuine, it was just an insult. You’re accusing me of believing that the only way to help poor single mothers is to pay for their abortions. Its a nonsensical insult, but at least I understand what that entire farce was about.

I’m accusing you of pretending that prudential judgement in charity is sinful and showing by a vivid example what lack of prudence leads to. I’m not surprised that you have no response but to pretend to be insulted by your own logic.