Ethical thought experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re ignoring all the people who are employed because someone is buying those cars.
 
Lia said:
Yes, this person in the experiment does not need the Porsche car, he wants it. It would be better of course, if he uses the money for something for meaningful. But the question is would it be wrong at all to spend it on himself for “status, luxury, vanity” knowing that lives will be lost because of his choice?
Click to expand...
I wonder if real the problem - from a Catholic perspective - is not the money spent so much as the attitude of desiring attention, adulation, to be (or be seen as) somehow better than others. Turning one’s nose up at lower-cost options because they aren’t “good enough” for one’s reputation would indicate a problem of the heart.

That being said, I have several friends who LOVE their fancy-ish cars. One teacher’s aide at my school did buy a Porsche this year (her husband has a more lucrative career than education) – and she gave rides to a few other teachers and even let the PE teacher drive it with her in the passenger seat. 😂
 
How can “not at all wrong” (to not donate to prevent malaria) turn into a moral obligation to save simply when something bad is happening in front of you (in the drowning child scenario)?

Is not helping the poor a sin of omission?
 
Last edited:
I knew someone would say this. I was going to address this.

I don’t buy this sort of argument. Because they can be employed doing something else not necessarily making fancy cars.
You are ignoring employment is not fixed.

If a buy mosquito nets instead I’m also helping people employed to make nets. So the effect is neutral.
 
Last edited:
Lia said:
Is not helping the poor a sin of omission?
Click to expand...
How do you interpret Matthew 26:8 and following?

bible.usccb.org

Matthew, CHAPTER 26

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
bible.usccb.org bible.usccb.org
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
I think it’s reasonable for a billionaire to have one fancy car. But to have ten… my question to him would be why is nine not enough?

I think it is reasonable for someone living in the modern world to have a modern car.

So for me it all comes down to reasonableness.
Click to expand...
What is your standard of reasonability? How do you think you can stand in judgment of someone else who you don’t even know?
Lia said:
How can “not at all wrong” (to not donate to prevent malaria) turn into a moral obligation to save simply when something bad is happening in front of you (in the drowning child scenario)?

Is not helping the poor a sin of omission?
Click to expand...
Because as I said our moral obligation isn’t absolutely the same to everyone.

No, not helping every poor person is not a sin of omission. If you think it is then sell whatever device you use to be on this forum and give the money to the poor. That wouldn’t be following Church teaching so you don’t have to do that and if you claim you must then you are actually opposing the true teaching of the Church.
 
exnihilo said:
What is your standard of reasonability? How do you think you can stand in judgment of someone else who you don’t even know?
Click to expand...
I have said I can’t judge other people. Hence I’m not even going to judge the person with 10 fancy cars. But I would question. Hence you can see all my posts I’ve been careful not to judge.
So it comes down to whether that rich person can give a reasonable answer to my question. Why is 9 cars not enough? Perhaps he can. Perhaps he can’t. And if he can provide a reasonable answer, sure go ahead there’s nothing wrong with that. But I would be very curious to know what that reason is.

Whereas I find it much easier for a modern person to come up with a reasonable answer of why he needs a modern car.
 
Last edited:
Do you think people who make a finely tuned machine make a better living than people who make nets?

Heck, I bet most mosquito net production is entirely automated for the most part now.

A job is much better for people than relying on handouts from charities.

Free markets have halved the global extreme poverty rate in the last 20 years.
 
There is harm not only in trying to gain wealth but also in excessive concern with even the most necessary things. It is not enough to despise wealth, but you must also feed the poor and, more importantly, you must follow Christ.

Saint John Chrysostom

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
ratio1 said:
How do you interpret Matthew 26:8 and following?
Click to expand...
That’s really interesting, I havent really read the Bible. It sounds like it’s about the intention of the person who does good. What’s your interpretation?
 
I’d still like to know what a reasonable answer is?

Also, what is a reasonable explanation for why ice cream (or pick something you like but don’t need) is acceptable for you to enjoy?
 
Jesus always talks about the intention. In fact I think that’s the theme is the whole Gospels. How we worship God and behave should depend on the “how?” and “why?” Not “what?”
The Gospels are FULL of these examples.
The Pharisees focuses on “what” questions.

So in your OP thought experiment the important thing is not whether you buy a Porsche or not. It’s about why you are buying it and how you are using it.

And to summarise the answers to why and how questions I use the word “reasonableness”. Which is what I’ve been saying in this thread.
Jesus is not saying we don’t have to give to the poor. He’s not even saying the disciples should also spend money to buy perfume instead of giving it to the poor. Since Jesus is God he has perfect knowledge of people’s intentions. He probably knew the disciples weren’t really that interested in helping the poor but perhaps they were showing off how pious they were and how they are more superior to the woman. That’s the problem with the disciples. Not the fact that they cared for the poor. (Even if they really cared for the poor) He probably also knew that the woman wanted to give her best perfume to Jesus, so that’s nothing wrong with that too.
Hence Jesus was rebuking the disciples intentions and praising the woman’s intentions.

The caveat is that Jesus had knowledge of people’s intentions but we don’t. So whilst he can judge. We can’t judge.
 
Last edited:
Ice cream is not expensive and if for such a cheap item it can make me happy which will then have flow on positive effect on other people why not?
However if I’m addicted to ice cream and have to have it tens times a day then it’s not reasonable. (Even if it makes me happy)

I know you want the pin me down to a definition. But the reality is I can’t. But as you see above there are reasonableness that most people will agree to.

Now your turn in trying to come up with a reasonable answer for the rich man with 10 fancy cars.
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
I know you want the pin me down to a definition. But the reality is I can’t. But as you see above there are reasonableness that most people will agree to.

Now your turn in trying to come up with a reasonable answer for the rich man with 10 fancy cars.
Click to expand...
I’m not advocating for this ‘reasonable’ doctrine. The reason I don’t is because it isn’t definable at all. It is just a gut feeling that always allows the definer his wants but denies someone else his.
 
That’s fine. We agree to disagree then. I know it will come down to this.
For me these issues are never black and white. What’s your solution then? I’m sure one can probably poke holes through that too. (Otherwise we won’t be even discussing this.)
 
Of course. The church has never condemned when the kings of old had palaces, as long as they took proper care of their country.
 
In most cases I’d say yes, through legitimate taxation and such to care for the kingdom. Most of them also had land that generated revenue from agriculture or mining or other things like that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top