IDEALISTICALLY speaking, should prosperity be based on good moral character?

[Robert_Sock]

You do realize that this question is a red herring from the discussion, right?

I don’t get it, how so?

LOVE!

 

[Robert_Sock]

If I *had *to pick, of course I’d give money to the person with good moral character, all other things being equal. But my reason isn’t based on the idea that the person with good moral character is more morally deserving (because all people are equally deserving of being free from material deprivation of natural gods), but because the morally deserving person is more likely to take my gift of charity and pass it along to others, thus maximizing my initial charitable gift.

I would also pass on the homeless person in fear that my good deed may cause him complacency, and thereby not struggle to improve his poor moral character.

LOVE!

 

[tabycat]

If you were able to ‘save’ one homeless person from their financial slavery who would you choose: A person of good moral character, or a person of poor moral character who would likely squander any prosperity you provide to them?

LOVE!

Who gets to judge a person’s moral character??? You? The person giving the money? Or the one getting the money?

The question/title of threard seems to edge close to the Name it/Cliam it Gospel preached on tv.

 

[seakelp]

Who gets to judge a person’s moral character??? You? The person giving the money? Or the one getting the money?

The question/title of threard seems to edge close to the Name it/Cliam it Gospel preach on tv. c

I completely agree. Material wealth is not a sign of personal virtue, nor vice versa, nor does a lack of material wealth mean someone lacks personal virtue, nor vice versa

 

[MacQ]

I would also pass on the homeless person in fear that my good deed may cause him complacency, and thereby not struggle to improve his poor moral character.

LOVE!

Convenient.
And ironically, complacency itself.

 

[MacQ]

If you were able to ‘save’ one homeless person from their financial slavery who would you choose: A person of good moral character, or a person of poor moral character who would likely squander any prosperity you provide to them?

LOVE!

How do you know that, as a result of your kindness, the person of “low moral character” might not have a bigger change in his life than just financial…a bigger change than the “good” person? There is certainly more bang for the buck to be had helping the lowlier one.

(Who’s the judge in that situation of the good and the low moral characters?)

 

[Robert_Sock]

How do you know that, as a result of your kindness, the person of “low moral character” might not have a bigger change in his life than just financial…a bigger change than the “good” person? There is certainly more bang for the buck to be had helping the lowlier one.

(Who’s the judge in that situation of the good and the low moral characters?)

We all are to a certain degree, and I believe we all put it into practice during our lifetime. Would a society possibly expect to exist if financially influential people were of poor moral character?

LOVE!

 

[seakelp]

Would a society possibly expect to exist if financially influential people were of poor moral character?

Uh. Ours exists.

 

[MacQ]

We all are to a certain degree, and I believe we all put it into practice during our lifetime. Would a society possibly expect to exist if financially influential people were of poor moral character?

LOVE!

What? There’s no society in existence where the financially influential people are of poor moral character? Checked Washington DC or Hollywood lately?
Or any one of dozens of countries in the world where the rich are the dictators? Sudan…Cuba…North Korea…Russia…need I go on?
What planet are you on?

 

[MacQ]

Uh. Ours exists.

Exactly…what a notion!

 

[ishii]

This question bears repeating:

Why choose the former USSR over monasteries?

LOVE!

Because a small voluntary commune of people is hardly a transferable concept to an entire nation of heterogenous peoples. So a better question would be why did you choose a monastery over an actual country?

Robert - how do you apply the principles embodied in a small voluntary commune to a large nation-state?

Ishii

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert - how do you apply the principles embodied in a small voluntary commune to a large nation-state?

Ishii

Because Socialism can only work with ‘rulers’ being of high moral character. What is true for members of a smaller successful commune can be applied to the much larger society.

LOVE!

 

[TEPO]

Socialism is the driving force of the Humanist bandwagon. I don’t want to be a humanist or any part of that circus. I want to be naturally free.

 

[ishii]

Because Socialism can only work with ‘rulers’ being of high moral character. What is true for members of a smaller successful commune can be applied to the much larger society.

LOVE!

Okay, when has that ever been successfully tried? when has socialism worked in a larger society?

Ishii

 

[Robert_Sock]

Okay, when has that ever been successfully tried? when has socialism worked in a larger society?

Ishii

I don’t expect that it has ever been tried within a society of religious freedom and rulers of strong moral character, and that’s my point. It can secede if given the right ingredients, at the right time.

LOVE!

 

[Corki]

I don’t expect that it has ever been tried within a society of religious freedom and rulers of strong moral character, and that’s my point. It can secede if given the right ingredients, at the right time.

LOVE!

Socialism is fundamentally flawed. It’s can’t work economically unless there is totalitarian control. And you can’t have both totalitarian control and rulers of strong moral character. Anyone with strong moral character would be unable to function as a totalitarian leader.

 

[MacQ]

Because Socialism can only work with ‘rulers’ being of high moral character. What is true for members of a smaller successful commune can be applied to the much larger society.

LOVE!

What…that you can mandate leaders of high moral character in a large society? How?

A system that REQUIRES leaders of high moral character is doomed to fail.
Thankfully our founders were not so naive as you are and designed one hat could withstand the occasional miscreant.

 

[MacQ]

I don’t expect that it has ever been tried within a society of religious freedom and rulers of strong moral character, and that’s my point. It can secede if given the right ingredients, at the right time.

LOVE!

So can magic and miracles. But they aren’t reliable.
Why advocate a system that requires freak conditions to succeed.
Hopeless.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So can magic and miracles. But they aren’t reliable.
Why advocate a system that requires freak conditions to succeed.
Hopeless.

I have a lot of education in social psychology, and I can see where such a society can be successful in the future. People need to remove their blinders to social engineering.

LOVE!

 

[MacQ]

I have a lot of education in social psychology, and I can see where such a society can be successful in the future. People need to remove their blinders to social engineering.

LOVE!

They forgot to teach you much about human behavior and power.
If only human nature changed and everyone was moral, your system would work.
DUH…ANY system would work if that were the case…heck, we wouldn’t even need a system if that were the case.

Have fun in your utopian bubble.
It’s not the real world. You live in the land of “if only”.