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

[Robert_Sock]

I’m not concerned with how ‘good moral character’ would be defined, or who would do the judging, but I was wondering if people would agree that prosperity should be based good moral character rather than competition, which often breeds greed.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not concerned with how ‘good moral character’ would be defined, or who would do the judging, but I was wondering if people would agree that prosperity should be based good moral character rather than competition, which often breeds greed.

LOVE!

Firstly, competition is good!

If you think it breeds “greed” then we better define “greed” in relationship to competition.

 

[dshix]

No. Moral goodness and prosperity are entirely unrelated; the former has to do with the state of the soul in the sight of God, and the latter with our state of wealth on earth. Worldly gain should not be intertwined with spiritual growth, because the former is a distraction from the latter.

 

[The_Bucket]

I take Christ at His word when He says that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom. So no.

 

[ringil]

The concept that prosperity and morality are linked in a correlational way is a product of the Protestant Work Ethic. It has no place and role in Catholic Social Doctrine.

At the same time much of the tenets of this Ethic are manifested in the American economic system and how the state attends and values the needs of it’s citizens.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Firstly, competition is good!

For who? Cooperation, combined with good moral character, will trump competition in the long run.

I really have nothing against capitalism provided it did not step on those of good moral character who choose not to compete and claw their way to ‘success.’ With people having good moral character in high positions, the world’s problems, like extreme poverty, would be effectively dealt with.

LOVE!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I picked no - the only shoulds I see around material prosperity are that theft is bad, and that the people who gain it should use it to help the needy. The first is somewhat relevant, and more or less the motivation for “competition” that you speak of. The second says what people who achieve it should do, but says nothing about who should achieve it. The ‘who’ doesn’t really matter at all, though the ‘how’ and ‘what next’ do.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If you were Bill Gates, who would you try to help more, the poverty stricken individuals with good moral character, or those in poverty who only wants to engage in ‘sin?’

LOVE!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

For who? Cooperation, combined with good moral character, will trump competition in the long run.

Not mutually exclusive. Competition does not have to mean doing your best to punch the other guy in the throat, it means doing your best to do a good job, and allowing the people who do the best at a thing to be the ones to do that thing. This is generally beneficial because it means that the best job possible is being done in various areas.

Of course, if people focus on the throat punching, then not so much.

I really have nothing against capitalism provided it did not step on those of good moral character who choose not to compete and claw their way to ‘success.’ With people having good moral character in high positions, the world’s problems, like extreme poverty, would be effectively dealt with.

LOVE!

Part of good moral character is being willing to work for what is worth achieving, and recognizing that if someone else is better at something than you, then (all other things being equal) perhaps it’s best if they do it. Hence, competition.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Part of good moral character is being willing to work for what is worth achieving, and recognizing that if someone else is better at something than you, then (all other things being equal) perhaps it’s best if they do it. Hence, competition.

Why can’t that be accomplished in a cooperative setting? Sure some people will be better at a task than others, but those others should step down out of respect, not because they lost a competitive battle.

LOVE!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Why can’t that be accomplished in a cooperative setting? Sure some people will be better at a task than others, but those others should step down out of respect, not because they lost a competitive battle.

LOVE!

Because human nature. The same thing that drives people to compete in ways they shouldn’t drives people not to work hard when they think they don’t have to. Then there’s also the whole “how do you find out who’s the best at something” thing.

But again, cooperation and competition are not exactly mutually exclusive, and competition need not be about destroying the other guy.

 

[MacQ]

NOPE.
If that were the case, bad things would not happen to “good” people.

 

[thewanderer]

If you were Bill Gates, who would you try to help more, the poverty stricken individuals with good moral character, or those in poverty who only wants to engage in ‘sin?’

This is a horrible question. We are all sinners and all in need of help. It is a corporal work of mercy to help those in material need by providing food, clothing, and shelter to them regardless of whether or not they are in the state of grace. It would be wrong to refuse to help someone attain these basic life necessities simply because they are sinners. If Christ is willing to grant them spiritual help we should not refuse them material help.

 

[laircy]

“Idealistically speaking” would be in heaven, and it does seem that those of good moral character in heaven are more “prosperous” (though in a different sense from earthly riches).

 

[Robert_Sock]

This is a horrible question. We are all sinners and all in need of help. It is a corporal work of mercy to help those in material need by providing food, clothing, and shelter to them regardless of whether or not they are in the state of grace. It would be wrong to refuse to help someone attain these basic life necessities simply because they are sinners. If Christ is willing to grant them spiritual help we should not refuse them material help.

I agree that the basic needs, including shelter, should be donated to any individual in need. But I want only those of good moral character to be in public office or in any other institution that can directly affect society.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For who? Cooperation, combined with good moral character, will trump competition in the long run.

I really have nothing against capitalism provided it did not step on those of good moral character who choose not to compete and claw their way to ‘success.’ With people having good moral character in high positions, the world’s problems, like extreme poverty, would be effectively dealt with.

LOVE!

Competition (in business, you were talking about “prosperity” in a material sense…right?) always benefits the consumer. Anyone who does not keep the consumer happy does not have mankind’s best interest in mind.

Capitalism relies on freedom. Everyone in a Capitalist society is FREE to do as much as he can or as little as he wants. The rewards (prosperity) are available to all. If one is satisfied with a smaller “reward” then he is never required to “claw his way to success.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Competition (in business, you were talking about “prosperity” in a material sense…right?) always benefits the consumer. Anyone who does not keep the consumer happy does not have mankind’s best interest in mind.

Capitalism relies on freedom. Everyone in a Capitalist society is FREE to do as much as he can or as little as he wants. The rewards (prosperity) are available to all. If one is satisfied with a smaller “reward” then he is never required to “claw his way to success.”

Yes, I was thinking of prosperity in a materialistic sense.

I would feel much better knowing that prosperous people, especially those who are in a position that affects society the most, are of good character.

LOVE!

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you were Bill Gates, who would you try to help more, the poverty stricken individuals with good moral character, or those in poverty who only wants to engage in ‘sin?’

LOVE!

Top 4% of the economic ladder in the US. He claims poverty will be gone by 2035. However he also promotes the abortion campaign. Same as a good deal who reside in that top 4%. I’m not much on conspiracy theory, but it appears there’s a larger cohesive agenda promoting the politics and government today.

 

[MacQ]

Yes, I was thinking of prosperity in a materialistic sense.

I would feel much better knowing that prosperous people, especially those who are in a position that affects society the most, are of good character.

LOVE!

It might make you feel better, but there is certainly NO evidence that is the case.
Some of the world’s wealthiest people are dictators and thieves. Oh and movie stars and politicians. Hello!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Top 4% of the economic ladder in the US. He claims poverty will be gone by 2035. However he also promotes the abortion campaign. Same as a good deal who reside in that top 4%. I’m not much on conspiracy theory, but it appears there’s a larger cohesive agenda promoting the politics and government today.

Well, of course!!! I believe it was always the case, but today it’s much more in the open and catches peoples’ attention. Despite all the immorality that is being spread today, I have great faith that all is well, and going as planned. We must realize that we are living in a world of good and evil, and that they are working together to bring us to salvation.

LOVE!