R
Rence
Guest
Yep! Competition is quite healthy and can nurture, and be nurtured by, cooperation. Especially in group settings. Competition can be a great drive to do better, to excel, to improve even one’s self.
IDEALISTICALLY speaking, should prosperity be based on good moral character?
- Status
M
MacQ
Guest
Of course not…but he didn’t avoid sinners. That was the part that struck me.Why? He never wants a person to stumble and fall into greater sin.
LOVE!
I
ishii
Guest
I think you’ve posed the question incorrectly. Societies with good moral character often are successful. I think it was Jefferson who said that the success of the American democracy would depend on a “virtuous society.” Now we’ve become so decadent, indulgent, dependent and acquired a “victim mentality” and an entitlement mentality that we’ve declined. Competition - whether in sports, business, or in a casual situation is a good thing.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!
How would you like it, Robert, if you had only one store to buy groceries at? And had to be content with whatever high prices or bad customer service that store offered? How would you like it if there was only one internet service provider? And you had to pay whatever they charged because there were no other alternatives? How would you like it if you were a parent of a child that only had access to one school that offered a very sub-par education? How would you like it if you were a prospective graduate student in, let’s say, psychology - with only one choice of a graduate school? Not good, right? Well, competition ensures we don’t have to have only one choice. If you want cheaper groceries, you have that option. If you want gourmet and are willing to pay more, that is available. It is a good thing. Embrace it. Societies which have forced everyone and everything to be equal succeeded in making everything low quality. How many automobiles can you name which came from Soviet Russia? East Germany? China? None. They sought to make everyone equal. But succeeded in making everyone equally miserable. Except the party elite - they lived like royalty at everyone else’s expense. I hope you dwell a bit on that, Robert.
Ishii
A
adawgj
Guest
I’d recommend reading “Compassionate Capitalism” by Rich DeVos.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
You’re basing your bias on the past ‘bad apples’ of Socialism. Socialism of the future need not be like those of the past. A Socialism where religions and love flourish, for example, is possible.
LOVE!
D
dshix
Guest
Do you have any evidence for that statement? There is no reason to believe that what you just said is true. You’ve got the burden of proof, my friend; the onus is on you to prove your fantasy is not just a fantasy, but reality.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Just my expertise as a social psychologist. One can never totally reject the null hypothesis based on past’s failures.
Evidence: how about monasteries and the Acts of the Apostles where everything is/was owned in common?
LOVE!
D
dshix
Guest
So you want us all to take your word for it?Just my expertise as a social psychologist. One can never totally reject the null hypothesis based on past’s failures.
LOVE!
I don’t think that’s going to work. You need to give us something more substantive.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
M
MacQ
Guest
What’s with socialists anyway. It fails time and again. Does not deliver personal freedom and justice…and you keep wanting to try it again. Must be hubris involved there or something.You’re basing your bias on the past ‘bad apples’ of Socialism. Socialism of the future need not be like those of the past. A Socialism where religions and love flourish, for example, is possible.
LOVE!
Here’s the one enduring truth about government: no matter what the system, it will be corrupt to some extent.
That’s why our founders built in so many safeguards.
I know too many people who fled communism and corrupt socialist regimes to want it.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
M
MacQ
Guest
Evidence: how about the USSR.Just my expertise as a social psychologist. One can never totally reject the null hypothesis based on past’s failures.
Evidence: how about monasteries and the Acts of the Apostles where everything is/was owned in common?
LOVE!
I prefer a country where people are free to form communes if they want to…like the USA.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
D
dshix
Guest
Ah, yes, I missed your edit. Monasteries and the state of the Apostles was not socialism. It was/is charity. Charity which is caused by religion. Such a state cannot exist in a secular society.
C
Corki
Guest
Well said. In Catholic teaching we are called to help those in need whether or not they are deserving. To help only the “deserving poor” is not charity at all.
M
MacQ
Guest
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?Why choose the former USSR over monasteries?
LOVE!
S
seakelp
Guest
No. Resources should be allocated to those who the system believes the resources should be allocated to.
Plus, imagine a system wherein we reward good moral behavior. Imagine all the difficulties that would arise: what is good moral behavior in the first place? Who decides? What kinds of moral behavior are better than others, or more precisely, what amount of money or resources should be awarded for a given moral act?
But perhaps worst of all, the entire system would likely corrupt the idea of virtue itself. We act as good, decent human beings out of love for God and His people. When we encourage people to act in this way only out of a sense of economic gain, the TRUE value of being a virtuous person is lost!
In fact, I believe this is exactly what Jesus was speaking about when he tells us “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.”
Plus, imagine a system wherein we reward good moral behavior. Imagine all the difficulties that would arise: what is good moral behavior in the first place? Who decides? What kinds of moral behavior are better than others, or more precisely, what amount of money or resources should be awarded for a given moral act?
But perhaps worst of all, the entire system would likely corrupt the idea of virtue itself. We act as good, decent human beings out of love for God and His people. When we encourage people to act in this way only out of a sense of economic gain, the TRUE value of being a virtuous person is lost!
In fact, I believe this is exactly what Jesus was speaking about when he tells us “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.”
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
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!
D
dshix
Guest
You do realize that this question is a red herring from the discussion, right?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!
S
seakelp
Guest
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.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!
- Status