Inequality – A moral issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inequality is a moral issue.
Click to expand...
Material inequality has been made a “social justice” issue. This has coincided with the political rise of socialism - which is condemned by the Church (see CCC1885). The “social justice” movement, infecting the Church, seems always and everywhere to push for the government to compel the taking of “other people’s money” to solve the problem to the activist’s satisfaction. Politics polluting the faith.

Each of us is called to help support our poorer brothers and sisters - and in many cases only a few dollars monthly greatly improves their lives. Generally, I would say that the poor are much more grateful for what they have that we are. Enough to get by on is enough.

The curse of western civilization is that we cannot get enough. For an interesting read on the “strangest idol of all” have a read of Monsignor Charles Pope’s blog entry in this regard.

 
Correct. The poor do not hire workers - the rich do. Make the rich poor and you make - even keep - the poor, well, poor.

One problem is that economic theory is not taught these days. Even the most rudimentary understanding of economic principles would greatly clarify this issue.
 
Inequality. The word that so many pundits throw about but don’t define. What kind of inequality are we talking about? Wealth inequality? Social inequality? Physical inequality?
 
Luke 14:12-14
He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
 
YourNameHere said:
We don’t need economic theory. What we need more study of the Bible, especially the New Testament.
Click to expand...
So where in the Bible does the Federal Reserve go to get directions on setting the prime interest rate?

My point: we absolutely need economic theory…to say otherwise is just silly. Its kind of like saying we don’t need the law of gravity.

We need people to understand economic theory, and we ALSO need people to read the Bible, and learn from God’s Church, so we can apply moral principles to the application of economic theory.
 
I don’t think is necessarily the case. I used to live in a town where there were several businessmen. They got richer from the businesses they started, but they also hired lots of people in the town, and those people were then able to buy cars and tvs and smartphones and all that.

OTOH, in another town, the government destroyed the capital of several of the richer people. This put the businesses which supported those businesses out of business. A lot of emplyoyees lost their jobs. They no longer could find work there, so they left. Those who remained were unable to maintain the businesses, so the movie theater, the jewelry store, the clothing store, etc., all went out of business. Those employees also lost their jobs.

The first town is thriving and new businesses move there.

The second town is dying…
 
And I have seen people employed by businesses for low wages and no benefits. They maxed profits and gave little back to the community.
There needs to be a balance between those who have a lot and those who have only a little. That is the point that Jesus tried to make through his life and what he taught his disciples.
 
Yes, there a definitely abuses in both directions.

I’m more of a distributist myself.
 
ignoring theory means less food and less shelter for those who need it.

If a poor person needs a loan and you don’t have the money to help them, do you tell them:
  1. go to a bank
  2. use a credit card
  3. go to a payday loan company
You can “ignore theory”, but the poor person would be better served if you understood it.

If you are building a shelter for the poor, how you finance the shelter and how you build the shelter are all impacted by “theory”. I’m amazed you dismiss something so impactful to the poor.
 
Last edited:
I think people use inequality as an excuse to shift wealth around. Folks think we can’t have too many rich people so we should take their money from them.

But taking money from rich folks doesn’t sound very free and smacks of tyranny. Sure, some (or most?) rich folks might have come into the money illegally. They don’t deserve that money and it should be taken away from them. Once you have proof that is. This country has a system in which one is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think we want to change that.

And the rich folks who came by their money honestly shouldn’t have to be scared of the police breaking down their door and dragging them to jail if they don’t give to the less fortunate. That, again, sounds like tyranny. They came by their money honestly.
 
Because imbalances in wealth may allow people to have vastly more political and community power in ways that are unjust, unfair or downright stupid. The issue is that it’s never ‘just’ material wealth: money buys power, and power can be used to alter the legal, moral and economic climate itself. The rich today conspire to control the levers of government and keep labor cheap, capital restricted and competition undercut. The idea that there is some sphere of ‘economics’ divorced from the rest of social life is inane.

Insofar as wealthy people simply have more money or property I am not offended by them, but the number of wealthy people that don’t use their money to push sick agendas or consolidation of power is about zero: because people who aren’t interested in material power don’t make that much money to begin with (they have better things to do with their time and aren’t ruthless enough to do what corporate capitalist demands, which often borders on sociopathy).

“How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Proletariat?” by Kier Martland has further interesting comments on this. Kier is the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute UK, so hardly some kind of bleeding-heart Progressive or Red.
 
Last edited:
No, but what I am saying is that people’s needs can be met without making everybody the same in terms of wealth.
 
YourNameHere said:
Actually, when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Your idea sounds good, but it never works.
Why? Because the richest of the rich live their lives only to accumulate more and more.
The exception to that rule are rich people who have vowed to pass on the bulk of their money to charity when they die.
Click to expand...
Your basic argument in syllogistic form is this:

Primary Premise: The rich seek solely to become richer
Secondary Premise: These efforts to become richer cause the poor to get poorer
Conclusion: Therefore, the poor get poorer.

or, if you prefer

Primary: The rich are greedy
Secondary: This greed causes the poor to become poorer
Conclusion: Therefore the poor get poorer

We can grant the Primary premise, but the Secondary requires that you actually look at theory and statistics to evaluate its accuracy. If the secondary premise falls through, so does your conclusion.
 
Inequality is great, actually. It indicates progress. People only make mega-sums of money when they come up with great innovations.

The end result of progress is that everyone does better,
 
People accumulate mega-sums of money when the State systemtically favors them, their industry and their class- which is true of most corporations and billionaires.

A true free market - without intellectual property, regulations, etc. - would never allow someone to become as rich as Gates or Zuckerberg. They’re both welfare addicts and cronyists.
 
Inequality is a moral issue .

It has always been addressed as such by the social teaching of the Church .

The Early Church Fathers were forthright in speaking of the moral issue of inequality . A few examples :-----

"You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.” –Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.

“The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put into the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help.” –Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.

“Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.” –John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

“The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally.” – John Chrysostom, 347-407

“Share everything with your brother. Do not say, “It is private property.” If you share what is everlasting, you should be that much more willing to share things which do not last.” –The Didache
 
YourNameHere said:
Actually, when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Your idea sounds good, but it never works.
Why? Because the richest of the rich live their lives only to accumulate more and more.
The exception to that rule are rich people who have vowed to pass on the bulk of their money to charity when they die.
Click to expand...
You ignored the evidence offered in the video and provided none of your own.
Please think about the integrity of your argument,
simply repeating something doesn’t make it so.
 
I believe laws are all about getting people to do the correct thing.
Most people drive at a safe speed. But there is always some lunatic who thinks he or she should be able to drive 90 miles per hour. That is why we have speed limits on highways.
Many people who are rich spread their wealth around. They pay their workers well. And donate much to charitable agencies.
But there are many who do not. They know what is the right thing to do, but they do not do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top