Pope vows to study US criticism of his anti-capitalist rhetoric

[stinkcat_14]

In fact, whether or not you realize it, you are talking about relativism.

Allow me to illustrate.

In 1935 Germany passed the Nuremberg laws. According to you, this was just a collective policy choice with winners and losers. Ultimately, the laws led to the murder of some 6 million Jews but, hey, who are we to judge the subjective preferences of others. According to you, we cannot say that allowing Jews to live is strictly a better policy than murdering them.

Nobody is getting murdered by economic policy. So if we allow collective bargaining, some will win and some will lose. If we allow right to work, some will win and some will lose. Neither one is strictly better than another except in one’s own preferences.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Nobody is getting murdered by economic policy. So if we allow collective bargaining, some will win and some will lose. If we allow right to work, some will win and some will lose. Neither one is strictly better than another except in one’s own preferences.

So your criteria is that if public policy involves murder, then it is not subjective. But otherwise it is? On what basis to you make that distinction?

 

[estesbob]

In fact, whether or not you realize it, you are talking about relativism.

Allow me to illustrate.

In 1935 Germany passed the Nuremberg laws. According to you, this was just a collective policy choice with winners and losers. Ultimately, the laws led to the murder of some 6 million Jews but, hey, who are we to judge the subjective preferences of others. According to you, we cannot say that allowing Jews to live is strictly a better policy than murdering them.

Godwins law affirmed again

 

[Ridgerunner]

It isn’t an argument about the existence of regulations, but one that we are a culture built around the idea of consumerism and wealth hoarding.

As with all moral generalities, one has to ask what is “wealth hoarding” versus “acquisition of productive, inheritable assets”? The Popes have endorsed the latter, but not the former. So it all comes down to practical applications.

Am I “wealth hoarding” if I operate a smallish aluminum extrusion plant that has total assets of, say $10 million, and I hold onto profits because I know I’m going to eventually have to replace furnaces, extrusion presses, dies, and so on?

Am I “wealth hoarding” if, knowing Catholic colleges charge anywhere from about $27,000 at the lowest/year, into the $40+ range, and I have five children growing up, and I save every nickel I can?

Am I “wealth hoarding” if I’m self-employed and save up $2 million, realizing as I do that in today’s markets, my retirement income from that would be about $40-$60,000/year?

Part of the problem with all of the moral statements is that it’s very difficult to apply them to one’s own circumstance, particularly since circumstances can change very significantly.

 

[SWolf]

Godwins law affirmed again

That sounds like something a Nazi would say.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So your criteria is that if public policy involves murder, then it is not subjective. But otherwise it is? On what basis to you make that distinction?

Natural law and moral teaching of all religions tell us that murder is not acceptable. Therefore it is not a subjective matter. However, right to work vs unions is not something that is universally defined, so therefore in that case we are left to our subjective preferences. You might prefer unions to right to work, but that is just a subjective preference.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Natural law and moral teaching of all religions tell us that murder is not acceptable. Therefore it is not a subjective matter. However, right to work vs unions is not something that is universally defined, so therefore in that case we are left to our subjective preferences. You might prefer unions to right to work, but that is just a subjective preference.

You are close, but no cigar.

First, note that the Nuremburg laws did not actually legalize the extermination of the Jews. They simply greased the pathway. So unless you want to concede that the German preference for the Nuremburg laws was a subjective matter, you’ll need natural law and moral teaching to do a little more work.

And, obviously, the moral law was not (and never has been) “universally defined”. The Nazi regime thought nothing of exterminating Jews and other undermenchen. They defined moral law quite differently. You might prefer that others hold a moral view more similar to your own but that is just a subjective preference.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are close, but no cigar.

First, note that the Nuremburg laws did not actually legalize the extermination of the Jews. They simply greased the pathway. So unless you want to concede that the German preference for the Nuremburg laws was a subjective matter, you’ll need natural law and moral teaching to do a little more work.

And, obviously, the moral law was not (and never has been) “universally defined”. The Nazi regime thought nothing of exterminating Jews and other undermenchen. They defined moral law quite differently. You might prefer that others hold a moral view more similar to your own but that is just a subjective preference.

So, the question is, how many societies view murder as morally acceptable?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So, the question is, how many societies view murder as morally acceptable?

So now you are proposing instead of universality some sort of meta-parliament?

Of course, when the government does it, it’s not murder as murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So now you are proposing instead of universality some sort of meta-parliament?

What I am saying is that your example is a horrible one.

Of course, when the government does it, it’s not murder as murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.

It depends on how you define murder, doesn’t it?

 

[Peccavi]

And what is Your solution to these alleged problems? I don’t believe God calls a us to stand on the side throwing stones at everybody who was working to find solutions .

I would begin with what Jesus proclaimed at the start of his ministry
He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Jesus goes on in Luke’s Gospel to say
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. "
Jesus message is perfectly clear - unambiguous. We must help satisfy the hungry, comfort the oppressed, heal the sick, free those unjustly imprisoned to proclaim Gods Kingdom on Earth - for God so loves his World (unqualified by God as to only those we think he should). That is here we start from - the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What I am saying is that your example is a horrible one.

It depends on how you define murder, doesn’t it?

Indeed, it does, and who does the defining.

I can understand why you are horrified by my example but you need to deal with the problem it exposes in your subjectism/relativism.

 

[estesbob]

I would begin with what Jesus proclaimed at the start of his ministry
He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Jesus goes on in Luke’s Gospel to say
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. "
Jesus message is perfectly clear - unambiguous. We must help satisfy the hungry, comfort the oppressed, heal the sick, free those unjustly imprisoned to proclaim Gods Kingdom on Earth - for God so loves his World (unqualified by God as to only those we think he should). That is here we start from - the teachings of Jesus.

Still haven’t told us what your solution is.

 

[triumphguy]

Capitalism in every single** developed country **is HIGHLY REGULATED!!
Thus, attacking capitalism is off the mark. If he really meant to demand even more regulation then wouldn’t he have done so? I find this a hard argument to win on his behalf.

Regarding your other point in bold, demanding a “strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom” this is already the norm. All developed countries also ascribe to the rule of law, which most would agree is the reason they are 1st tier developed countries.

If he wanted to make a difference, his focus would be on reducing corruption and implemented the rule of law in developing countries. That tact would actually help the poor.

You are right - in every developed country.

But as you know, Capitalism - through the multi-nationals etc - operates in the developing world too, where it is NOT highly regulated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It depends on how you define murder, doesn’t it?

Sure does. There are plenty of societies in which things you or I would consider murder go on all the time, but are not considered murder within the context of their societies. I could go on, but I probably would risk being banned for it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

US Conservatives are the last people he should be listening to on economic matters (along with the leftist “progressive”, socialist, communist menagerie). The economic theories of those groups are outside of Christian social teaching. One wants to cripple social services and let corporations and Wall Street run amuck while fanboying over loons like Ayn Rand and the other wants to wreck Western Civilization and enforce “equality” on us. Both are no good. Much better to look at Third Position alternatives. Time for something different.

You are dead wrong.

Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. It is the best economic system. It has no moral component, however. People can make moral or immoral choices in any economic system.

Individuals in a nation or an economy must be responsible for moral choices, and in America, we can be proud of our individuals. We lead the world in charitable giving both in total and as a percentage of our incomes. And in America, conservatives give away a higher percentage of their incomes than liberals.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are dead wrong.

Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. It is the best economic system. It has no moral component, however. People can make moral or immoral choices in any economic system.

It is really difficult to say how many people capitalism has lifted out of poverty. It is certainly an important component, but capitalism by itself is not sufficient to lift people out of poverty. For example, in the US we have benefited by an education system that was provided primarily by government and nonprofits. Clearly today there is the problem of rent seeking by education providers, but the problem is that the market by itself is not going to educate poor people and make them productive and therefore get them higher wages.

 

[SWolf]

It is really difficult to say how many people capitalism has lifted out of poverty. It is certainly an important component, but capitalism by itself is not sufficient to lift people out of poverty. For example, in the US we have benefited by an education system that was provided primarily by government and nonprofits. Clearly today there is the problem of rent seeking by education providers, but the problem is that the market by itself is not going to educate poor people and make them productive and therefore get them higher wages.

Why are government school and nonprofit schools lumped together? One is free-market, the other is not.

Also, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, etc. donate massive amounts of money to Universities to ensure that they have an educated workforce to choose form.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why are government school and nonprofit schools lumped together? One is free-market, the other is not.

Also, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, etc. donate massive amounts of money to Universities to ensure that they have an educated workforce to choose form.

Indeed, there is a lot more going on even in the most welfarist states than government run schools. And as soon as one looks back a bit in history, the argument that only government can provide education to the poor totally falls apart.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Why are government school and nonprofit schools lumped together? One is free-market, the other is not.

The reason why they are lumped is that if you look at education historically in the US, it has predominantly been public schools that educated the bulk of the children. In the early days as well it would be pushing it to argue that Catholic schools were free market, they were heavily subsidized by in kind donations of labor from nuns and (usually) women who worked at below market rates.

Also, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, etc. donate massive amounts of money to Universities to ensure that they have an educated workforce to choose form.

The amount they donate is tiny relative to the approx $500 billion that is spent on higher education every year.