Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

[Theo520]

I do, I work with ‘at risk’ foster teens in my community, the kids that can’t find a permanent home.

In turn I expect Catholics in Mexico are working with their unprivileged citizens.

@Andy2351
What I’m seeing here is you moralizing but evading engaging in an actual discussion on the issues,
you like your safe space it seems.

 

[Canvas]

In the first was just giving general examples, not specific, not even actual quotes. In the second i made up a hypothetical post. I dont recall any actual post i saw where someone said that the person with the nice shoes should have paid for an insurance plan instead to cover their triple bypass. It was a completely made up example. The end

 

[Canvas]

If i wanted to hide in a safe space i wouldnt be on here getting bashed for my views on the morality of dealing with poverty by people having knee jerk reactions that challenge their world view.

 

[Arkansan]

In the second i made up a hypothetical post.

There’s a word for when you make up something and act as if it’s true.

 

[Canvas]

It wasnt meant to be a lie. It was a caricature of a certain type of comment. I was posting very generally about types of posts i saw as unfair to the poor. I did not intend for it to be taken literally as someone’s post. I wasnt quoting, and i freely told you that it was not an actual post when asked. It was a very exaggerated caricature. If you thought that was an actual quote, i apologize. It was not, nor did i expect someone to take it as one.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Here’s a big problem with your plan.

Take Somalia, it’s a land of a bunch of warlords. Guess what happens to the “equal distribution”? Last time we tried to feed the place it needed military escort.

Sadly, those millions of people will still die of starvation when the stronger in the communities take what they have.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Pope Saint John Paul II issues an encyclical which is worth reading … Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991) | John Paul II

 

[Theo520]

It wasnt meant to be a lie. It was a caricature of a certain type of comment. I was posting very generally about types of posts i saw as unfair to the poor. I did not intend for it to be taken literally as someone’s post. I wasnt quoting, and i freely told you that it was not an actual post when asked. It was a very exaggerated caricature. If you thought that was an actual quote, i apologize. It was not, nor did i expect someone to take it as one.

You are moralizing from a safe vantage point,
not engaging on the specifics, where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Road-Worrier]

The problem with this discussion is that it ignores an iron clad rule of human nature, namely that I care more about my wife and children than I care about your wife and children.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But aside from that, within 30 years most everything would have snapped back, because most wealth is possessed because of certain combinations of virtues…and humans develop virtues at different rates.

What might some of these virtues be?

Industriousness
Fortitude
Daring
Enterprise
Initiative
Exactitude
Cheerfulness

Doesn’t this post pretty much say that those in poverty lack these virtues?

 

[godisgood77]

I’d settle for universal acknowledgement by all people that our economic systems do not support all people equally and is decidedly biased toward wealthy individuals and families…if that were to happen all just people would then take action to correct it and those who ads unjust would stick out like sore thumbs

 

[Edward_H]

Thank you very much Karl M.

 

[Theo520]

Doesn’t this post pretty much say that those in poverty lack these virtues?

No, it doesn’t say they lack those virtues.

It says that given time, the people with more of those virtues will have more stuff/wealth than the people in their society with less of those virtues. It’s comparative, not binary.

Do you disagree, that the more competitive runners are likely to win more races over time.

 

[Road-Worrier]

I’d settle for universal acknowledgement by all people that our economic systems do not support all people equally

No economic system does.

is decidedly biased toward wealthy individuals and families

What economic system isn’t biased towards the powerful and wealthy?

You’re basic problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, namely that people care more for themselves and their families than they do others. If you don’t think so, try telling your husband or wife that you love your neighbor’s husband or wife as much you love them. But, before you do, make sure you dial 9, 1 and 1 on your phone so you have half a chance to hit “Send” to summon the ambulance before going unconscious.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But “competitive” can involve a lot of factors beyond ones control. And other factors still, are “fair play” and balance, Exploitation of worker, workaholism.

 

[godisgood77]

You’re basic problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature,

Yes, I have many faults… being hopeful that we can be better isn’t the worst of them…

I think our obligations as Christians stand in opposition to what you call ‘fundamental human nature’…

I’ll make a deal with you… i’ll tell my wife and kids that I love our neighbor as much as them… and you tell St Peter at the pearly gates that you were held back by human nature, deal?

 

[Road-Worrier]

I think our obligations as Christians stand in opposition to what you call ‘fundamental human nature’…

I think as a husband and father, my obligations to my wife and children come before any obligations to other’s wives and children. Do you disagree with that principle or think it immoral?

 

[Shakuhachi]

I think our obligations as Christians stand in opposition to what you call ‘fundamental human nature’…

And thus the need for conversion.

 

[rose321]

I am interested in the approach this forum takes to money. Apart from sex, (which I am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.

Respectfully opinion only in pondering What would be Jesus approach to money?

How does Jesus measure one to be wealthy, have riches?

What was Jesus reply to the rich man, wanting to enter the Kingdom, asking Jesus what must I do?

Rich man replied to Jesus, he obeyed all the Commandments, observed all the precepts and ordinances of the Law.

After hearing the physically rich man’s reply, >>>> Jesus tells the rich man, if he wanted to enter the Kingdom, go and give away all his wealth, did he not?

What was Jesus saying to the rich man and wanting us all to >>know<<< how our Heavenly Father, measures to determine>>>>

who has attain great wealth
who are of poverty
How he measures ones morality?

Was Jesus telling us?

Those who are physically rich >>know not<< how Spiritual poor they are>> while those who are physically poor>> know not >>how Spiritual rich they are>>

Store up not your riches that will rot, rust, or build barns to store your wealth in?

Be doers of His Word?

Those whom he has Blessed with much, their Blessings were to be given as a>> Blessing to others>>thus He continues to Bless all ?

All have been given to so no one can boast?

Sermon on the mount? Hospitality? Sharing? Take just what we need?

Our Heavenly Father is the richest of all, yet he shares Freely with all that is his, does he not?

Interesting Jesus reply to the rich man, spoke volumes filled with wisdom, indeed.

Peace

 

[gregoryphealy]

Speaking logistically, while your solution may sound idyllic in concept, it unfortunately would not be remotely feasible.

Firstly, it would not solve poverty. The poverty line in the US is at $22,000, so, for starters, you wouldn’t be solving poverty at the US-based standard of living, you’d just be impoverishing everyone. Disregarding that, if I were to blow my $33,000 wealth on a new car, for example, I would now be impoverished yet again. How will your system help me now? You could argue that charitable people around me should help me, and I’d agree. That’s what all faithful Catholics should be doing now. Fortunately, we have an economic system that has generated a great deal of wealth (capitalism) which enables us to give far more of ourselves than we could under another system like communism or socialism, whereby the virtue of charity is partially stripped from the citizen and granted to a government through forceful redistribution.

Second, how do you propose we accomplish equitable distribution of work? If sectors aren’t governed by supply and demand, but rather the whims of the individual, it would follow that you would have shortages in certain areas and abundances in others. This would entail suboptimal production of goods which could deteriorate the standard of living.

Ultimately what I’m getting at is your solution results in everyone being equally poor, not just the wealthy being brought down to a reasonable level. And, now, you have to ask yourself, is achieving this coveted parity among all men worth plunging all of man into poverty? Is it charitable to slow economic and standard-of-living growth to achieve equitable distribution?

The saying “you don’t have to light yourself on fire to keep others warm” comes to mind. Sacrificing too much of yourself impairs your ability to give in the future. This utilitarian-esque mindset begs the question “if my organs can save the lives of 5 people, should I willingly sacrifice my life to save 5 lives”?