What are the media’s moral obligations in making society aware of extreme poverty in the world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree, but I meant partly justified after the fact.
Actions cannot be justified after the fact.
If our president can declare war in Syria over their use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, and justify it because it was a crime against humanity, how much more so the elimination of African dictators who starve its citizens?
Could it be that the President is wrong? Could it be that his attempt to take a seriously stupid action is actually evil? There is no moral basis for him to do what he is planning or considering or deciding doing. Those who would be hurt of killed would as far as we know be innocents who had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons.

And that is aside from the pragmatic result of aiding the terroristic rebels…
 
This deserves its own thread in the World News forum, I think.
This particular news item is five years old. What has taken place and is now taking place in India since then is a continuing story of how GMO technology is being reconsidered, or rejected in India, while most of Europe has rejected US based GMO technology.

Make no mistake about the GMO industry in the US. It is a very powerful lobby, and the media in America will not go up against it.
 
I agree, but I meant partly justified after the fact.
Actions cannot be justified after the fact.
If our president can declare war in Syria over their use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, and justify it because it was a crime against humanity, how much more so the elimination of African dictators who starve its citizens?
Could it be that the President is wrong? Could it be that his attempt to take a seriously stupid action is actually evil? There is no moral basis for him to do what he is planning or considering or deciding doing. Those who would be hurt of killed would as far as we know be innocents who had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons.

And that is aside from the pragmatic result of aiding the terroristic rebels…
 
This particular news item is five years old. What has taken place and is now taking place in India since then is a continuing story of how GMO technology is being reconsidered, or rejected in India, while most of Europe has rejected US based GMO technology.

Make no mistake about the GMO industry in the US. It is a very powerful lobby, and the media in America will not go up against it.
I had not heard about it and think it is a subject important enough to be worthy of its own thread; if it is 5 years old (I never check these things), maybe put it in Social Justice?
 
So America and its allies had no idea of these atrocities until the end of WWII?
As far as I know, at the beginning of the war we knew that the Nazis were interning enemies of the Reich. Many of these people were later discovered to have been worked or starved to death, bit at this time it does not seem that the Nazis yet had camps built for the specifc purpose of killing massive numbers of people; that seems not to have begun until we were already in the war.

While the Nazi use of the concentration camps was particularly awful, similar types of facilities had been used by other nations, for example, our internment camps during WWII for Japanese-Americans, England during the Boer War, and Cuba.

The issue of the camps is a tricky one. It seems that the Allied governments were aware of rumors but had no hard evidence of the extent of what happened in the camps until 1942, at which point everyone was in the war.

Overall, it is difficult to tell how much the governments knew, but however much or little was known, it was not at all part of the reason for anyone’s entry, no. The invasions and alliances were sufficient under international law to justify their entry, altho some have argued that the US entry in Europe was a bit of a stretch.
 
As far as I know, at the beginning of the war we knew that the Nazis were interning enemies of the Reich. Many of these people were later discovered to have been worked or starved to death, bit at this time it does not seem that the Nazis yet had camps built for the specifc purpose of killing massive numbers of people; that seems not to have begun until we were already in the war.

While the Nazi use of the concentration camps was particularly awful, similar types of facilities had been used by other nations, for example, our internment camps during WWII for Japanese-Americans, England during the Boer War, and Cuba.

The issue of the camps is a tricky one. It seems that the Allied governments were aware of rumors but had no hard evidence of the extent of what happened in the camps until 1942, at which point everyone was in the war.

Overall, it is difficult to tell how much the governments knew, but however much or little was known, it was not at all part of the reason for anyone’s entry, no. The invasions and alliances were sufficient under international law to justify their entry, altho some have argued that the US entry in Europe was a bit of a stretch.
OK, I stand corrected.
 
I don’t mean to muddy the waters, but are we as individuals acting immorally when we, say, purchase a myriad of unnecessary luxuries with excess wealth rather than using it in some fashion to combat poverty? Certainly there are those who own multiple homes, cars, etc., and this question most obviously applies to them. But what of the rest of us? Are we morally justified when we eat out at restaurants, buy brand new when we could usually buy used, spend on cable television, etc.? Is there a moral justification for ignoring the reporting that *is *done on poverty?
Those who own multiple house, cars, etc. provide jobs to those who build the those things. 🙂
 
What about greed and the abnormal need for power and prestige? Should these things be encouraged?
Where would you draw the line? A suburban apartment dweller’s hunting shack on a few acres in the mountains so he can supplement his store-bought diet? a family renting out a house to supplement an inadequate pension plan? A doctor’s vacation house for his family?

There are those who are greedy and have an abnormal desire for prestige, and what are we as Catholics to do about them?

Pray for them!
 
Where would you draw the line? A suburban apartment dweller’s hunting shack on a few acres in the mountains so he can supplement his store-bought diet? a family renting out a house to supplement an inadequate pension plan? A doctor’s vacation house for his family?

There are those who are greedy and have an abnormal desire for prestige, and what are we as Catholics to do about them?

Pray for them!
Not what we as Catholics should do, but aside from my last post, society should implement tax laws that tax those with large incomes much more severely than those with modest incomes; and doing away with all the tax breaks that the rich now enjoy.
 
What about greed and the abnormal need for power and prestige? Should these things be encouraged?
Are you saying that people who built the investor’s extra houses/cars that the should not have a decent paying job because the person who is buying the product has, in your way of thinking, to much money?? ? :confused:
 
Not what we as Catholics should do, but aside from my last post, society should implement tax laws that tax those with large incomes much more severely than those with modest incomes; and doing away with all the tax breaks that the rich now enjoy.
What is a ‘large income’ and what percent should the law put on them? 50%? 75%? 100%? or maybe 150%? :eek: 😛 😃 :rolleyes:
 
Are you saying that people who built the investor’s extra houses/cars that the should not have a decent paying job because the person who is buying the product has, in your way of thinking, to much money?? ? :confused:
This was meant as a separate question.

The builders can get paid through urban renewal projects.
 
This was meant as a separate question.

The builders can get paid through urban renewal projects.
Do you mean by the taxes paid by the ‘rich’ (those who have more then you do)? I do not know about you, but if I had to choose between being payed by someone who hired me to do a job for them or a ‘pay check’ from the ‘urban renewal projects’ (ie the government) if I did my ‘job’ or not, I would choose the former and not the latter one. Less taxes per person paid all around. 🙂 🙂 😛
 
Those who own multiple house, cars, etc. provide jobs to those who build the those things. 🙂
My father was fond of describing so-called trickle-down economics as trickle-on economics, since that seems to be what happens more often than not to the people at the bottom…
 
My father was fond of describing so-called trickle-down economics as trickle-on economics, since that seems to be what happens more often than not to the people at the bottom…
Do you mean that people who build things for other people are not paid for their jobs or that there are people that would rather do without then to pay someone to do something for them? :confused: 🤷
 
Is the phase “crime against humanity” in reference to the Holocaust trivial too? But maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
The Holocaust involved acual crime. It was the crime of murder. There were trials and convictions. There were people who committed evil acts. Poverty is not trivial. but the comparison to the Holocaust is so thin as to be almost non-existent. They are both “bad”. That’s about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top