Where are the humanitarian values within capitalism?

[smndtupidisaftr]

I think it can be conclusively demonstrated, not only from Scripture, but certainly including Scripture (OT as well!), that alleviating the suffering of the poor is a prime consideration of God our Father and His Son who also preached that message. That said, the means of alleviating that suffering are not necessarily government. I say that as someone who has not had to pay taxes for several years and will not have to again until 2014, most likely. QUOTE]

But is it the prime consideration when the aid is to the detriment of their souls such as giving money to drug addicts and drunks? Does giving money to them really help?

 

[Vouthon]

No. Pope Leo XIII: “If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.”

A heavily truncated, edited quotation written in response to those who believed the pope had no right to critique 19th century *laissez-faire *Capitalism.

So are you trying to suggest that the church has no right to critique current prevailing trends in economics that infringe upon human dignity and which are helping humanity only to regress rather than progress? Do you mean to suggest that the economy has nothing to do with “morals”?

Read:

"…The error that both Leo XIII and Pius X are correcting is one that is still made today in Catholic circles, namely, that the social teaching of the Church is in someway optional, non-binding, and/or merely prudential. Indeed, in many respects our inclinations and political proclivities, which often are merely products of our locale and social environment, are met by a powerful counterweight in Catholic social teaching. And rightly so. If, as the two aforementioned popes assert, our social life (i.e., family, political, and economic activity) are primarily religious and moral in nature, then the Church, by virtue of her authority in matters of faith and morals, is our touchstone for learning how to conduct that social life. . . .

Yet, we still encounter the stubbornly persistent opinion among Catholics that the Church’s social doctrine is not binding–and if it is authoritative, then it is not as important or consequential as doctrines of faith. But this position is certainly not to be found in Catholic teaching. Indeed, it is simply a pernicious prejudice…"

***- M.J. Andrew ***

Social encyclicals are binding whether individuals like it or not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth502;10173126:

I think it can be conclusively demonstrated, not only from Scripture, but certainly including Scripture (OT as well!), that alleviating the suffering of the poor is a prime consideration of God our Father and His Son who also preached that message. That said, the means of alleviating that suffering are not necessarily government. I say that as someone who has not

had to pay taxes for several years and will not have to again until 2014, most likely.

But is it the prime consideration when the aid is to the detriment of their souls such as giving money to drug addicts and drunks? Does giving money to them really help?

These are organizations which are rehabilitation for recovered addicts (the ones I give to, anyway). (Did you read the rest of my post, regarding private vs. public giving?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

A heavily truncated, edited quotation written in response to those who believed the pope had no right to critique 19th century *laissez-faire *Capitalism.

So are you trying to suggest that the church has no right to critique current prevailing trends in economics that infringe upon human dignity and which are helping humanity only to regress rather than progress? Do you mean to suggest that the economy has nothing to do with “morals”?

Read:

Social encyclicals are binding whether individuals like it or not.

When popes call for specific economic programs whose actual goals deviate from their intended goals, then yes, we should speak out against them. I agree that there would be a problem if you disagreed with the desired goal, but what I disagree with it the means, not the ends.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

These are organizations which are rehabilitation for recovered addicts (the ones I give to, anyway). (Did you read the rest of my post, regarding private vs. public giving?

No, but I was mostly speaking to those who favor indiscriminate giving from others and call it compassion.

Com assion, surely someone with a knowledge of Latin can figure out what that means and why welfare, therefore, is not compassionate.

 

[Vouthon]

When popes call for specific economic programs whose actual goals deviate from their intended goals, then yes, we should speak out against them. I agree that there would be a problem if you disagreed with the desired goal, but what I disagree with it the means, not the ends.

Who determines whether “specific economic programs…deviate from their intended goals”? Is there some body other than the church itself to ascertain this alleged deviation and error in the church’s ordinary magisterium?

Alas, there isn’t. In the end it would be one’s personal, subjective opinion shaped and influenced by one’s cultural and social upbringing - not to mention individual life experience - whereas the church approaches it from an impartial and unbiased perspective, the universal teacher of all human beings irrespective of race or political system.

I’m more willing to trust the ordinary Magisterium than that, personally.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Who determines whether “specific economic programs…deviate from their intended goals”? Is there some body other than the church itself to ascertain this alleged deviation and error in the church’s ordinary magisterium?

When did the Church become the arbiter of economic theory? That’s not its realm.

Alas, there isn’t. In the end it would be one’s personal, subjective opinion.

Economics tells you the results of specific economic programs. Economics is a value free science. It merely tells you what will happen when you try to do something and explains economic phenomenon. Church teaching and hoping for a result does not change economic facts.

 

[Vouthon]

When did the Church become the arbiter of economic theory? That’s not its realm.

Again you fall into the error of telling Holy Mother Church when she should “stay quiet”. Is such not idolatrous deification of one’s subjective opinion conditioned by one’s own personal experience? Again I mean no offense, you are clearly an intelligent person, I am merely unsettled by your seeming hastiness in dismissing so easily the doctrines of Holy Mother Church in social areas.

Did you not take heed of these words I quoted to you:

**Our social lives (i.e., family, political, and economic activity) are primarily religious and moral in nature…the Church, by virtue of her authority in matters of faith and morals, is our touchstone for learning how to conduct that social life. **

Economics is not some hallowed “realm” removed from the touch of human morality. It is man-made and thus prone to sinfulness, to abuse and must be governed by ethics or else it leads to moral catastrophe.

We have no better guide than the Mystical Body of Christ herself.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Again you fall into the error of telling Holy Mother Church when she should “stay quiet”.

Did you not take heed of these words I quoted to you:

As I said, I have no problems with the goals. I just disagree that the programs will reach those goals.

Economics is not some hallowed “realm” removed from the touch of human morality. It is man-made and thus prone to sinfulness, to abuse and must be governed by ethics or else it is leads to moral catastrophe.

Economics has nothing to do with morality. When the Church puts out a document calling for specific goals and programs to reach those goals, and economics tells you that those programs will not reach those goals but instead will actively harm those goals, then we have every duty to speak out against those programs.

 

[Vouthon]

Economics has nothing to do with morality

And this is where you err. However if I cannot convince you otherwise then I pray that someone more skilful in speech than me will come along and teach you the truth rather than the subjective view of economics bereft of ethics and outwith the scope of Holy Mother Church’s divine guidance that you have created for yourself as a direct result of cultural and social upbringing as well as personal life experience.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

And this is where you err. However if I cannot convince you otherwise then I pray that someone more skilful in speech than me will come along and teach you the truth rather than the subjective view of economics bereft of ethics and outwith the scope of Holy Mother Church’s divine guidance that you have created for yourself as a direct result of cultural and social upbringing as well as personal life experience.

Tell me the morality of this statement: increasing the quantity of money will, all other things being equal, raise prices in general. Is that a morally good or bad statement?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Tell me the morality of this statement: increasing the quantity of money will, all other things being equal, raise prices in general. Is that a morally good or bad statement?

One can increase the standard of living without this happening.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When the Church puts out a document calling for specific goals and programs to reach those goals, and economics tells you that those programs will not reach those goals but instead will actively harm those goals, [or: those program have been tried, and experience/results have demonstrated that the goals are not being reached but are being harmed], then we have every duty to speak out against those programs.

(Addition mine.)

Precisely. If the very social justice goals are being compromised, then different means to reach those same goals have to be suggested, tried, etc.

When the means and the goals are badly matched, then the means have to be reevaluated.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

One can increase the standard of living without this happening.

Yes I know, but I didn’t say anything about standard of living. I’m talking about merely what I stated, which is economics. Is it a moral statement?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

(Addition mine.)

Precisely. If the very social justice goals are being compromised, then different means to reach those same goals have to be suggested, tried, etc.

When the means and the goals are badly matched, then the means have to be reevaluated.

Thank you! I have no problem with the goals. The goals are commendable. The problem is that the methods suggested for reaching those goals are failures and have actively made the goal further away. For instance, foreign aid. Time and again it has proven that it does not help the people. It funds corrupt governments that spend it on themselves, solidify their position, and continue bad economic practices that keep their countries backwards while keeping themselves quite wealthy.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Thank you! I have no problem with the goals. The goals are commendable. The problem is that the methods suggested for reaching those goals are failures and have actively made the goal further away. For instance, foreign aid. Time and again it has proven that it does not help the people. It funds corrupt governments that spend it on themselves, solidify their position, and continue bad economic practices that keep their countries backwards while keeping themselves quite wealthy.

We must ingrain humanitarianism within the political arena to rid the world of ‘thugs’ (dictators).

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

We must ingrain humanitarianism within the political arena to rid the world of ‘thugs’ (dictators).

That’s a very vague statement.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That’s a very vague statement.

I’m not sure where I’m being vague, but it’s not that many people at the top of the political arena. Humanitarianism can succeed with the cooperation of world leaders. Let the Vatican lead the way!

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’m not sure where I’m being vague, but it’s not that many people at the top of the political arena. Humanitarianism can succeed with the cooperation of world leaders. Let the Vatican lead the way!

What is humanitarianism specifically and how are world leaders anti humanitarianism?

 

[Neildown]

But why is capitalism not working?

Because although we’ve become a more tolerant country, in the process we’ve shirked our responsibilities to God and morality. A moral compass is what a healthy capitalist society relies on. Socialism cannot work, under any circumstances, as well as properly functioning capitalism - America has already proven that to the world.

People get greedy and hoard all the money for themselves. One must look at the type of values that is being promoted through a given economic system. We need to be humanitarian, first and foremost, and these values are missing in our society!

Again - there is no problem with the economic system, it’s the moral values of society. No society can function correctly in a moral cess-pool and capitalism is the only system that works when moral values are straight.

Look at the low morale in our society. Something is amiss. Apathy flourishes! Violence flourishes. We need to practice loving our neighbor.

…

As long as there is starvation, war, and grief in the world, humanitarianism is not being effective. Also, capitalistic nations tend to be richer, so they can afford some aid. What would it take to end world hunger and get people to fend for themselves?.

“Give a child a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a child to fish, and you feed him for life.” We’ve done more than our own fair share of foreign aid - heck, we were shipping stuff to Russia after WWII with them as a higher priority than us . If said starving nations want to stop starving they should adapt a decent form of government with a decent moral code. It’s not our fault that the rest of the world wants to run itself so inefficiently. Of course I can’t say that “now”, because we’re in a debt hole, but that is only due to the fact that we’ve deviated from the course set by the founding fathers and the constitution.

I’m bad in economics and politics so I would appreciate it if you could name a few socialist nations that have populations starving to death? Likewise, name some socialistic societies that receive aid from the capitalistic ones? Let us not talk about dictatorships, corruption or war-torn nations.

Just as a general rule - there is, nor was, a socialist nation, out of all that have been tried, which has in any way, shape, or form produced the amount of prosperity that this ONE capitalist nation has produced in it’s first try.