Could we have an entire economy...

Cute Tink said:

Star Trek. That's largely the idea behind their system. Money would become largely pointless especially after the invention of the Replicator (TNG).

Is it workable? Not unless people change somewhat.

Click to expand...

Even with a replicator, see post #3.

Tull said:

The only arguements you have are either humanistic fantasy or extremes....elevating yourself on the house of cards of good intentions.

Click to expand...

Allow me to present the version of the argument I know:

Imagine that you work an hourly wage job and your route to work involves you walking by a public pool. Today, as you walk by, you see a child drowning in the pool. Without help, the child will die. Four other people are around the child watching them drown. You approach the scene and find that no one else wants to save the child. For whatever reason, even though each is completely capable of doing so, each individual will not get into the pool and help the child. You realize that you can save the child without any personal risk to yourself, beyond some average everyday physical movement. However, the pool is extremely muddy due to poor maintenance and will cause you clothes to be damaged (assume your job requires presentable appearance). The whole ordeal (saving the child, making sure the child is properly looked after, going back home to change, etc.) will cost you two hours of wages (let's just say $30).

Are you, in some sense, morally obligated to save the child? Will you have ignored an important moral duty if you do not save the child? Are those who do not bad people?

Chany said:

Allow me to present the version of the argument I know:

Imagine that you work an hourly wage job and your route to work involves you walking by a public pool. Today, as you walk by, you see a child drowning in the pool. Without help, the child will die. Four other people are around the child watching them drown. You approach the scene and find that no one else wants to save the child. For whatever reason, even though each is completely capable of doing so, each individual will not get into the pool and help the child. You realize that you can save the child without any personal risk to yourself, beyond some average everyday physical movement. However, the pool is extremely muddy due to poor maintenance and will cause you clothes to be damaged (assume your job requires presentable appearance). The whole ordeal (saving the child, making sure the child is properly looked after, going back home to change, etc.) will cost you two hours of wages (let's just say $30).

Are you, in some sense, morally obligated to save the child? Will you have ignored an important moral duty if you do not save the child? Are those who do not bad people?

Click to expand...

Whether one is "morally obligated" to a particular action. Depends on your own moral philosophy and your dedication to it. Utilitarian, hedonistic, deontological, whatever. What one philosophy calculates as "right" another may not--and even within philosophies, the calculation can come to different conclusions.

Last year on a television program called "The Expanse," one character has a deontological moral philosophy in which he has determined that his duty is owed to another character in the series.

At one point, he says to another man, "I don't see any reason I shouldn't kill you right now. Except that Naomi wouldn't like it."

RDKirk said:

Whether one is "morally obligated" to a particular action. Depends on your own moral philosophy and your dedication to it. Utilitarian, hedonistic, deontological, whatever. What one philosophy calculates as "right" another may not--and even within philosophies, the calculation can come to different conclusions.

Last year on a television program called "The Expanse," one character has a deontological moral philosophy in which he has determined that his duty is owed to another character in the series.

At one point, he says to another man, "I don't see any reason I shouldn't kill you right now. Except that Naomi wouldn't like it."

Click to expand...

Of course, but this is a question of the person and what they believe. Underneath a good portion of ethical systems, it would seem you are required to do so. Even if it is not morally required (for example, some define "morally obligated" as "we can use coercive force to make you do the action or punish you for failure to do the action), most of them would still call the person morally bankrupt, in the sense that they are horrible people.

They're simply yes or no questions about what the person believes.

Human society and the capitalistic, free enterprise system were made for each other. No changes in the system are needed. However, changes in human nature, or the control thereof, is needed for any system to succeed.

Strivax said:

I think there are certain extremities of moral circumstance where no calculation is necessary; just a simple gut reaction. The extreme wealth of some in the West, vs the extreme poverty of some in the East/South strikes me as one of these.

Cheers, Strivax.

Click to expand...

I'm in the Philippines where cash in the pocket is necessary to get my seriously ill child into the hospital, and if I don't get that $30, my own child is likely to die.

How about that?

Strivax said:

A lot of people think that capitalism is natural, the default state of things, because that is what they grew up with, and all they know. But there is no law written on the heavens that this is the way we ought to organise our societies, and that prevents us conceiving of anything better. It was natural for early humans to live in caves; these days, we have houses, mansions, even palaces. Progress happens, if we let it.

When some have billions of $ to spend on luxuries, entertainment and hobbies, and some cannot afford to eat, I think we are entitled to question the idea of the capitalism that generates such a result, however natural it may or may not be, as being a definitive moral good, incapable of improvement.

Cheers, Strivax

Click to expand...

You are entitled to question but you are not entitled to impose your will

OldWiseGuy said:

Human society and the capitalistic, free enterprise system were made for each other. No changes in the system are needed. However, changes in human nature, or the control thereof, is needed for any system to succeed.

Click to expand...

Capitalism's critics hate it but love and covet the wealth it produces and want to take control of it,their greatest challenge is to find a way to get people to produce it then willingly hand most of it over to them so they can control it....that of course will fail miserably,the minute you tell me what I produce does not belong to me but to you I will quit producing it and you can take over.

Chany said:

Are you, in some sense, morally obligated to save the child? Will you have ignored an important moral duty if you do not save the child? Are those who do not bad people?

Click to expand...

Moral obligation ? yes but we have many moral obligations we do not accept or do,things like marital faithfulness,honesty etc and a drowning child may be more of an immediate need but no more an obligation than the others.

Tull said:

Moral obligation ? yes but we have many moral obligations we do not accept or do,things like marital faithfulness,honesty etc and a drowning child may be more of an immediate need but no more an obligation than the others.

Click to expand...

I'll slightly disagree and say that somebody who leaves a child to die when they could have easily saved the child is a worse person than someone who cheats on their loved one, but that distinction is irrelevant to the discussion.

Here's a list of of questions:

1) Is it irrelevant to your moral choice and your moral obligation that the four other people did not help the child?

2) Do you believe there exists organizations that can effectively and reasonably aid those in drastic need of assistance? In other words, is there some way for you to reasonably transfer your wealth to those who live in extreme poverty?

3) I really don't like putting people on the spot and asking them personal questions, but this one is kind of important: have you spent $30 on unnecessary luxury good and services with the last month? For example, common things like going to see a movie or concert, buying clothes primarily to expand your wardrobe, going out to eat at a more expensive restaurant, buying music or video games, etc.? Also, are there $30 dollars worth of personal items you won that you could donate to those in less need? The most common example is clothing, but there might be other things around the house you could easily get rid of?

Chany said:

1) Is it irrelevant to your moral choice and your moral obligation that the four other people did not help the child?

Click to expand...

Its none of my business what other people do,i live my life and my life alone.

Chany said:

2) Do you believe there exists organizations that can effectively and reasonably aid those in drastic need of assistance? In other words, is there some way for you to reasonably transfer your wealth to those who live in extreme poverty?

Click to expand...

Yes those organizations exist and "reasonable" is for each person to decide on their own with no interference from others.

Chany said:

3) I really don't like putting people on the spot and asking them personal questions, but this one is kind of important: have you spent $30 on unnecessary luxury good and services with the last month? For example, common things like going to see a movie or concert, buying clothes primarily to expand your wardrobe, going out to eat at a more expensive restaurant, buying music or video games, etc.? Also, are there $30 dollars worth of personal items you won that you could donate to those in less need? The most common example is clothing, but there might be other things around the house you could easily get rid of?

Click to expand...

I live pretty modestly but I'm sure anyone who cared to could pick me apart just you could be picked apart,the issue is its none of my business how you live and I don't concern myself with it,and this is the internet where people can appear to be anything they wish.....but in the end each of us will stand before God to be judged for who we actually are and it is his business how we lived.

The mantra of "judge not" seems to apply to everything but money....you do what you can because that is all you will be asked to account for.

Strivax said:

A lot of people think that capitalism is natural, the default state of things, because that is what they grew up with, and all they know. But there is no law written on the heavens that this is the way we ought to organise our societies, and that prevents us conceiving of anything better. It was natural for early humans to live in caves; these days, we have houses, mansions, even palaces. Progress happens, if we let it.

When some have billions of $ to spend on luxuries, entertainment and hobbies, and some cannot afford to eat, I think we are entitled to question the idea of the capitalism that generates such a result, however natural it may or may not be, as being a definitive moral good, incapable of improvement.

Cheers, Strivax

Click to expand...

We can't conceive 'better' than capitalism and free enterprise, only 'different'.

I would rather examine the causes of poverty before I assign blame to the wealthy.

OldWiseGuy said:

I would rather examine the causes of poverty before I assign blame to the wealthy.

Click to expand...

They will tell you that the wealthy,which is a relative term,are responsible for poverty in the way water is responsable for moisture,if there were no rich there would be no poor,they advocate the godstate as the arbiter and as usual much of the money would go to them.....sort of a community organizing fee I suppose,like the man of the people Bernie Sanders and his 600,000 dollar vacation home or any other socialist scheme where the leaders live like Kings and the people live like Animals.

The goal of the ones behind it all is a two class society....very rich,who will be responsible for nothing,and the very poor who will service them for a sandwich or a scrap of bread.

Tull said:

They will tell you that the wealthy,which is a relative term,are responsible for poverty in the way water is responsable for moisture,if there were no rich there would be no poor,they advocate the godstate as the arbiter and as usual much of the money would go to them.....sort of a community organizing fee I suppose,like the man of the people Bernie Sanders and his 600,000 dollar vacation home or any other socialist scheme where the leaders live like Kings and the people live like Animals.

The goal of the ones behind it all is a two class society....very rich,who will be responsible for nothing,and the very poor who will service them for a sandwich or a scrap of bread.

Click to expand...

There are actions that lead to either wealth or poverty. I believe that most people are the victims, or beneficiaries, of their own choices. I also don't think that most people actually aspire to be rich, but want to reach a level of financial security that is comfortable for them.

Too many allow others to define what 'success' is for them (as well as defining what 'poverty' is for them), which for many is simply an unattainable dream. Also sad is that we are no closer to having an honest 'conversation' about poverty than we are about racism.

OldWiseGuy said:

Too many allow others to define what 'success' is for them (as well as defining what 'poverty' is for them), which for many is simply an unattainable dream. Also sad is that we are no closer to having an honest 'conversation' about poverty than we are about racism.

Click to expand...

As long as all blame and responsibility is put on one side of any situation involving people there will never be honesty about anything.

The exception being in countries where the government oppresses the people to the point where they cannot feed themselves,places like North Korea and some African countries with "leaders" who live in luxury while their people starve,and contrary to what some would have you believe consume much of the aid that is given for themselves and the key people they need to stay in power.

Tull said:

As long as all blame and responsibility is put on one side of any situation involving people there will never be honesty about anything

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that both sides are in the grip of the "accuser".