How much are we ethically bound to use for the benefit of the rest of humanity?

[MaxP]

How much of the money and goods we work hard for are we bound to put to the purpose of helping the rest of humanity, individually or as a whole?

 

[mpok1519]

do we even have a right to goods and money?

Is it okay to stab a flag in the ground say "mine", and do what I will with it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess that depends on your view of ethics

Certain political groups feel that giving goods & services to poor people is treading the line of socialism...others feel a deep moral obligation to help out those less fortunate...so there's no right answer to this one, it's decided at the individual level.

 

[MaxP]

I guess that depends on your view of ethics

Haha I realized I should have used "moral" after I posted it, but when I edit it it doesn't give an option to edit the title.

Certain political groups feel that giving goods & services to poor people is treading the line of socialism...others feel a deep moral obligation to help out those less fortunate...so there's no right answer to this one, it's decided at the individual level.

Well, it might be construed as socialism if done by a government, but I meant on an individual level, what is our duty.

 

[Penumbra]

As much as you want I suppose, after taxes.

By paying taxes and social security, you're paying for the good of others in your community, as well as yourself. So that can vary between 10% and something like 39% in my country. Unfortunately each person has little control of where their money goes and who it helps, if anyone.

Anything beyond that is optional. I think it would depend on what you value in life, and how much you make. A poor person can only give a tiny amount because they are barely scraping by as it is. A rich person has a large amount of income that they don't need, so they can afford to give a lot. If they value material possessions a lot, then they won't give much, if any. So people end up with $700,000 houses, $40,000 cars, and give like $500 to charity that year. That's their call, though.

-Lyn

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Haha I realized I should have used "moral" after I posted it, but when I edit it it doesn't give an option to edit the title.


Well, it might be construed as socialism if done by a government, but I meant on an individual level, what is our duty.

Well, in the book of Acts, the redistribution of funds was carried out by the church (which in large part acted as the government in may aspects) so we're still back to Socialism being biblical...

...sorry for the slight sidebar, I'll get back on topic

I'm not religious in anyway, but I still make it a point to donate to worth while causes and am a huge fan of paying taxes toward socialized healthcare (especially for children). I don't feel that a 9yo should be denied healthcare regardless of how lazy or poor their parents are. If we're going to call our nation the best in the world, then we ought to be able to have the basics covered.

 

[Penumbra]

I guess that depends on your view of ethics

Certain political groups feel that giving goods & services to poor people is treading the line of socialism...others feel a deep moral obligation to help out those less fortunate...so there's no right answer to this one, it's decided at the individual level.

I think it's only socialism if it's mandatory to give goods and services to the poor. If people freely give out of their after-tax income, then I don't think that has much to do with politics.

(Unless their "charity" is a political organization.)

-Lyn

 

[allhart]

Whoo sets the standard of the partakers. To whom gives and takes. Who is morally objective? Which is the the substandard? Do we lower our standards or are they to drive to strive?