Property

[TheGMan]

At what point does one human being's claim to private property give way to an other human being's urgent need. And how does it depend on proximity.

I think we can all recognise that in some cases property is not utterly sacrosanct. If someone takes a car without permission to drive the critically ill victim of an accident to hospital then they have not acted immorally. Indeed if the owner asserted his right to the property and prevented its use then we would view that as immoral.

But people are dying across the world due to the effects of poverty. The amounts needed to save lives are paltry. While in the West we spend far more on wide-screen TVs and clothes and vacations. Of course, it is not as simple as that. There are wider politico-economic issues that create those conditions. But on another level - it is perfectly and immediately true that the money I spent on the computer on which I am typing this could have been spent to save a number of lives.

This is not a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." post. I think we would all agree that it would be better if I had spent the money to save lives. My question though is this... am I not morally obliged to spend the money to save lives. Doesn't an urgent human need far outweigh my own claim to private property?

In other words, isn't Mark 10:21 as powerful a moral imperative as any in Mark 10:19?

 

[flicka]

Doesn't an urgent human need far outweigh my own claim to private property?

No. There is no mechanisms in place that would allow you to trade your comfort for a better life for someone else.

You CAN devote yourself and all your money to helping those less fortunate than yourself, but you can also reach the point where your life would be no better than theirs.

Despite what you say this really does come down to "wouldn't it be nice...". It always does.

 

[JesusWalks78]

I have an atheist friend that once said:

I may help you, but you shouldnt depend on it.

i dont think it is immoral for the man not to give his car, it is his to dispose of as he sees fit and if for example he feels that his new leather interior isnt worth a few bloodstains and helping thats his choice.

 

[TheGMan]

No. There is no mechanisms in place that would allow you to trade your comfort for a better life for someone else.

I'm not convinced this is true at all. They may not however be as efficient as we would like them to be.

Despite what you say this really does come down to "wouldn't it be nice...". It always does.

I don't agree. It may come down to "No, there is no such moral obligation." But there is room for discussion about why we draw the line where we do.

 

[TheGMan]

i dont think it is immoral for the man not to give his car, it is his to dispose of as he sees fit and if for example he feels that his new leather interior isnt worth a few bloodstains and helping thats his choice.

So the right to private property outweighs all other moral concerns? One should not, for instance, shoot at perpetrators of a terrorist act in case you damage someone's paintwork?

 

[flicka]

Humanity isn't compelled through moral or other rules to do anything, but we do. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to help those who truly need it or looking for more efficient ways to provide aid to people, but wherever you decide the line should be drawn can only be applied to you.

You've specifically focused on private property but it doesn't have to end there. Property, opportunities, education, security, safety, etc...all those things can be called into question as long and other people don't have the same access to them. Should you eat 3 meals a day if others are starving?

It comes down to this, the world can't put everything else on hold so everyone can catch up and be on equal footing. Life doesn't work that way. I understand your feelings of guilt over having while others do not, it's those kinds of feelings that have led society to do as much as they do today, even though it can always be improved upon.

 

[TheGMan]

It comes down to this, the world can't put everything else on hold so everyone can catch up and be on equal footing. Life doesn't work that way. I understand your feelings of guilt over having while others do not, it's those kinds of feelings that have led society to do as much as they do today, even though it can always be improved upon.

Feelings of guilt? I'm afraid my concern is rather more academic than that. I agree that we cannot compel charity. But I think most of us would like to feel that our morals were guided by some set of principles. I'm less interested in whether eating three meals a day is moral than why it is or isn't.

And I'm not proposing, even hypothetically, that we go hungry simply because other so. I am saying if we are able to help with what we have in excess of our needs, are we not morally obliged to? Or rather, given the consensus seems to be that we are, what is that absolves us of that obligation when in other situations our claim to property is outweighed.

There's clearly a Scriptural precedent and it isn't Romans 1:26-27. That latter fact alone makes it worth discussing in my book.

 

[flicka]

I am saying if we are able to help with what we have in excess of our needs, are we not morally obliged to? Or rather, given the consensus seems to be that we are, what is that absolves us of that obligation when in other situations our claim to property is outweighed.

Are we morally obliged to help others? I think most people can/do if they see a way to do so but is also something that comes from within, not something that can be decided for them. Personally there are times I am more than willing to do without or give my time and money to a cause, and other times when I'm not.

As far as property goes I think that's something that would come down to an individuals particular mindset and what they would consider excess property, and how NOT having that property would actually benefit anyone besides themselves and their ideals. Without a specific mechanism in place to do this it's hard for me to answer or determine where the line should be drawn.

 

[marblehead]

Communism doesn't work, forcing people to be more charitable goes against free will.

You can, and should only, be able to determine what you do with your own property, not dictate to others what you think is best.

 

[kopilo]

Maybe you meant pure communism, many countries including the US still have some level of communism. Why else do people pay taxes?

 

[TheGMan]

Communism doesn't work, forcing people to be more charitable goes against free will.

You can, and should only, be able to determine what you do with your own property, not dictate to others what you think is best.

Hmmm. Arguably communism proper has never actually been tried. And there are plenty of examples in history of societies with a much less well-defined idea of private property as well as those that have moved away from the idea including, we are told, the early Church.

However, I'm not about to argue for that. I'm not talking about a legal obligation but a moral one.

 

[JustJack!]

My question though is this... am I not morally obliged to spend the money to save lives. Doesn't an urgent human need far outweigh my own claim to private property?

No. Your life is your own. Their's is their responsibility.

 

[flicka]

No. Your life is your own. Their's is their responsibility.

I guess it does come down to this. We are not charged with being responsible for everyone else and I can't even imagine how that would work if we were. It's easy to think of the upside to that but I'm sure the downside would be worse than we can imagine since being responsible for often means being in charge of.

 

[TheGMan]

No. Your life is your own. Their's is their responsibility.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about this. To me, responsibility implies a certain amount of power to do something about th situation. Very often people have none.

But anyway, doesn't morality necessarily include a responsibility to each other if not for each other.

To take a completely different example - am I under a moral obligation to report a crime. Certainly I am required to by law. Is that law unjust? Surely it is not my responsibility but that of the criminal and the victim.

 

[JustJack!]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about this. To me, responsibility implies a certain amount of power to do something about th situation. Very often people have none.

One can always do something about their situation, unless their tied to a chair being tortured, in which case your just SOL.

There may not be much in the way of options, but if you can walk and think, you can do something about your situation.

But anyway, doesn't morality necessarily include a responsibility to each other if not for each other.

I am responsible to no one, and certainly not for anyone, just as no one is responsible for me. I am not my brother's keeper.

To take a completely different example - am I under a moral obligation to report a crime. Certainly I am required to by law. Is that law unjust? Surely it is not my responsibility but that of the criminal and the victim.

A violent crime, I would say yes. Only because the criminal is still out there and can harm someone else. If the perp is dead is would see no reason why anyone but the victim should report the crime.

Morality is how we behave with other people. It's what governs our actions, it's what makes us play nice with everyone else. Morality does not require that we put ourselves out to help every misfortuned soul in the world, because we can't.

 

[TheGMan]

A violent crime, I would say yes. Only because the criminal is still out there and can harm someone else.

So there is, at least in some circumstances, a moral obligation to act in order to prevent harm to others? This is what I am driving at. In what circumstances does that obligation exist?

 

[JustJack!]

So there is, at least in some circumstances, a moral obligation to act in order to prevent harm to others? This is what I am driving at. In what circumstances does that obligation exist?

In the immediate situation. If you come across someone being raped, your have a moral obligation to do something. You don't have a moral obligation to do something about the thousands of rapes that occur everyday that you will never see, because you can't do anything about them.

 

[TheGMan]

In the immediate situation. If you come across someone being raped, your have a moral obligation to do something. You don't have a moral obligation to do something about the thousands of rapes that occur everyday that you will never see, because you can't do anything about them.

Hang on. So is the criterion proximity? If there is someone closer who is able to act are you then absolved of the moral obligation to act? Or is it the ability to act? Are you saying that if we can do something that we should do something? If it's this, I'm not sure how that's different to what I'm proposing.

On a secondary note, the Christian posters on this board are being very quiet on this one despite there being a lot of Scripture on the subject.

 

[JustJack!]

On a secondary note, the Christian posters on this board are being very quiet on this one despite there being a lot of Scripture on the subject.

There's no homosexuality. If you had made the topic about gay starving children in Africa, they'ld be all over it.

 

[TheGMan]

There's no homosexuality. If you had made the topic about gay starving children in Africa, they'ld be all over it.

Well I admit that Jesus had a lot more to say on the subject of homosexuality than on property and care for the poor but I still confess to being a little disappointed.