Property

[flicka]

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.

Really? I've heard just the opposite.

 

[TheGMan]

Really? I've heard just the opposite.

I'm sure a quick flick through a red letter Bible should set the matter straight.

 

[JustJack!]

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.

I'ld say it would be the ability to act that would define what you should do in that type of situation.

But what you're talking about is to go out of your way and find people that need help. I'm talking of helping those you come across.

Now it's nicer if go out of your way to find people that need help and help them, but you're not morally obligated to, nor are you a bad person if you don't. You're just not as charitable as the one who does.

 

[JustJack!]

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.

Well it is the fault of the gays that there are little children starving in Africa, so I guess they're just going after the source of the problem.

Remember, procreation ends starvation. If you're multiplying, you're being fruitful, and how can you be hungry if you're full of fruit?

 

[TheGMan]

But what you're talking about is to go out of your way and find people that need help. I'm talking of helping those you come across.

So we're morally obliged to help if it isn't too much trouble.

So back to reporting a crime. What if I'm offered hush money? Reporting a crime is a minor inconvenience but if it costs me $10,000 to do so then that is no longer a minor inconvenience.

 

[quatona]

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?

Private property is highly overrated.
I think that for claiming that something belongs to me I need to apply a very selective perception.

 

[JustJack!]

So we're morally obliged to help if it isn't too much trouble.

Yea, that's the not nice way to say it. I guess that's where I draw the line realistically. But then again, you see a woman being raped and step in, that's biting off a big ol chunk of trouble.

I'ld say it's a combination of all three, ability to act, proximity, and amount of trouble, but not really one over the other.

So back to reporting a crime. What if I'm offered hush money? Reporting a crime is a minor inconvenience but if it costs me $10,000 to do so then that is no longer a minor inconvenience.

Depends on the crime. If it someone selling drugs, give the money, and an ounce. Something violent, I wouldn't take the money.

Private property is highly overrated.

It's valued for a reason, unless you can kill me, what mine is not yours, and vice versa.

I think that for claiming that something belongs to me I need to apply a very selective perception.

How so? My car is not a living being. It's a peice of metal. I claim ownership over my peice of metal, and I can legally kill anyone who tries to take that peice of metal from me. What's so strange about private property?

 

[David Gould]

It is a difficult issue.

I had a friend who was of the opinion that if the poor people of the world invaded our nation and arrested us for crimes against humanity we would not really have a defensible moral position, as we all benefitted from the system which kept them poor.

In Dilbert, Scot Adams points out that much western charity is done to assuage middle class guilt.

I guess the question is one of defining needs. And that means defining desired outcomes. And that is probably just the start ...

My position is that is people do a little bit for others, then that is enough. This is because it is not any one person's responsibility. If everyone did a little bit then the problem would be solved, and no-one would have to give up a plazma TV set.

 

[quatona]

It's valued for a reason, unless you can kill me, what mine is not yours, and vice versa.

Which would be that reason?

How so? My car is not a living being. It's a peice of metal. I claim ownership over my peice of metal, and I can legally kill anyone who tries to take that peice of metal from me. What's so strange about private property?

I understand that you like the idea of owning things - what I am missing is a way to determine that something is mine (and only mine).