[MrBill]

is it moral to thrive when others are struggling to survive?

[Grifter]

I'm not really sure about the philosophy of morality but yes we do it already. We thrive while others suffer. We have done for a long time.

I have no moral issue with trying to do well.

[MrBill]

that's honest. I am poorer then the children of cypriots that inherited land and then sold out like buy at $100.000 and sell at $4 million in, umm, 20-years? Right place at right time, but it would be a mistake not to fleece them for every penny that 'they' did not earn. Or am I simply evil? If so, do I get a mini-me?

[BigTex]

I think the best answer is balance.

I always ask myself what would be fair for me to expect someone else to do for me if I needed help.

If I were struggling to survive, I think it would be fair for me to expect someone who was thriving to provide some type of assistance to me. Thus, when I am thriving I am happy to help someone who is struggling to survive, to the extent that I think it will actually help them. For example, feeding a hungry person may not be of much help long term and may actually aggravate the problem. OTOH, if I have the opportunity to help them learn to provide for themselves, then I will help them for the reasons outlined above. (I reached this conclusion, in part, after buying many hamburgers for homeless people outside fast food places and being asked why I didn't get them fries.)

To the extent that morality rests, in part, on notions of fairness and the golden rule, I think that striking this kind of balance is moral.

There is no good answer, but I think the best answer is somewhere between doing nothing and giving everything the poor. The problem I have with giving everything to the poor is that I can only do it once, then I am just another one of the poor, and I can't help the poor any further at that point. If I help the poor while maintaining my own ability to thrive, then I can continue to provide assistance to others.

[killJOY]

it doesn't matter.

everything is to be swallowed by eternity.

who's to witness your "morality"? who cares about it, but you?

remember kafka's hunger artist:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve always wanted you to admire my fasting.

[TT]

Would it be more moral to not strive to survive as best as you can?

Do we not each have an obligation to do our best in our given situation.? Altough we can offer the hand of kindness to those in need, we should not risk our own continued survival. Survival is not morality, it is what we must do as a life form.

[nutmeg]

I did a google on "the morality of survival" and came up with this article again and again:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/masters.htm

The Moral Dilemma of the West

The dilemma of our people is the product of a deep misconception about nature and morality. It arises from the mistaken, sentimental belief that altruism can be extended beyond its evolutionary origin -- kinship and within-group altruism -- to the whole of humanity. It results from failure to accept the role of genetic factors in defining human temperament and potential.

The standards that govern public debate are reminiscent of the Dark Ages in that they have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of moralistic assertions derived from a world view rooted in radical egalitarianism. The long term consequence of adherence to these principles is rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Most Western people would agree that an innate sense of right and wrong plays a key role in the Western moral system, a system that values individual worth and reciprocal fairness. The tragedy of this moral view is that it has been extended to the world at large -- seemingly the most noble behavior humanity has ever exhibited -- and has become the threat to the survival of the West.

As biologist Garrett Hardin demonstrated in his 1982 essay "Discriminating Altruisms," universalism -- a chimerical One World without borders or distinctions -- is impossible. Groups that practice unlimited altruism, unfettered by thoughts of self-preservation, will be disadvantaged in life's competition and thus eliminated over time in favor of those that limit their altruistic behavior to a smaller subset of humanity, usually their own genetic kin, from whom they receive reciprocal benefits.

Professor Hardin writes:

Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space.... To people who accept the idea of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible.... Let us see why.

In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity....

The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step -- except for the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has -- by definition -- no competitive base to support it ... [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination. [emphasis in original]

Professor Hardin adds: "[W]e must not forget that for three billion years, biological evolution has been powered by discrimination. Even mere survival in the absence of evolutionary change depends on discrimination. If universalists now have their way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even the most modest impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so well for billions of years. It is a tragic irony that discrimination has produced a species (homo sapiens) that now proposes to abandon the principle responsible for its rise to greatness."

It is to the advantage of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards -- for if they did, they would not be replacing us -- our flawed moral system will vanish with us.

The fact that universal, self-sacrificing altruism destroys its practitioners is its most obvious flaw. Any survivable moral order must recognize this.

MORE AT LINK

[catbox]

I don't really know anyone who is thriving aside from the two guys who own the business I work for. Everyone else is just surviving.
Do some of us have it "better" than others? Yup! While not rich or even middle class anymore...I still manage to live better than many people I see around me due to the choices I've made.
For that I feel no guilt. At the same time, I give where I can.

[MrBill]

Remember even if you have 'nothing' you may be better off than your neighbors in 'negative equity', but if they would have been lucky or correct perhaps they would be much richer than you?

[killJOY]

IOW:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ecclesiastes', ' ')I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Wisdom is better than folly, but the same fate awaits us all.

The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

[mkwin]

Morality only comes into making money if you are earning it in a dishonest way. Killing people, hurting people or ripping people off is immoral not making money. If you do any of these things to make money it is immoral. If you make even a trillion dollars in an honest way there is nothing wrong with that. However, if you become rich, I believe you have a moral obligation to give to charity.

[MrBill]

I just posted on this subject? Huh? Trouble merging topics! @#$%^&!!

[Grifter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'M')orality only comes into making money if you are earning it in a dishonest way. Killing people, hurting people or ripping people off is immoral not making money. If you do any of these things to make money it is immoral. If you make even a trillion dollars in an honest way there is nothing wrong with that. However, if you become rich, I believe you have a moral obligation to give to charity.

[MrBill]

The richest men - Buffets and Gates - seem keen to share it in a community friendly way? Like Rotary Club International where we cooperate with the Gate's Foundation to eradicate polio worldwide, forever! ; - )

[wisconsin_cur]

Mr Bill,

1) why are you still awake?

2) I think the question is misdirected.
A) To a large extent I am unable to effect the situation of "others." There always will be those who are just working to survive so the question becomes, "Is it moral to thrive?" Which begs the question what does it mean to thrive?
B) We can control how we "thrive" do we do it at the expense of others? Do we do it in a moral way? How we react to our circumstances is something we can control. I could have made a living selling people mortgages that I knew they could not repay. That would be wrong. Instead I work in health care. In some ways it is still a racket but I act in my position according to my conscience. It is concievable that this could get me fired. If it does, so be it. I will find another moral way to put bread on the table.
C) The question I find most intriguing is how we define "thrive." What is the good life? Of what does it consist? When we come to a good answer to these questions I think we will find very little that promotes thriving that puts others at risk or negatively effects their desire to survive.

peace,
courage,
joy

cur

[Fishman]

Optimally your thriving should help others to survive and struggle less. A good capitalist does just this. A bad one does not. (Good as defined as being aware that your decisions affect others) What one must not do when helping others is placing them at moral hazard, your help should not assist them in making further bad decisions ie like the Democrats welfare system.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'T')he richest men - Buffets and Gates - seem keen to share it in a community friendly way?

[mkwin]

Even Rockefeller gave away over 500 million of his fortune and as Mr Bill said, many very rich people give vast amounts of money to good causes. Rich people do not create poverty they generate wealth and society as a whole benefits from the spillover benefits in the form of employment, tax and products.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut in a free society an individual can become more powerful than the elected leader.

[Kingcoal]

It is morally right to share. However you have to remember the old adage about the hungry man and the fish. The rich and powerful need to support education more than anything. When is the last time you've heard of a mega rich person founding a college or university? Today's rich come from an "I earned it, damnit," philosophy. I mean, what good is Warren Buffet to society? He's important to his shareholders, but he really doesn't mean anything to the common man. The old rich had grandeur, vision, IMO. They wanted to go down in history for something other than just forming successful companies and whatnot.

I think the problem is with the common man, however. The modern common man is politically an idiot. Our ancestors were much more politically savvy. They knew how to kick shit and make themselves heard. Of course the government doesn't help; they would probably peg those old shit kickers as enemies of the State or just plain radicals who need a good dose of the Patriot Act.

Rockefeller was a good example. He really didn't care about anything else besides making money. Early on, he didn't care about his public image and it cost him. He was advised to at least look like he cared. He later spent a lot of money investing in society as an insurance policy against that. The super rich used to fear the mob. No more, they have the mob right where they want them.

[mmasters]

There are other kinds of wealth than financial and material. There is mental and emotional wealth, wealth in relationships and health wealth. These areas are just as important if not more than material wealth. It's also important to remember many have existed on this planet with great wealth however none could take it with them in their passing. I believe if you have wealth in any of these areas you should share it wisely among others as it will ultimately beget more wealth and prosperity.