First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Are we ever justified in buying luxuries?
198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / England
Offline
Posted 5/5/07
I think people are homeless in most countries becuase they put themselves there. if I was homless I would do everything in my power to live a healthy life... I think people dont do enough to sort things out for themselves. I would never give a penny to a company that claims to be helping the poor and homeless becuase there a business... there around to make profit the same as any business i think to help you would have to do it personally. Im not a selfish person but im smart enough to know this is a greedy world we live in.
42015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/7/07

mauz15 wrote:

I must have a spidey sense like azrael's, because something told me a good thread might pop up today

First of all, let's put on the table the four domains of Morality:

1. Actions, the act (which is mainly of what my post is about)
Evaluative terms : right, wrong, permissible ***
2. Consequences
Evaluative terms : Good, bad, indifferent
3. Character
Evaluative terms : Virtuous, vicious
4. Motive
Evaluative terms : Good will, evil (bad) will
--------------------------
*** Right act: is an act that is obligatory for you to do. It's your duty. It's not permissible to refrain from doing it
*** wrong act: obviously, an act that you are forbidden to do.
*** permissible act: act that is neither right or wrong to do. It is neither obligatory nor forbidden.

Within permissible acts, there are many notions, two of them are the notions of supererogatory and infraerogatory acts, which are not morally required.
Supererogatory or highly altruistic, are acts that are not required, not obligatory, but they are morally good. They challenge us to go beyond our moral duties, and while you may have an obligation to help people in need, you are certainly not obliged for example, to sell your car, avoid buying certain luxuries, or become destitute, in order to help them.
Eros, I feel the same way as you, and I admire people who make sacrifices for others, and I try to do supererogatory acts as much as possible, that's why I want to become a doctor and help kids with vision problems. My ultimate goal would be to go back to my country and help people that live in poor areas, just like my grandfather did. But supererogatory acts are not exactly moral duties.

oh and infrareogatory acts are those which are morally permissible but below the standard of ideal morality. (oversleeping, spending too much time watching tv or *cough* hanging out on CR *cough*

theories that focus on the nature of the act are mostly the deontological ones, utilitarianism, and egoism focus on consequence, virtue ethics on character, and virtually all ethical systems, but especially Kant's focus on motive.


so are you basically saying the NEED is more important then the desire?

I personally think, from working around people who are extremely poor (seedy hotel people lived there with gov't cheese checks) that people who are down and out if you will (at least in the US) are that way because of actions they took.
It is their own damned fault they are that way, and since i work hard as hell for my money, they don't deserve a fucking penny. get a job, go to work, stop drinking so damned much!
And for people who lost their jobs (lay-offs etc) they must have done SOMETHING to effect the choice in them being laid off or fired... or that they didn't do, ie a good job, the extra mile etc.
So helping the poor, for me... fuck no. they need to help themselves.
For third world countries... MOVE THE FUCK OUT! (ie ethieopia - it's fucking sand morons!)
As i'm sure you have all noticed, those philosophy-minded people, i'm an egoist.
I'm selfish to an extreme. and i'm ok with that.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
I'm borderline objectivist... .
So that's my thoughts.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 7/7/07

Dusterbayala wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

I must have a spidey sense like azrael's, because something told me a good thread might pop up today

First of all, let's put on the table the four domains of Morality:

1. Actions, the act (which is mainly of what my post is about)
Evaluative terms : right, wrong, permissible ***
2. Consequences
Evaluative terms : Good, bad, indifferent
3. Character
Evaluative terms : Virtuous, vicious
4. Motive
Evaluative terms : Good will, evil (bad) will
--------------------------
*** Right act: is an act that is obligatory for you to do. It's your duty. It's not permissible to refrain from doing it
*** wrong act: obviously, an act that you are forbidden to do.
*** permissible act: act that is neither right or wrong to do. It is neither obligatory nor forbidden.

Within permissible acts, there are many notions, two of them are the notions of supererogatory and infraerogatory acts, which are not morally required.
Supererogatory or highly altruistic, are acts that are not required, not obligatory, but they are morally good. They challenge us to go beyond our moral duties, and while you may have an obligation to help people in need, you are certainly not obliged for example, to sell your car, avoid buying certain luxuries, or become destitute, in order to help them.
Eros, I feel the same way as you, and I admire people who make sacrifices for others, and I try to do supererogatory acts as much as possible, that's why I want to become a doctor and help kids with vision problems. My ultimate goal would be to go back to my country and help people that live in poor areas, just like my grandfather did. But supererogatory acts are not exactly moral duties.

oh and infrareogatory acts are those which are morally permissible but below the standard of ideal morality. (oversleeping, spending too much time watching tv or *cough* hanging out on CR *cough*

theories that focus on the nature of the act are mostly the deontological ones, utilitarianism, and egoism focus on consequence, virtue ethics on character, and virtually all ethical systems, but especially Kant's focus on motive.


so are you basically saying the NEED is more important then the desire?

I personally think, from working around people who are extremely poor (seedy hotel people lived there with gov't cheese checks) that people who are down and out if you will (at least in the US) are that way because of actions they took.
It is their own damned fault they are that way, and since i work hard as hell for my money, they don't deserve a fucking penny. get a job, go to work, stop drinking so damned much!
And for people who lost their jobs (lay-offs etc) they must have done SOMETHING to effect the choice in them being laid off or fired... or that they didn't do, ie a good job, the extra mile etc.
So helping the poor, for me... fuck no. they need to help themselves.
For third world countries... MOVE THE FUCK OUT! (ie ethieopia - it's fucking sand morons!)
As i'm sure you have all noticed, those philosophy-minded people, i'm an egoist.
I'm selfish to an extreme. and i'm ok with that.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
I'm borderline objectivist... .
So that's my thoughts.


Eh... I agree that the lazy people should get off their asses and do something. But some people don't have a choice when they get laid off. If a factory closes, everyone is outta a job. And also the people in Ethiopia have no choices in moving out cause they don't have the transportation and as sure as hell they not going to walk across the Mediterranean to France or whatever.

But in my opinion you have to help yourself before others. Those people who are like "yea I'm poor but I'm a good person because there are less fortunate people out there and I donated to help them" are in my opinions morons.

Sure they need help. Let the goverment or rich people do something about it. Just because you feel like you did a good deed doesn't make you less of a moron. You're not rich for a reason now work up the ladder and achieve that level of prosperity and then donate when you have money to spare and nothing to buy.
2443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
Whats the point in not making yourself happy because other people arent, you could perhaps donate all your money to charity to make them happy but then wat are you poor and wat are they ... still poor. No luxury for you and more poverty everywhere.

its your money do what you like with it!
9429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
If I study hard and get good grades, I like to reward myself. This is a good way to prevent burnout for myself.
10553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Washington
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
....personally any economy is gona be screwed up and tangled because if we dont buy any luxuries companys fall, people are leaid off... economy collapses and horrible things occur.. the name things are to crush out drug and other things like illegal pornagraphy and illegal prostitution, with that done it should prove a boon to economy and alow society to florousish along with government stipends to other nations/etc... plus allow increase of farmland hopefully...

actually alota people are working hard too although we could all pull some extra weight which by itself may not be much just a few weeks extra of food... but it really adds up with billions of people.. hundreds of millions in America alone....

with group effort alot can be done... and really poverty shouldnt exhist.. but... personally... i blame Islam... where theive been societys have suffered... seriously.

while Christianity and Buhdist Areas overall have flourished beautifully even for the poor although in the last hundred years poverty has grown... more agonizing even in America...
28729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
Well, fuck you guys. My luxuries came from hard work. I won't be guilted for something earned. If I had to cry because someone didn't get what they deserved, They'd name the lake that formed after me.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/14/07

Dusterbayala wrote:

so are you basically saying the NEED is more important then the desire?

I personally think, from working around people who are extremely poor (seedy hotel people lived there with gov't cheese checks) that people who are down and out if you will (at least in the US) are that way because of actions they took.
It is their own damned fault they are that way, and since i work hard as hell for my money, they don't deserve a fucking penny. get a job, go to work, stop drinking so damned much!
And for people who lost their jobs (lay-offs etc) they must have done SOMETHING to effect the choice in them being laid off or fired... or that they didn't do, ie a good job, the extra mile etc.
So helping the poor, for me... fuck no. they need to help themselves.
For third world countries... MOVE THE FUCK OUT! (ie ethieopia - it's fucking sand morons!)
As i'm sure you have all noticed, those philosophy-minded people, i'm an egoist.
I'm selfish to an extreme. and i'm ok with that.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
I'm borderline objectivist... .
So that's my thoughts.


Read it again, I am merely trying to clarify the question asked. I never mentioned desires.
PS: I can only hope you are aware of the weaknesses in the arguments of egoism ethics and the unfounded premises of objectivism.

Edit:

For third world countries... MOVE THE FUCK OUT!


Right >_> because it is soooooo easy.
I should tell the rest of my family in Colombia the great news.
"hey guys you know what can solve your economic problems? moving out of the country =D it's so easy! you just need money oh wait, but you are poor so you barely have money to survive and get the kids through school hmm oh I know get a better job! oh wait the unemployment rate is quite high...oh and say what? even people with doctorates are forced to drive taxis? what? having a car is a luxury?" and so on.
And Colombia is a decent third world country I don't want to think what a poor person in Etiopia must face.
149563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
@Duster: The world works because the labor falls mostly on the unpriviledged. Would you do the kind of job they do especially when at anytime they can get laid off? What about folks who are born into the not so good life, is it their fault too? And if the only job that barely sustains them gets lost, do you think they can recover easy and find another decent job to fill their miserable lives? In most cases, alcohol and smokes is the only thing that can keep them functioning to make sure you get your money well and use it as you please.
Posted 7/14/07
were going to die so yes we will spend it like a madman before we it is ovefr
Posted 7/14/07
But if the charity keeps on helping them, they will just keep on relying to the charity. So, they also have to work not just receiving the help of the charity and crap. They're already given the chance to do something about their situation again, and now, if they still keep on sitting their asses in their chairs and nothing is happening after all and these parents are being so lazy for finding a work to survive and help their poor kids starving and crying even though the unemployment percentage is high, there's still some janitor or cleaning works around or any work that will satisfy your characteristics and for those people who was just fired on their work, find something new again. You have your own body to work for your own. But still, if you won't do something about it... Just die.. You're not suppose to live..
10553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Washington
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
...sometimes i just cant tell, are people serious or sarchasticly ...sarcastical... ragingly...joking/spewing...

oh well anyways.. ummm... seriously... you cant go off spewing this stuff... thiers a thousand reasons to be brought to a poor pooor ravaged life... for instance take medical costs, secondly take in child hood mistakes... another thing.... if people lived good lives and worked hard no matter the difficulty....chances are ...the 60s would not of occured
149563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 7/14/07

ichi_ni240 wrote:

But if the charity keeps on helping them, they will just keep on relying to the charity. So, they also have to work not just receiving the help of the charity and crap. They're already given the chance to do something about their situation again, and now, if they still keep on sitting their asses in their chairs and nothing is happening after all and these parents are being so lazy for finding a work to survive and help their poor kids starving and crying even though the unemployment percentage is high, there's still some janitor or cleaning works around or any work that will satisfy your characteristics and for those people who was just fired on their work, find something new again. You have your own body to work for your own. But still, if you won't do something about it... Just die.. You're not suppose to live..


There's a lot more substance than meets the eye. Sure charity gives them the opportunity to do something and change their lives. But charity alone actually worsens their condition or not effect at all. There was a research in psychology done in which a poor household has been given enough money that could change their lives out of the dump they're in. But due to their circumstance of "how do they know any better?" leaves them unable to bring out the full potential that the money they recieved could bring. If charity is to be implemented, it's got to work towards programs that would encourage these people to take the initiative, not just a hand me down the fish type of deal. Poverty for them will just propagate that way.
Posted 7/14/07
i do not see why some of you guys disagree so strongly with buying luxuries. if youre the one payin the bills and working for it, the occasional luxury is not evil. its youre money when you earn it so spend how you will
207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/14/07
with those charity companies, how much of the money actually goes to those people in the poorer countries? Then again at the end of everything it's your money your lives.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.