|
Replies: 26
| visibility 871
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Is it fundamentally morally wrong to to have "more" than other people,
4
Nov 18, 2025, 5:13 PM
|
|
in terms of material things, money, opportunities, comfort, food, safety, or to be better off in any way?
All other factors and considerations aside, are those inequalities bad, and something we should strive to avoid and eliminate?
|
|
|
|
 |
Tiger Titan [51301]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 39331
Joined: 1998
|
Jesus said the poor will always be among you...
3
Nov 17, 2025, 10:35 AM
|
|
Of course, in context He was saying you will have plenty of opportunities to serve, but I think most folks only remember that one part and take as a reason it does little to no good to help.
But no, I don't think it's fundamentally/morally wrong up to a point, but I wonder if as a society, we aren't up to or past that point with so much wealth concentrated in the pockets of so few that it's becoming intractable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
That sounds very reasonable, and I don't really disagree, butt
Nov 17, 2025, 11:10 AM
|
|
think about it this way, because this is where it gets gnarly. Let's assume you are correct and the concentrated wealth at the top we see today is evil, and something should be done to correct it.
Upon what principle is that based? Wouldn't it be just as wrong for me, living in America, enjoying a nice retirement, with a safe, solid house to protect me from the elements and healthcare to protect me and my family and plenty of good food taken for granted, just what we consider the basics, all while there are millions of people around the world who can only dream of such things and instead live in relative squalor?
Who decides where the lines are drawn, and based on what criteria? At what point does having more equal having too much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
Well, that's the classic debate on every issue
2
Nov 17, 2025, 11:20 AM
|
|
Almost no issue is entirely black or white and instead it's a matter of both (or many) different sides drawing lines at different places.
So, there is no easy answer, and morally, yes, I do wrestle with the fact that my quality of life is far greater in many ways than much of the rest of the planet. I don't think any caring and rational person could not wrestle with that. I try to advocate for just processes where I can, and I believe deeply in charity, and from a 'religious" outlook I am called to care for the "least of these."
There is no black and white answer that I, or anyone else, can provide. But I do think a move toward making life better on the planet for more people can at least start by acknowledging the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20967]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Re: That sounds very reasonable, and I don't really disagree, butt
Nov 18, 2025, 5:38 PM
[ in reply to That sounds very reasonable, and I don't really disagree, butt ] |
|
The problem is not that there is wealth or poverty. It is not uniquely an American fault either.
The "Heart of the problem is a problem with the Heart". It always has been.
People have a responsibility for self and family first. That does not mean that the portion of our hearts that care for others should be cauterized to the needs of others around us. Certainly, one should help where they can. But it does mean one acts responsibly with their portion even to the suffering of those who will not act responsibly for theirs.
But this is much too deep and complicated to "hash out" on tigernet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32471]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 24184
Joined: 2002
|
Yes it is ... If you just cut me a check for 20K, we'll be all square.***
1
Nov 17, 2025, 10:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Is it fundamentally morally wrong to to have "more" than other people,
Nov 17, 2025, 11:00 AM
|
|
It's an interesting question especially given the state of our society right now and the political discord around the have and have nots. Not to mention the religious implications and the commands given in religious texts commanding that we take care of the poor. But what does that look like? Should we give our money to people who are not good stewards of it? Jesus didn't seem to address that issue. He said give all to the poor and you will have treasures in heaven. And that is exactly how he lived. He was homeless. The son of man had no place to lay his head. Today of course in a society that is so materialistic it is virtually impossible to follow the teachings of Jesus IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14954]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 16174
Joined: 2003
|
There is a difference between having more and the unabated avarice
Nov 17, 2025, 11:11 AM
|
|
we're seeing today. The top 10% in the US hold 70% of household wealth in the US currently. The bottom 50% of Americans account for 2.5%. Those are St. Louis Feds numbers. By any measure, that is extreme.
Add to that, the top billionaire bros seem to want nothing but to accumulate more wealth and power by lining up behind the current administration that will only benefit them. Having more is not immoral. Greed and lust for money and power to the detriment of society is immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Please, trying to avoid political finger pointing here, in hopes of addressing
1
Nov 17, 2025, 11:16 AM
|
|
the real question.
Who decides what is "too much" and based upon what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
Hoarding/controlling resources others need to survive
Nov 17, 2025, 11:24 AM
|
|
Seems a good place to at least begin to draw a line.
It's part of the reason we have monopoly laws (that have been eroded over the last 30 or 40 years).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14954]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 16174
Joined: 2003
|
Not trying to go right or left on this, its a have vs have not question.
1
Nov 17, 2025, 11:28 AM
[ in reply to Please, trying to avoid political finger pointing here, in hopes of addressing ] |
|
There’s not a number that becomes too much. The 10 wealthiest dudes in America could end food insecurity, poverty, and fund universal healthcare for all Americans and it wouldn’t even make a dent in their bank accounts. If they were to do that, it might be difficult to say they have too much. Doing everything they can to accumulate more money and more power with no benefit to society is just what it is…greed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Very well said.***
Nov 17, 2025, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [51301]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 39331
Joined: 1998
|
This is kind of why I have mixed views on Bill Gates*
1
Nov 17, 2025, 12:29 PM
[ in reply to Not trying to go right or left on this, its a have vs have not question. ] |
|
He's giving away enormous amounts of money around the world to fund poverty programs, food programs, education programs, etc. And that's great, but he has so much money, and his foundation has so much money that other's have contributed, that it's pretty #### easy for him to do this and still have a yacht or two, private planes, mansions, etc. I think there are a lot of people who would choose to do this if given the option of doing it without having to suffer any risk of losing the lifestyle thy want to exist in.
Something, something - the story of the widow's mite
*You know, that and the fact that his wife now says part of the reason for the divorce was how much he hung around with Epstein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
My take
Nov 17, 2025, 11:15 AM
|
|
"More" is not the problem.
"Most" to "all" held by a relatively small group who controls where the leftovers go, and a larger and larger portion of folks struggling to survive... well, in my estimation that is a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Cool.
Nov 17, 2025, 11:18 AM
|
|
So how much is too much, who decides, and how do they decide?
I mean, THAT's the real problem, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
Well, you asked about the moral position
Nov 17, 2025, 11:22 AM
|
|
What can or should be done legally is a different and practical discussion.
One for which there is no simple answer. But I do think we can move toward trying to make it better incrementally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Good point. Just to be sure I understand you, to answer the question,
Nov 17, 2025, 11:40 AM
|
|
it's not wrong for one person to have more than another person, but it's wrong when a few people have a whole lot more than most people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
No, again you're using "more"
Nov 17, 2025, 11:43 AM
|
|
Where I find it to be wrong is when needed resources are hoarded and controlled by a small group and a relatively large group is beholden to them in order to survive.
It's not about scale of who has "more", but rather about a large group not having enough to survive (or in our current system often not enough to survive and still have the opportunity to pursue chances to thrive).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
But having "more" and "inequality" were what I was asking about.
Nov 17, 2025, 11:51 AM
|
|
I asked if they were fundamentally, morally wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your answer was no. Then you went on to describe what you did thing was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32593]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37439
Joined: 2000
|
That's true, sorry if I misunderstood your previous post
1
Nov 17, 2025, 11:54 AM
|
|
To be clear I don't think having more is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
No prob dude, thanks for responding.
Nov 17, 2025, 12:13 PM
|
|
I don't think inequality and some having more than others is wrong either, so it's not right to demonize those who have more, maybe even a lot more, but I think that we need to do a better job of allocating resources, where possible, to ease the suffering of those who are less fortunate. Those who can do more should be expected to do more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24728]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 19228
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32471]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 24184
Joined: 2002
|
If someone is born without an arm, should everyone else cut off theirs
Nov 17, 2025, 12:27 PM
|
|
to make things equal ?
Life is not fair, get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Inequality and the resulting unfairness is not necessarily wrong or evil.
2
Nov 17, 2025, 12:41 PM
|
|
That was kind of my point. I'm not evil because my belly is full while someone else is hungry. It's just reality.
Not helping the guy who was born with no arm to cope with his disadvantage, is wrong, in my mind. You or I personally cannot help every person who is born without an arm, but I do think we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to create a society that does what it can to help such people, and not ignore them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27457]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Is it fundamentally morally wrong to to have "more" than other people,
1
Nov 17, 2025, 2:01 PM
|
|
Lets assume for a moment that allowing some people to have more than others drives innovation and productivity for everyone, and therefore median wealth. I realize that Marxism does not agree with that, but that's another discussion. Let's assume a free market generates median wealth.
In that case, it seems your question is about envy rather than morality of wealth. A person who has $10 will not be envious of another, if everyone has $10. Give that person $100, and he might be envious of one who has $1000. That makes little rational sense, but it has driven culture and politics forever. "Wealth inequality" is the current buzzword. We should discuss whether the lowest and highest are separating too much, and should identify why that is and what solutions benefit everyone. But the mere existence of it, which was your question, seems to be a good thing.
Shouldn't a farmer who gets up at dawn have a fuller silo than one who sleeps until 9:00? And might the more successful one need to employ a young guy who wants to learn about farming? Isnt that a good thing?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67933]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 50610
Joined: 2000
|
Agree 100%.***
1
Nov 17, 2025, 2:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27457]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Is it fundamentally morally wrong to to have "more" than other people,
1
Nov 17, 2025, 2:14 PM
|
|
Be careful with this. It wont take too much thinking to decide that the means of the American middle class economy should be brought back to the US from countries that actively operate against us. Then you'll have to go to the political board. Trust me, you dont want that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 871
|
|
|
50
