2ndRateMind

Why should I? I'm having a ball! You know you have no case to make, and I enjoy demonstrating that. All your insults, besides this basic truth, have no traction. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. So the poor are poor through their own fault. They are idle and/or addicted. How foolish of me not to notice that. And how convenient for those who do not wish to disperse their wealth for the common good, but still claim they are moral people. Best wishes, 2RM.

This would all be so were wealth a matter of appearance, like whether one has freckles or a roman nose. But it isn't. The capacity to retain an excess of wealth while others starve implies a certain ruthlessness in the face of need, which, to me at least, suggests a cavalier disdain for ordinary morality. Best, 2RM.

I don't follow. Bill Gates; unconstrained by poverty, creates a lot of jobs. Bottom 10% of the world, constrained by poverty ($1 per day typical income) creates fewer jobs per person. Unsurprising finding, to me, which suggests that constraint by poverty is the deciding factor. So, the ethical question arising is; do we allow more income to Bill Gates, in the hope that he may create even more jobs, or more income to those struck by poverty, in order that they might have decent livelihoods, and even create some jobs of their own? Best, 2RM.

Hmmm. Is there then an LDS morality, distinct from objective, ordinary morality? Best, 2RM.

Agreed. Best, 2RM

Believe me, I am not jealous of the rich. It seems to me a tremendous burden of responsibility to carry - a burden they mostly seem unaware of, mainly because society at large is not making them aware of it. Nevertheless, their moral responsibility is clear. No one gets two Lambourghinis until everyone has enough to eat, clean water to drink, sanitation, shelter, primary education and healthcare. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm pleased we see eye to eye on that one. If you start from an unfair premise, anything you contend may be unfair. Better to ask; how many jobs would the bottom 10% have created if they were not constrained by their poverty? Best, 2RM.

Is contraception immoral? No. Is reckless reproduction immoral, given the finite resource limits of the planet? Yes. Best wishes, 2RM.

I need no authority. I just speak as it is, and I find the wealthy no more productive than anyone else, when one allows for the multiplier factor of their wealth. Or can you find contrary evidence? Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, as you might expect, I have a contrariwise view on this. "Judge not, lest ye be judged!" Not one of Jesus' greatest sayings, though I get where He is coming from. Thing is, we will be judged. And we will be judged according to our own judgments. If we accept the immoral, that is most likely because we are immoral. But we need to be careful about what is, and is not, immoral. Human sexuality, with all it's complexity, is a messy business. I'm content to leave it that way, and let it express itself as it will, provided it does no harm, and refrain from judgment in that sphere, when no harm is done. But wealth inequality? That is truly immoral. People die because of it. If we all judged the rich as the rich deserve to be judged - selfish, greedy, avaricious and sinful, that might go a long way towards ensuring everybody gets enough to eat, in the world. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm saying that I sense a certain reluctance - not necessarily on this forum, but generally, in society - to face this responsibility. It is easy to condemn murder by religious fanatics. It is not so easy to admit some degree of culpability for collateral damage amongst Muslims. But without accepting such accountability, I foresee a whole future of blood feud, which is, of course, precisely the agenda of the terrorists. Best wishes, 2RM.

My essential point is that, if we value life, and all lives equally (and I'm not at all sure we do), then we need to be ready to stand accountable for each innocent, civilian death dealt in our name, with our complicity. Best, 2RM.

Uh huh. But if we are agreed that the sanctity of life is the utmost value, and the right to life the utmost right, we must, for the sake of consistency and to avoid hypocrisy, extend that value and right to everyone, regardless of race, creed, nationality, politics, gender, sexuality etc., and treat any violation of it with equal seriousness. Regrettably, that regard includes those who may have a problem with the west, and it's liberal, enlightenment attitudes. It certainly includes those who are their victims; the human shields, child suicide bombers, etc. The only people it doesn't include, from what I can see, are those who deliberately forego it and take up arms to prosecute their special brand of asymmetric war against us. We are entitled to self-defence, which is only the expression of that right to life for our own sake we are extending to others. We are not, however, entitled to a trigger happy, gung ho, ramboesque style of conventional warfare that does not count the civilian cost of it's operations, and does not much care about that cost, either. We need to know who we kill, and how, and why, so we can justify - or not - these deaths against the freedoms we enjoy, and decide whether or not the carnage is worth it. In case you hadn't noticed, this kind of assessment is the very thinking that makes us the good guys, and separates us from those who kill wantonly and indiscriminately. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hi Crypto Thanks for that balanced response. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the sanctity of human life, and the right to life, are each the fundamental value and right that all others hang off. Having the right to say what you like is not much use if others have the capacity and inclination to remove your life and terminate your existence at will. Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course there is a difference. One is deliberate, the other accidental. But, I suspect that, to those innocents who end up dead, that difference is pretty academic. The point is that, in the warped psychology of an extremist, collateral damage becomes the excuse for terrorist rampages. As a matter of mere tactics, we would do well to minimise collateral damage, and consider it a fatal failure when it occurs, and report it with the same prominence we allocate to the effects of a terrorist rampage in our own countries. Best wishes, 2RM

Indeed it does. It's just that, as George Orwell put it, 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals'. My contention is simply that, until all animals are absolutely equal, our sentiments about freedom of expression are founded on sand. Where there is injustice, there will inevitably be revolt. Just so. My point was not about how bad they are, for which they must answer, but about our own complacently held inconsistencies, for which we must answer. This is so horribly biased I am at a loss for a cutting reply. It demonstrates my point, perfectly. Our casualties are fighting for freedom. Their casualties, even non-combatant casualties, even women and children, are complicit in their own, and others, subjugation. So, I'll make do with truth. Not all civilians are complicit in the regime they find themselves subjected to. Nor is it in any way reasonable to define civilians who die in wars prosecuted by the west as complicit in opposition to western 'enlightenment' values. Best wishes, 2RM.

No one, who has followed recent events in France, and who has a liberal bone in their body, can fail to condemn the brutal murders of journalists, bystanders and police in the name of 'the prophet'. But I just wonder if some double standard chickens are not coming home to roost. Why was there not a similar sized demonstration against the killing of civilians in Gaza? Why was there not condemnation against the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars? Who spoke out against 'collateral damage' in Afghanistan? My suggestion is that the Western media, indeed, the west in general, does not value Muslim lives to the extent it values western lives. When we value all lives equally, then, and only then, it seems to me we will have the moral high ground from which to proclaim 'freedom of speech' a universal good. Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually, Traveler, as I read this, I thought we were beginning to make some progress. I thought we were discussing how, given the required resources, to make the poor comfortably off, or at least less poor. That would be constructive. But, you had to finish with an ad hominem side-swipe you are in no position to make. Admit it; you have no idea what charities I support, and to what extent. Your remarks in this respect are mere rhetoric and entirely irrelevant. Retract them, and let's talk about how to provide the poor with addiction therapies, other health care, education, an opportunity to earn money, etc, and where the resources to do this on a global scale are to come from. Best wishes, 2RM.

As for hair-flips, then, it doesn't apply. I don't see myself as 'better', just different. It takes time to turn a world view around, whether mine, or yours. As for how 'saving the world plays out' I don't have a preferred scenario in this respect, either. If we all do our bit, according to our circumstances, it will happen, eventually. If none of us do, it won't. Best wishes, 2RM.

To Vort, and Mordorbund, and any others following this thread. Hmmm. I hope you do not misunderstand me by thinking that I think money alone will solve the poverty issue. That is not my position. But that money, 4% of world's 225 greatest fortunes would, according to the UN*, would be sufficient to resolve the problem given that other necessary factors are put into place. These other factors range widely, from good governance to sustainable lifestyles. The point is that the money is a sine qua non, an enabling factor. Without it we can't do what we need to, as quickly as we might; with it, we have the potential to solve the poverty problem for good and all. As for the rich, doing more than they need, well I did take that to be tongue in cheek, and therefore have not addressed the point, til now. I accept that some wealthy people are doing more than their fair share, as some poor people are. If your list of virtuous rich people included the Sultans and the Emirs of Brunei and of the Middle East, the Sheikhs and petty sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsular, maybe a few Russian oligarchs, perhaps the odd African demagogue, possibly an Indian entrepreneur or two, then I might be more impressed by it. But these rich people are the same rich people who employ expensive tax accountants to minimise their civil liabilities abroad, and generally bend laws at home to suit themselves, rather than the poorest amongst us. I cannot find that such are Christian tactics, or that supporting them are. Best wishes, 2RM * Ignacio Ramonet, "The politics of hunger" Le Monde Diplomatique November 1998.

I'll have a look at your thread. Meanwhile, your question is about realpolitik. Since you ask my opinion, I will give it, in all it's stark naivite, and principled politics. I am, at heart, a liberal. My general position is that people should be at liberty to go to hell in their own way, free of interference. However, that freedom stops when they, deliberately or accidentally, cause harm to others. At this point, I think, the government has a right and duty to step in, and adjudicate the best way to reconcile competing interests. And the denial of resources to people who need them, in favour of people who just want them, and more and more of them, crosses this line in the sand for me. Anyway, specific to your query, I would tend to be relaxed about sexual peccadilloes which do little harm in the grand scheme of things, and less relaxed about the interference with the scientific enterprise on which humanity's whole future depends. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear all; Despite your comments, I still view the American Government, as the democratic expression of the American people, as a force for good in the world. For me, it would be a crying shame if your government were to lose it's legitimacy because it was no longer supported by it's people. As regards your other points, I will reply in due course, as time and inclination permit. Best wishes, 2RM.

Mordorbund, my friend, I have no church, no special spiritual home. That is part of the reason I am here, looking for something congenial. Meanwhile, all of Christianity is where I live. Best, 2RM.

Yes, this is a key point, and has to do with all your answers. It is not immediately obvious to me, however, that people will only work if they are incentivised by some profit motive. Plenty of people work for the betterment of mankind, or the discovery of truth, or the advancement of justice, or the expression of their creativity, without any need to resort to selfish gain, at all. They simply find some calling, greater than themselves, and lend their allegiance to it. These seem to me to be honourable motives, and more so than a simple, mercenery desire to get as rich as possible, as quick as possible. Even if people were only motivated by profit, it might just be that if people were liberated from the crushing disability of poverty, we would have a more free, more rich, more vibrant human community. Simple economics suggests that more businesses and livlihoods would be supported if more people had the capital to invest. The problem you highlight, however, is a real one. It is the 'free-loader' problem. Some people will inevitably take advantage. 1) Humanity is very good at spotting freeloaders, even potential freeloaders, as you have just demonstrated. Do you really think those who want to live of the wealth of others, or state handouts, will get away with it? 2) Meanwhile, is our suspicion of possible freeloaders locking us out of an altogether better world? Best wishes, 2RM.