2ndRateMind

Over here, we have a tradition of blessing the apple trees, called 'wassailing'. It's very pagan, and we don't mess around, cooking. We just use cider, and live with the subsequent hangover! Best wishes, 2RM.

I have long thought that some people are not Christians because they simply do not want to be Christians. I was one of them. For such as these, any objection to the Christian world-view is sufficient to throw the whole edifice of faith away. A virgin birth? A speaking serpent? A global flood? Don't make me laugh. And those dinosaur thingies - on which day did God create them, only to destroy them all, later? On the other hand, we cannot simply change our beliefs - interwoven as they are with our whole world view - just because we want to. If we think a thing to be false, we cannot, however much we might want to, believe it. Conversely, if we think a thing to be true, we cannot, however much we might want to, disbelieve it. Our beliefs, and our volition, seem at least to this extent to be independent. If you doubt this, try this experiment. Become a Muslim for the next five minutes, and then revert back to your Christian beliefs. If you succeed, I stand refuted. Yet, most Christian denominations that I have come across seem to think that the quality of our hereafter depends primarily, sometimes even solely, on what we believe. So, my question is this. How is it just that heaven depends on a matter beyond our control? If our beliefs are not a matter of our volition, why should we be held accountable for them? I'm interested in the LDS perspective on this matter, which seems to me to be an important one. Best wishes, 2RM

Estradling75, I, too, get the impression that work is being done, and good work, and vital work. The thing I don't get though, is a sense of an overview, of a strategy, of co-ordinated effort to ensure to most effective deployment of scarce resources. I am not, lest you think this, advocating the appointment of some civil servant to the role of 'global central controller of saving the world'. I am more thinking of a conversation between all involved, perhaps in a journal, or on a website, where we can celebrate achievements, analyse failures, and study next priorities, and how best to tackle them. Backroads, by 'saving souls' do you mean converting people to Christianity, or guaranteeing them a place in heaven? Because I am not sure we can do either. Faith, and heaven, are both gifts outside our control. What we can do, however, is demonstrate the difference Christianity makes to a life, and one very good method of doing that is to tackle economic injustice, wholesale. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Not quite sure where you inferred those ideas from. I'm interested in the whole of Christendom rising to this challenge. We have the means, we have the ways, we have the expertise. We have the example of sacrifice, in Jesus, and His trust in us. I honestly do not know what more we need, than His love, in our hearts. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. There will, I suspect, never be enough volunteers. Some people think that neutering stray tom cats is the best way to reduce the sum of misery in the world (at least for kittens, anyway). Well, we are all entitled to our priorities, and to pursue them as we see fit. The best we can do is keep the dialog open, keep talking, keep persuading, keep recruiting to the cause, even while simultaneously living the cause. As for corruption; well it's an issue, of course. But I think it's less of an issue than an excuse not to engage, a reason to think; 'well, whatever I donate will end up in the hands of corrupt leader, so I might as well keep my money for myself.' My own feeling is that any intelligent philanthropist will be able to find a way through corruption, if he/she is committed enough to do that. Best wishes, 2RM.

Absolutely totally voluntary. You gain no spiritual stature by being forced to do a good thing, only by choosing to do it out of your heart's conviction. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I can see your point. Despite that, I'm happy with a loose definition, though. It seems to me perfectly in order that, as society progresses, so should the idea of a basic necessity. In the short term, however, we can be quite specific about how many calories a person needs to avoid malnourishment and starvation, and the kind of medical interventions required to avoid, say, malaria, bilharzia or polio. We are quite entitled to demand maximum bang for our buck; if we can spend $1000 to provide high energy food for a hundred hungry people for a month, or $1000 to provide a week's worth of cancer chemotherapy for one unfortunate individual, then I think we would be justified to take a utilitarian view of the matter, and promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. As for who decides? Well, I am persuaded by the idea that those donating should have the definitive say. And, that if we want that say, we should be prepared to make that donation. Best wishes, 2RM.

That is so true. Handouts of basics do not inspire. They are not meant to. Their purpose is solely to save lives. What people subsequently do with that life is entirely their own affair. They can use it, or waste it, according to their own inclination, in the best of libertarian tradition. The important thing is, that they have it. I am a little disappointed by the objections I have so far encountered to this idea of fundamental security for everyone. John Rawls, in his 'A Theory of Justice', posits a pre-natal veil of ignorance concerning our role in the world. We are to imagine we are conscious, before being deposited on Earth. We do not, however, know our parents, our nation, the social set, the wealth or the position we will be born into. But, we can decide the kind of world our world will be; whether, for example, wealth will be distributed evenly, or concentrated into the hands of a lucky few, as it is now. What kind of world would we choose? The idea of the question is to separate out distributive justice from our vested interest in the world as it is, and I bring it to your attention because I have enjoyed pondering over it, and hope you will, too. Best wishes, 2RM.

While applauding your sentiments, I think we need to be clear about what a nanny state actually is. A nanny state is not any old state that meets the basic requirements of it's citizens. The fact that a state might meet the need for defence with an army, say, does not make it a nanny state. Nor does the supply of an elected legislature, a police force, an independent judiciary, and a set of penal facilities, to meet the requirements for the rule of law. The thing that makes a nanny state such is when it gets above itself, and starts to curtail the freedom of it's citizens 'in their own best interests'. A nanny state, for example, might ban smoking, on the grounds that it is bad for the health. Or it might ban skiing, because people might injure themselves. Or it might insist on a calorie controlled diet and hour's daily exercise for all of it's unfortunate populace. (Incidentally, a real world example of nanny stating can be found in my own nation, the UK. During the first world war, alcohol licensing laws were enacted, restricting the hours public houses might open. The rationale for this move was to reduce the opportunity for workers to drink, and thus increase the productivity of a desperately important wartime economy. This was not nanny stating, but simple expediency; nanny stating came after the war ended, and those laws were not immediately repealed, as no longer necessary. Instead, they persisted for nearly one hundred years more, as conducive to public order, and to minimise public access to drink, patronisingly considered to be in the public's own best interests) So, in my opinion, providing essentials like adequate food, clean water, shelter, sanitation, primary education and health care for even the least and most vulnerable of citizens, well, this kind of supply is not the mark of a nanny state, but of a well functioning state meeting it's right and proper obligations to it's citizens. If those citizens want better than a basic provision, and I hope and expect they would, then they should be at complete liberty to earn that for themselves, and the state should encourage this. All good things are built on sound foundations; this plan to save the world in the secular sense is to see implemented the fundamental essentials of a reasonably dignified existence for everyone, regardless of who they are. This is quite different to nanny stating, which would involve telling people how to live their lives, as if I knew better than them what would bring them fulfillment. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed, without purpose, people die. One cannot, however, grant or impose purpose. That is something people need to discover for themselves, and it needs to be their own. The best we can do is to prevent the tragedies of wholly avoidable deaths; the rest is up to each one of us, given security, to make the best we can of our lives. I'm inclined to think, however, that the problem in your example is less with the principle of eradicating poverty, and more with the extent. If you straight out give someone everything they want, there is clearly no incentive for them to earn it, with all the spirit-strength that demands and subsequently rewards. My proposal is less ambitious; I merely want to see the end of deaths by hunger and avoidable disease. After that, it's up to us all to compete for the surplus wealth that is expressed as country houses, penthouse flats, super-yachts and private jets, if indeed we think such a pursuit worth the effort. Best wishes, 2RM. PS. The impression I got from your quoted article is that substance abuse and suicides are correlated, not welfare and suicides.

Yes, Vort, I think it is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, it is one I often come across. So many people think that the spiritual is separate from the political; perhaps because Jesus was such an astute operator His politics are never overt, only ever inferred. And perhaps because religion and politics together are such an explosive mix that these two topics, still today, are banned from discussion in a British army officer's mess. Despite this wise policy, however, if one wants to deal with the truly important things in life, sooner or later one has to confront the questions: who gets what? and who, and by what right, says so? So, I want to propose a tentative answer, and see what you all make of it. The idea is that by ensuring a just and kind world, by meeting each other's needs and consigning want to history, we fortunate wealthy western christian people gain in spiritual capital. By saving the world, we save ourselves. Our spiritual stature can be measured by the extent to which we can perceive injustice in economic matters, the extent to which we abhor it, and, importantly, the extent to which we are prepared to sacrifice our own immediate interests to end it. The same courage, wisdom and goodness - the same love - that enables us to forego our own plenty for the sake of another's necessity, why, these are the very same sort of riches as heaven is made of. And they will only be, can only be, properly appreciated by those that know their cost, having paid it themselves. As for this notion of a class of dependents, accustomed to the idea that their very humanity entitles them to a reasonably dignified existence, free of hunger, preventable disease, and premature death; well, I am inclined to agree with them. Moreover, I have enough faith in the human spirit to believe that this dependency would not be a permanent condition; that freed of the burden of poverty related vicissitudes they would soon enough be as productive as anyone else. Best wishes, 2RM.

Be relaxed about this. If your conscience is quiet, then you can be reasonably sure you are on the right track. Best wishes, 2RM.

If you're a religious person, you'll ultimately feel that the most urgent is to save one's soul, and everything else is secondary to that... If you're not a religious person, you might not even believe in souls, etc. But you might have the desire to give charity to those that need food, water, and shelter. And this might even be more important than ensuring someone has a belief system. ... Yes, I think that is a fair point. Whether to save someone's body, for now, or soul, for eternity. Or is there, here, a necessary confliction? Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I guess this is my mission. Someone has to do it. There are two, clear, distinct, interpretations of this idea. One is religious, the other secular. The religious idea is to convert everyone to Christianity, and, ideally, one's own version of Christianity. The secular notion is simply to ensure everyone gets enough to eat, clean water to drink, housing, sanitation, and primary education and health care. Which, in your opinion, is the most urgent, and why? Best wishes, 2RM

Hmmm. I don't want to be more specific about my widgets, for two reasons. Firstly, I don't want to be seen to be using the forum for advertising purposes. And secondly, and more importantly, I think we can talk about pricing strategies as ethical or unethical in abstract of the product, and market, and corporation. And I'm more interested, in this thread, on zeroing in on the ethics, than any other consideration. I applaud your young teen. I am not talking about a charitable enterprise, however, any more than Microsoft is a charity, however Bill Gates may choose to spend his earnings. If it helps, my personal 'mission' is to generate enough income for me to forego social security benefits, earn my own living, and get to a position where I can contribute to society again, rather than drain from it. My company mission (in abstract terms) is to get a useful product to people at a fair price. It seems to me to be an ethical failing of capitalism that this is different to the mission of most corporates. But it still leaves me requiring to determine; what is a fair price? And why is that price 'fair'? Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks, guys, for your inputs. I like the yacht, though I prefer sailing catamarans. I intend to call mine Storm Dancer. Anyway, that is beside the point, for now. Firstly, we have to tackle the idea that the maximum (presumably) price the market will bear is the ethical price to charge for a widget. Suppose my widgets are useful to everyone, but not so useful they will die without it. Suppose this is an original idea, but not patented and not protected from competition right now. But suppose, right now, there is no competition and that it will take those clever copiers in China about a year to catch on and catch up. There is no market price, yet, because widgets have yet to be unleashed on the unsuspecting world and no market price has been established. Suppose widgets cost $x to make. Should my pricing bear any relationship at all to $x, other than exceeding it? If not, given there is no established market price, how to set that pricing? How to discover the maximum price the market will bear? And is this price maximisation strategy 'ethical', at all? Would not a 'utility' maximising strategy be more ethical, given that the world has finite resources to be shared out, and widgets, by their physical nature, involve the deployment of some of them? Best wishes, 2RM.

So, despite everything, I have decided to launch a new company. I will be producing widgets. The success of my nascent company is not in doubt. Everyone needs a widget. But anyone who has read any of my posts will realise I have moral scruples about wealth. So I want to ask this question of you all: how should I price my widgets? Should I charge cost price plus a percentage? Should I charge (as Karl Marx would want) for my labour only, and what rate should I charge my labour at? Should I charge some figure that guarantees me a lot of sales, so that most people will be able to afford, and benefit from, my widgets? Should I charge some figure that maximises my profit/ return on my investment? Should I charge some figure that optimises my effort/return ratio? Should I charge each person differently, according to what they can afford to pay? Maybe there is some other formula I haven't thought of, that you can suggest. I'd be grateful to know about it. Anyway, the idea is not to make a load of money, but to arrive at an ethical solution to the pricing dilemma, which any of you who have been in business at the sharp pointy sales end will recognise. What is a fair price to charge for a widget, in your opinion, and why do you think that that method of charging is fair? Best wishes, 2RM.

I know you guys spit every time you hear the phrase 'public health care', but illness hit me when I least expected it, in a way I least expected it. 3 hospital stays of around 3 weeks, medication for life, cost to me at point of need? zilch. nada. nothing. I may have paid out in taxes over the years I was employed, but the peace of mind and quality of care it bought was absolutely worth it. And the idea that I might have overpaid, and bought someone else's peace of mind, as well? That's good, too. Best wishes, 2RM.

Rich isn't the problem. I want everyone rich. The issue is, rich when others are so poor they starve. As for virtue. Well, that is said to be it's own reward. And it is one that cannot be taken from you. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think it's a good gift. I've never felt it though, consciously, and I'm far from sure I deserve it. What I have felt, though, is the way God loves everyone else, and so intensely, I could only stand it for moments, and asked for that to go. This ecstasy of love, equal parts joy and pain, left me, but left me transformed. If you feel God loves you, be sure He does, and more than you can know. Best wishes, 2RM.

Congratulations on your recovery. Hope you just get better and better. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm not entirely persuaded. There are nations, particularly in South and Central America, and in Asia, where capitalism has been allowed to run riot, with no benefit to the poor whatsoever. They still work in dangerous sectors like mining, or in garment sweat shops, for next to no pay and with working conditions best described as inhuman. On the other hand, the US and Europe are comparatively wealthy nations with plenty of opportunity, a history of social activism, and a philosophical conviction that all humanity is created equal. It is not surprising that here, the poor might be less poor in relative terms. Best wishes, 2RM.

Interesting OP. It seems to me a somewhat cynical, mercenary proposition, though, that families should remain intact because that way they will be richer, and so will be the offspring. Even at my advanced age, I'm romantic enough to believe in love and happiness, and that these considerations should be fundamental to the longevity of a marriage. I might add that correlation is not causation. It just may not be that a sustained marriage causes offspring success. It may be that the stresses caused by poverty, or ill-health, or poor educational attainment, and/or other factors, like alcoholism or drug addiction, affect both the stability of a marriage and the subsequent success of the children. It may be also that wealth is instrumental to both long marriages and offspring success. If this is true, then we should be tackling the causes of low achievement, and not, in marital breakdown, one of the symptoms of it. It's my belief that happy marriages are made by happy people being together, and that unhappy people being together does not make for a long marriage, and nor should it. Best wishes, 2RM.

I shouldn't worry about Demon Haunted World. The author's allegiance to truth shines through on every page, and, so far as I can make out, every truth is God's Truth. Best wishes, 2RM.

Just so. If God chose evolution as his method of manifesting intelligent life, there is nothing surprising in the idea that that process might eventually produce some being capable of communion with Him. The bone of contention is this idea of 'nothing butness'. Are these (alleged) quirks nothing but quirks, or do they have deeper significance? Best wishes, 2RM.