2ndRateMind

From my brief readings in ethics, it would seem that there are three main academic approaches to morality: Consequentialism. The morality of an activity depends on the outcome of that activity. A typical example would be classic utilitarianism; 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' should be the test to apply. The pagan injunction to 'Do as ye wish, an' ye harm none', would be another. Virtue ethics. A righteous act is an act typical of a righteous person. Righteousness flows out of good moral character. The ancient Greeks believed something like this, and the approach has recently been revived among moral philosophers. Deontology. Ethics is a matter of following prescribed rules, often with a claim to divine provenance. One keeps the law, because the law demands you keep the law. Orthodox Judaism, and Islamic submission to the will of God, are both good examples here. Which of these three approaches, outcome, character or rule, would be most consistent with LDS doctrine? Or, do you have an entirely different view about what makes a moral act moral? Thanks and best wishes, 2RM.

This is the classic defence of the wealthy when called to task on the nature of greed or sin of avarice. Our conservative lady prime minister, the late unlamented Margaret Thatcher, once confused her economics with theology by pointing out that, had the Good Samaritan no money, he would have been unable to help the needy traveller. The problem here is a matter of action, not status. If the wealthy were demonstrably becoming less wealthy by their succour of the poor, the sick, the marginal, the oppressed, - blimey, even neutering stray cats, whatever it is they might think most wrong with the world - I might have some sympathy with this position. But the figures show that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, and the poor, poorer. That is the way capitalism works. It sucks wealth out of the 'have-nots', and deposits it with the 'haves'. Those that have advantages, exploit them. Those that don't, can't begin to compete. That is why we need governments to tax and redistribute in our own societies, and, hopefully, spend a little in foreign aid. Because the rich have proven, time and again, that they aren't easily going to be parted from their wealth, and that they are not 'Good Samaritans'. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think these are useful distinctions to make. I would be tempted though, to divide the poor into two groups; the relatively poor, and the absolutely poor. The relatively poor being those who have sufficient to meet immediate needs, but aren't doing quite so well as their contemporaries. The absolutely poor being those who cannot meet their immediate needs, and suffer hunger. Clearly we have a moral duty to succour the absolutely poor, so far as we are able, but no such duty to the relatively poor. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks for that, and the link. Interesting. I'm an Englishman, so we don't do guns and bullets and surface to air missiles and stuff to quite the same extent you guys seem to in the States. For most of us, prepping is about having stores to last us if we need to stay in, and a place to go, and the equipment as needed, if we need to leave home. Killing people is discouraged, even in emergencies. Cheers, 2RM.

I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and righteous. Indeed, I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and in any way moral. This is a tough position for Americans to take on board, I know. I just don't understand how one might be, say, a millionaire, and simultaneously ignore the plight of the fully one third of the world's population, some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less than $1 per day, and then claim to be 'righteous'. I know I am not particularly righteous, or moral, but I know also that if I ever had that sort of money, it would very quickly be spent to improve the lot of the hungry, and my scant knowledge of the Gospels leads me to believe that this would be what Jesus would do, too. Best wishes, 2RM

Hi new buddies I'm a brand new newbie. I like wine, food, making toy houses and discussing how to make the world a better place. I'm not a mormon, but I'm not anti-mormon either. So, one of the other things I do is prep for bad times, in a fairly haphazard sort of way. One thing I have noticed is that the LDS church is well represented on prepping forums, and I'm wondering if this is a group theological thing or just a demonstration of like-minded individual common sense? If it's a group thing, does LDS teaching have an end-times position, and what is it? If it's individual common sense, does the LDS support philosophically a prepping mentality, to make so many of you so sensible? Best wishes, 2RM.