2ndRateMind

So, suppose you lived in some society, somewhere (let's call it Utopia, for the sake of argument), where the powers that be decided that the strongest in wealth and power had some kind of moral obligation to succour the weakest in wealth and power - up to a certain point. That point being my (admittedly ill-defined, but nevertheless comprehensible) notion of an austere but reasonably dignified standard of living. And suppose they wrote legislation to implement that moral obligation as society policy. Why would this way of life, for the least of us, be dishonest, seeing as how the greatest could easily afford it, without being any less great? Or are only the rich 'honest'? I might add, it could also be mutually beneficial, for both rich and poor, seeing as crimes of necessity (such as theft to feed one's hungry children) are liable to decrease, and fitness for work and the quality of work they are fit for, liable to increase amongst the poor. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think that is so true, I have requoted you in bold. Best wishes, 2RM.

I would agree with this, and most whole heartedly, were it not for the fact that humanity requires certain basics on a regular basis simply to survive, and that a good portion of humanity are denied these basics by the economic situation in which they find themselves, and that charity alone has proven insufficient to meet their needs. So, when no one is hungry, malnourished or starving, by all means then let us make a virtue of self-reliance. But until then let us not complain if a certain proportion of our tax burden goes towards the sustainable alleviation of absolute poverty at home and abroad. If you would like to help speed the day when redistributive taxation is no longer necessary, here's a link to one charity among many for you to consider supporting. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm not sure I see why, to revert to an earlier point I made in the thread, it is unjust, socially or otherwise, to question the current skewed world distribution of wealth, and want to see it spread more equitably. Perhaps you can explain. Best wishes, 2RM.

Is this all behaviour you accuse African Americans of, then? Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I tend to be of the view that if a topic is controversial, and arouses passion, then maybe likely enough that topic is important. And that, every so often, even we Christians should discuss important topics. If the thread generated in that spirit is 'trolling' I plead guilty. But I suspect you mean something different by the term, to do with denigrating anyone who disturbs complacency and departs from received and conventional wisdom. I must say, I take some comfort from the observation that civilisation has progressed such that whereas all I need do is suffer a few paltry insults, Jesus was nailed to a cross for that transgression. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I rather think that if the situation were reversed, and only 3 Caucasians were CEOs of fortune 500s, you would be kicking up a stink all round. And, it may surprise you to learn, were that to be the case, I would endorse that stink whole-heartedly. But it isn't. So I don't. Best wishes, 2RM. PS. Oh, and by the way, that's me done for the night. But by all means talk amongst yourselves. Sweet dreams!

I will oppose any social injustice, anywhere, anytime. Now, will you answer my question? Best wishes, 2RM.

You haven't answered my question about the reason for the under-representation. You seem to be implying though, that there are only three African American CEOs of fortune 500 companies because African Americans generally just aren't competent. Is that what you mean? And if you do, do you think that is because of the nature of African Americans, or their nurture? Best wishes, 2RM.

Another dupe

I can't. It would take too much space, but it may become clearer as we continue the discussion. Just so. And provided a statistic chosen at random to demonstrate that. I'm not fixated on skin colour. For the purposes of this thread, I'm fixated on social justice. (The clue is in the title). But race, like sex, sexuality and age, is one of the demarcation lines of society, and if some minority group is excluded from privilege, I want to know why? And how is that justified? Best wishes, 2RM.

Dupe.

Hmmmm. I'm not interested in my world view. I already know what it is. I'm even less interested in your interpretation of my world view, which has consistently been inaccurate. I'm interested in your world view. Why do you think it the case that African Americans are so under-represented at CEO level in fortune 500 companies? And if that is because they are unqualified, why do you think they are unqualified? Best wishes, 2RM.

Even if true, and it may be, why do you think it is that African Americans are less qualified for those CEO positions? Best wishes, 2RM.

Raising impossible expectations amongst minority groups, and then blaming them for the failure to meet those expectations due to the discriminations and disadvantages they face is also immoral and evil, I think. Somewhere, between these two conceptions of immoralities and evils there must lie a middle ground where the truth of the matter is to be found. So, with a little googling, I came up with the following figures. Black African Americans account for 12.7% of the population of the US. There are three Black African American CEO's of fortune 500 companies. Were there no social biases at play, one would expect more than 60. Best wishes, 2RM.

Interesting. I am not sure many Spanish would agree with you! But I have never been to the Philippines, though I would love to visit, and so I will take your word for it. But I will make the same point I made to @boxer, that in the grand scheme of things, corruption makes no difference as to whether we succour the hungry, only to what is the most effective way to do that, and how to ensure the solutions we provide are sustainable over the long term. Best wishes, 2RM.

I live in a Third World Country. The bolded above, I can guarantee you, is false. By all means, elucidate. All perspectives and points of view are welcome here, provided only that they can be substantiated by reason or experience. Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course it does. Societies persist. People don't. 100 years from now, someone else will be borrowing the resources you are currently enjoying. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm not sure you have entirely comprehended the unfortunate truth that what society lends us, society has every right to remove. And the other truth, perhaps a more fortunate one for those of us in the developed world, that aside from some trivial efforts on our part, pretty much all we have is by virtue of the society we happen to live in. If you doubt this, consider how your fortunes might have varied, had you been born a Dalit (Untouchable) in India. Or a Manchurian peasant. Or, perchance, an African day labourer. Indeed, I am tempted to think that the whole edifice of private property is no more than a convenient convention, designed by the wealthy to legitimise their wealth, which has no moral foundation at all. Nevertheless, I will admit that it is a convention that works reasonably well, for those with at least some wealth. And that it is bound to work reasonably better, if everyone had at least some wealth. And that is before we take into account any religiously inspired considerations, such as the idea that we do not own property at all, only hold it in stewardship on behalf of God for the benefit of each other. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. In civilised nations, theft is a crime. Robbery is a crime. Corruption is a crime. But they are not all the same crime, though there may be some overlap. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed not. But you were the one implying that Africans should buy tractors. I was just pointing out that this is not a realistic prospect for the poor. EF Schumacher* is good on this, and talks about 'appropriate technology', that people can buy, use, maintain and repair in a low income environment. It may well be that for most of the poor, hand tools are the most appropriate technology. But often enough, they lack even those. Best wishes, 2RM *Schumacher E, (1973), Small is Beautiful, Abacus Books: London.

Simples. Corrupt elections. The intimidation, imprisonment and even murder of the opposition. I am sure if you google you will find plenty of evidence of such. Best wishes, 2RM.

So because Mugabe ransacked and trashed the Zimbabwean economy, all Africans have a culture of robbery and theft? I'm not sure that's a particularly strong justification even for a stereotype. And even if it was, it would just mean that we would have more work to do to change that culture, not that we should ignore the hungry altogether. Best wishes, 2RM.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support either of these assertions? Or do you just watch Fox News? My own experience is that the poor in the developing world are far more careful with their money than we in the profligate West. They need to be; their next meal depends on it. But, if you are, say, a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa on even $5 per day, which would make you really quite wealthy in local terms, and out of that you contrive to save $1 per day, it's still going to take you a heck of long time to save up sufficient for a Kubota tractor. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you @boxer, for that. It will far easier for me to read, note, mark and inwardly digest what you have to say if you can sustain this degree of polite conversation. As to producing; well, of course, most of the poor do work, and work long, hard hours for mean reward. A friend of mine, when I was at college, pointed out that the reality of life is that you either have time, or money, but never them both, simultaneously. And I think that is true for most of us in the developed world, most of the time. Nevertheless, we are seeing arising, due to untrammelled globalisation, a situation where some have considerable excesses of money, and all the time they want, and many have neither time nor money. And the child in me cries out: that's just not fair! Best wishes, 2RM.