"You can't judge people on their lifestyle"

[Vort]

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?

 

The ethical answer arising is: We allow men the fruits of their own labors. If they choose idleness or addiction, we allow them the bitter fruits of those choices. If they choose hard work and innovation, we allow them the sweet fruits of those labors. Thus are men free to choose and to enjoy (or rue) the consequences of their choices.

[2ndRateMind]

Maybe it would be wise to

 

so

Would all be a judgement on appearance. Which would be unrighteous.

I would add to this list

• Wealth

Judging someone on wealth and not what this person is doing with it would be judgement of the appearance of wealth. If we are not to judge on the appearance this would be unrighteous judgement. (which equally applies to the poor and the wealthy)

 

And with all things as some good humble advise

 

Many of the other factors Vort has listed above aren't about appearance, and would not be explicitly condemned. 

 

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.

Edited January 15, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

The ethical answer arising is: We allow men the fruits of their own labors. If they choose idleness or addiction, we allow them the bitter fruits of those choices. If they choose hard work and innovation, we allow them the sweet fruits of those labors. Thus are men free to choose and to enjoy (or rue) the consequences of their choices.

 

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.

Edited January 15, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

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.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Really, 2RM, you should drop your blatant agenda and your biasing filters long enough to read what's written.

[2ndRateMind]

Really, 2RM, you should drop your blatant agenda and your biasing filters long enough to read what's written.

 

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.

[NightSG]

Can you judge people at all? Perhaps that depends on what you mean by "judge". Our society is built on the idea that you can, and should, judge people, where "judge" means "assess fitness for a particular function". This is not regarding the government, of course, but of people in general.

 

If we're not to judge people at all, then we must trust everyone implicitly.  We should also marry the first member of the opposite sex we see upon coming of marriagable age, since picking one by any other means would require judging.

 

Personally, I try not to judge anyone by the hand they were dealt in life, but I certainly will judge them by what they choose to do with it.

[Vort]

 

Why should I?

 

Hmmm. Honesty, perhaps?

 

I'm having a ball!

 

So this is not about information exchange. It's purely about your personal entertainment.

 

You know you have no case to make, and I enjoy demonstrating that.

 

But you have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Rather, you attack silly straw men and pretend that's equivalent to showing something of substance.

 

All your insults, besides this basic truth, have no traction.

 

Which insults might those be?

[Crypto]

 

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, implies a disdain for ordinary morality.

 

Best, 2RM.

What I stated had little to nothing to do with the retention of wealth versus lack and therefore starvation and the morality of such.

 

It had to do with righteous judgement, and was relevant to the original topic. As such your response to me does not follow.

The underlined portion is relevant. 

Judgement on what people appear, or have and have not, is a superficial judgement. A judgement on appearance*. Does a person have  skin. Does a person have [amount of] money. Passing judgement based on such an assertion is what I am referring to.

 

 

 

*note rather than sticking to the strict denotative definition i'm using what seems to be a accurate to my understanding and more inclusive connotative definition of the word "appearance"

have can be replaced with have not, and can be expanded to include other things of outward appearance.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Crypto

[2ndRateMind]

...you can't fix poverty without fixing poverty culture.

 

An important point.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

 

Hmmm. Honesty, perhaps?

 

 

So this is not about information exchange. It's purely about your personal entertainment.

 

 

But you have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Rather, you attack silly straw men and pretend that's equivalent to showing something of substance.

 

 

Which insults might those be?

 

 

 

I offer a deal. You quit accusing me of bias, etc, and stop the insults, and I will treat your posts with greater seriousness. Hopefully, this way, the forum will gain in some increase of intellectual level.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

I offer a deal. You quit accusing me of bias, etc, and stop the insults, and I will treat your posts with greater seriousness. Hopefully, this way, the forum will gain in some increase of intellectual level.

 

I am not "accusing" you of bias. I am pointing out the obvious fact that you are biased, and that in that particular case, you were allowing your biases to blind you to what I was saying.

 

Treat my posts with as much or as little seriousness as you please. If the intellectual level in this discussion has been dragged down, you have only to look in a mirror to find the culprit.

[Blackmarch]

"Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum"

 

Augustine's quote there is better known by its somewhat paraphrased English equivalent, "love the sinner but hate the sin." There's a sense in which we can judge people, and a sense in which we cannot. The church in the story is free to judge the woman's actions as sinful, and in fact has an obligation to protect its members from the perceived sin. It is important, however, to remain charitable in casting such judgments.

 

We absolutely cannot cast judgments upon another person's soul, as that particular duty is God's alone. All we can do when confronted with sinners is instruct them as best we know how and pray for them with as much charity as possible. 

the hard part is keeping the two seperate.