Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[Sonic Doctor]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

Agreed, I just don't see how some people don't get that connection. Though they will probably hide behind the idea that is the law that the money is being taken, so that is okay. But, it isn't right even if it is the law, because that is saying by law theft is okay if it is for someone who needs it.

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

Comparing to what Agayek said above, if some poor person robs a rich person, or anyone for that matter, it is a crime, theft. But, it is okay to just take somebody's money because someone else needs it?

In both cases someone needs the money, but I believe it is wrong in both cases, it is theft.

Here is another thing, you talk about somebody being born rich. Yeah, he might not have done anything to deserve it, but it doesn't mean the money isn't his. Being deserving has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of inheritance. The money that the rich kid gets more than likely, a family member bequeathed it to the person in his or her will. It was that person's last wish that the money go to this person, his or her family member. This is basically for the soul purpose that the family member doesn't have to worry about money.

If I won the lottery, and I became some great multi-millionaire, or I actually did something that earned me that money. Yeah, I'll give some of it to charity, but the bulk will stay in my family, and I would leave it to my future family members when I die, because I don't want them to have to want for anything. I'd be pretty pissed if someone came to my family member or family members that I gave the money to and told them that they didn't deserve it and took it to give to somebody else.

This whole "deserving" thing is for the birds. If people have money because somebody to wanted them to have it, they are as deserving as anybody else.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Increase equality and greater freedom will follow.

Freedom (economic at least) won't create equality.

They are mutually exclusive.

"Men and women are equal, under a tyrant's boot."

See that? You choose equality and get tyranny.

Wouldn't true equality imply that all men and women are equal? Doesn't this mean that this tyrant is equal to all men and women? Doesn't this mean the tyrant has no greater worth than any man or woman, and thus is no longer a tyrant?

If equality meant everyone was the leader of a country, then Feminism is a movement of anarchists.

I don't quite see how feminism fits into this - feminism is not about anarchy or leadership, it's about the inequalities between women and men; anarchism or any such ideal doesn't come into it. I did not mention feminism, and it is not relevant in my point

My point is that with true equality, there would be no place for tyranny.

You didn't see my point? Really? You really see no point in that analogy? The same point you pointed out? Yes there would be a place of tyranny. No matter how equal a country can be, tyranny can still happen.

?If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy? - James Madison.

Tyranny can come at any time, and anywhere. The more people forget the faster it comes. When people forget to uphold the freedom they fought for centuries ago, it all falls apart. Freedom is not a one time thing, it needs to be maintained. Gender equality and political equality are not the same.

Eh... feminism is not an apt analogy because it does not involve the state in the same way anarchism does. The statement that Feminism is a movement of anarchists is not sound because anarchism is not a point in feminism. I assume you are implying feminism is equality, and that is not the case - feminism is a type of equality, a branch of it, regarding only gender differences.

You have missed my main point anyway - if everyone was equal, there would be no tyrants, because everyone is equal. By definition this is true - if there is tyranny in a state of equality, there is no longer equality.

Said tyrant would have to be above all others in order to be a tyrant. If there is true equality, this tyrant would be equal to, not above, all others - hence, he would have no power, and thus would not be a tyrant.

What you're thinking of is political equality, a form of communism. That is not the same as gender equality, the one at hand. If gender equality meant no tyrants, than feminism would be against the government. However, it is not.

No structure means not even TRIBES can be formed. Everything humans have ever done was due to government. Without government, everything we worked for falls apart. Humans are social creatures, and depend on social structure. To take that away is a idealistic, and flawed, philosophy.

We're not talking about gender equality or feminism. We're talking about general equality - political equality. I'm not sure where you got gender equality from in this debate. I'm not saying feminism is against the government - i'm not even talking about feminism.

So are you saying we should be working for progress above all else? I don't believe so, I think we should be working for happiness, equality, and freedom above all else. What is the deal if what we've worked for falls apart - what have we worked for? A capitalist, oppression-governed greed-driven hierarchal society in which some people are worth less than others and live short unhappy lives oppressed by modernism? Fuck that.

 

[cgentero]

Equality, that is true equality, not equality under an oppressive force which negates the whole concept of equality, is to me the more preferable option. Societies where people are legally, socially, economically, etc. equal are often more peaceful and more happy.

 

[deserteagleeye]

Harrison Bergeron.

 

[Agayek]

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

Why does it matter if you would do it in that situation?

How one would likely behave in any given situation has no bearing on whether or not that behavior is morally just.

I can see mitigated punishment if the perpetrator was truly desperate, hell I'd even agree with that. That doesn't make theft any more acceptable or just however. It simply means I pity those who are desperate enough to resort to violating the social contract. No more.

 

[Baneat]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

You're both promoting the protection of personal liberties (The right to own shit without fear for being stolen)

And the infringement of it (Robin hooding)

I'm sticking to my guns with option A in thinking terms, but they are incompatible theories, and B causes some moral unease even still.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point

Yeah no. Don't insult me by trying to say I am socialist. What I was pointing out was socialist. In the other thing I quoted you on, you talking about taking money from some rich people because they didn't earn it, and give it to other people, that is socialist.

My mindset is capitalist. People earn money and then they deem what is the proper use for their money. If they want to pass the money down through the family, that is their freedom and choice.

I am a capitalist. People have work for their money, it is a system of hard work. It is a system where nobody else but the people that earn the money says what it is good for.

Everything I have said in this thread is of a capitalist mentality. It is a system where the lazy get left behind, it is a system where there is no such thing as government handouts. The problem with this country is that it doesn't foster a true capitalist system.

I am not anything else, but a Capitalist Pure Conservative.

 

[Xixikal]

We can never be free. Death is the only release from life, and I'm not so keen on that.
Equality is an ideal goal, one that I would see reached. However, due to humanity's... humanity, total equality is near impossible.

 

[spartan231490]

Recently, I was listening to talk radio with my father, and the pundit brought up something very interesting. He brought up freedom and equality, and their role in society. So, Escapists, what should civilization strive for more? Are there more important ideals to be focused on? Please discuss.

Freedom, god made us all free to make our own choices(evolution or intelligent design if that's more your belief, admittedly I'm on the intelligent design team myself), but he made us all somewhat unequal. Also, you can't force people to be equal, our society is specialized for unequal tasks, and trying to make us all equal is folly, freedom however, can be achieved. Also, you can never take freedom, we will always be free to make our own choices, you can only use force to enforce consequences we won't like for choices the gov't doesn't like, and ruling by force will always end poorly for both the people and the gov't eventually, it's a road to be avoided. Then again: "The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

Agreed, I just don't see how some people don't get that connection. Though they will probably hide behind the idea that is the law that the money is being taken, so that is okay. But, it isn't right even if it is the law, because that is saying by law theft is okay if it is for someone who needs it.

Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.

Comparing to what Agayek said above, if some poor person robs a rich person, or anyone for that matter, it is a crime, theft. But, it is okay to just take somebody's money because someone else needs it?

In both cases someone needs the money, but I believe it is wrong in both cases, it is theft.

Here is another thing, you talk about somebody being born rich. Yeah, he might not have done anything to deserve it, but it doesn't mean the money isn't his. Being deserving has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of inheritance. The money that the rich kid gets more than likely, a family member bequeathed it to the person in his or her will. It was that person's last wish that the money go to this person, his or her family member. This is basically for the soul purpose that the family member doesn't have to worry about money.

If I won the lottery, and I became some great multi-millionaire, or I actually did something that earned me that money. Yeah, I'll give some of it to charity, but the bulk will stay in my family, and I would leave it to my future family members when I die, because I don't want them to have to want for anything. I'd be pretty pissed if someone came to my family member or family members that I gave the money to and told them that they didn't deserve it and took it to give to somebody else.

This whole "deserving" thing is for the birds. If people have money because somebody to wanted them to have it, they are as deserving as anybody else.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

 

[Agayek]

Your ideology of 'equality' is flawed, as I have just stated. You are talking about 'forced equality', which as I have said in another post, is not equality. By equality, I mean we all have equal rights, equal freedoms, and an equal worth. That is true equality.

Equality doesn't mean we are forced to be the same - it may be a common product, but it is not necessary.

Except people are not equal, and so someone would have to make them equal. You've mentioned in your posts that everyone has different beliefs, opinions, values, etc, yet you fail to grasp the simple fact that those differences make people unequal.

The only way for everyone to have true equality is for everyone to be exactly the same, and that requires outside intervention.

 

[Baneat]

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

Why does it matter if you would do it in that situation?

How one would likely behave in any given situation has no bearing on whether or not that behavior is morally just.

I can see mitigated punishment if the perpetrator was truly desperate, hell I'd even agree with that. That doesn't make theft any more acceptable or just however. It simply means I pity those who are desperate enough to resort to violating the social contract. No more.

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point

Yeah no. Don't insult me by trying to say I am socialist. What I was pointing out was socialist. In the other thing I quoted you on, you talking about taking money from some rich people because they didn't earn it, and give it to other people, that is socialist.

My mindset is capitalist. People earn money and then they deem what is the proper use for their money. If they want to pass the money down through the family, that is their freedom and choice.

I am a capitalist. People have work for their money, it is a system of hard work. It is a system where nobody else but the people that earn the money says what it is good for.

Everything I have said in this thread is of a capitalist mentality. It is a system where the lazy get left behind, it is a system where there is no such thing as government handouts. The problem with this country is that it doesn't foster a true capitalist system.

I am not anything else, but a Capitalist Pure Conservative.

...ah. I see now.

Capitalism created hierarchy, which creates inequality, unbalancing freedom. I understand the notion of people working for their money, but it is a system run by greed, power, money, and inequality. It is a biased system. Especially given that we have to prove our eligibility to work, so only some people can actually get the opportunity to work for money. And we have to pay to prove our eligibility - it just doesn't work in a society which promotes equality and freedom (and it does - almost all western societies use red white and blue on their flag: "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" (sp?) in the words of the French).

I don't believe in a system where some people are less than others. There is so much wrong with capitalism in this regard - I won't go into it all, but ask me any specific question about it and I will answer.

 

[Agayek]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

 

[Baneat]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

Also: Your own preferred theory is designed to prevent anyone becoming moral authorities, it nerfs them so they can't do damage with it. What makes you the moral authority on what is needed and what is deserved? Can I not just do the same thing with anything, do whatever the fuck I want? I don't think that guy "deserved" to live, so I am justified in murdering him. Deserved being off my own code of ethics. Which are inconsistent.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it. It does no harm to he who doesn't need it, and it saves the life of someone who does need it. Denying this to someone who needs it is preposterous, selfish, and ridiculous.

As for the hypocritical thing... it is a personal flaw of mine, and I accept that, and I am, like everyone in this world, selfish. I would use the argument that this is my parents' internet connection and it's their money, not mine, but I know that I will pay for internet when I am living independently. My main gripe is money in excess though - internet has increasing importance in our society, with media being digitalised and such, so it is acceptable. But if you have money kicking around (which we don't) then it shouldn't belong to you.

I also have a thing with charity organisations, because it's always an official process, and nothing ever changes. No matter how much money is put through, the situation doesn't improve. I have very little faith in charity, because I don't believe they are doing things the right way. I don't want to have to choose which organisation to donate to - I want to assist people who genuinely need it, and while the two points may coincide, it is difficult to tell exactly where

 

[nerd51075]

Freedom allows each man (or woman) to make something of themselves. Talents are naturally distributed unequally among people, meaning some people are naturally better than others at certain things. Those who are skilled at what they need to do will survive and prosper, and pass their skills on to the next generation. Darwinian evolution is still at work in today's society.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

There is a major flaw in your argument. You say that the rich people who didn't earn the money, don't deserve it because they didn't earn it. But then you want to give that money to some poor people, the thing is, they didn't earn it as well.

Now you are going to say that there is an exception that the people are poor. The problem is that it makes the situation unequal. If the rich people that earned the money can't have the exception to give their money to the family members who "didn't earn it" and feel safe in the notion that the money will stay in the family, then you or anybody else can't make the exception that the poor people get the money.

I'm only going to say fuck the law if it unjust, like taking my money away to give to other people, or forcing people to help others if the people don't want to. Because those laws are impeding freedoms.

I have plenty of money troubles. I haven't been able to get a job, and I've got college loans that will be coming due, and I just barely have enough money for food and gas for my car. Not once as it ever occurred to me to go out and steal from some rich person. It is illegal and I will not break a just law. I don't care if the person inherited the money and did work for it. Someone wanted them to have it and I will respect that person's wishes.

The whole, "if you were poor, you would too" thing is not going to work on me. Because of I have the character to not be that type of person. If I don't earn it or somebody doesn't give it legally and willingly to me, than I will go without. If that means I end up dieing, then so be it.

A people that resort to stealing, have tarnished their character and standing in life. And I don't want to have anything to do with them. If somebody inherited that 30 million, it is because somebody wanted that money to be left to the person. I don't find a person's wish of things after death to be arbitrary. If that is arbitrary, then the reason to steal the money from that person to give it to the poor person is arbitrary.

Such things are to be left to charity, if poor people need help, look to charity. Taking money from people because of the arbitrary reasons that "they didn't earn it" or "they have too much money", is wrong and I won't stand for it. I'm anything but rich, but I will stand for their right to have that money.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

Also: Your own preferred theory is designed to prevent anyone becoming moral authorities, it nerfs them so they can't do damage with it. What makes you the moral authority on what is needed and what is deserved? Can I not just do the same thing with anything, do whatever the fuck I want? I don't think that guy "deserved" to live, so I am justified in murdering him. Deserved being off my own code of ethics. Which are inconsistent.

Which is why I would take it a whole lot further and implement a socialist government-controlled economy, to eliminate poverty, which ensuring it doesn't disintegrate into fascism - it's a hard line to balance, but I believe it can be done.