I never said I had any proof and that was never an issue. It was just an example, for the sake of argument. — Aleksander Kvam
what would be left then offcourse would just be us humans. No higher entities. — Aleksander Kvam
"If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? moral or immoral?" — Aleksander Kvam
Yes, and we both agree they shouldn't do that I presume. — Baden
None of those are politicians and especially not politicians in power. — Baden
It's mostly common sense isn't it? — Baden
If you're a comedian, yes, because it's your job to make jokes. If you're a politician, no, because it's your job to be neutral about religious affiliation except in policy terms. — Baden
houting "haha, look at those idiots, they look like letterboxes" is protected by free speech, yes, but free speech isn't the same as appropriate speech. — Baden
And banishing moronic politicians like Boris Johnson for being opportunistic twats using inappropriate speech is a protected right of the PM. I hope she does so. — Baden
Straight out of the "demonizing stereotypes for use by right-wing morons" playbook. :roll: — Sapientia
Are the other peoples lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them.
Would it be moral to give money to both? — Sir2u
starving children dosent want the bible, they want water, leave the bible at home. — Aleksander Kvam
Don't worry. He could benefit from taking a leaf out of your book. — Sapientia
Isn't that irrelevant? — Posty McPostface
Besides, if one were to address the issue of people scrounging off of welfare, then that's a small minority, I think. — Posty McPostface
That's not what I asked. I asked how you can be satisfied with things as they are, which is one way of interpreting your remark that you're not sure whether there is more to be done. — Sapientia
The current state of things in terms relevant to what we're discussing - politically, ethically, economically, socially, culturally. The status quo. — Sapientia
That suggests that you believe that there are people who need help. So, why did you say that you're not sure whether there is more to be done? — Sapientia
Do you honestly believe that that would be such an outlandish expectation? There is probably data out there, and this is a philosophy forum after all. — Sapientia
Of course it could be called evidence. It would be evidence. What are you talking about? And the relevant point would obviously be whether or not most people help others to the extent that they are able. — Sapientia
Ah. I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to that level of response. Better cut it off here then. — Sapientia
starving children dosent want the bible, they want water, leave the bible at home. — Aleksander Kvam
Given a utilitarian rationale, yes. If the money is spent on bettering the lives of other people, instead of starting wars or such. — Posty McPostface
LOL! The help I received enabled me to go to college and get a well-paying job and pay lots of taxes. — Relativist
And, I think that enlarging one's sphere of interest is a good thing. Seemingly people do agree with this from what posts I gather, perhaps exempt Sir2u. — Posty McPostface
I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no? — Posty McPostface
Are you familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement? — Bitter Crank
I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means. — Posty McPostface
How can you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements? — Sapientia
Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure. — Bitter Crank
Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically? — Posty McPostface
There is. How can you be satisfied with things as they are? — Sapientia
Is this your version of utopia? I hope not. — Sapientia
But that's anecdotal evidence, so a relatively weak point. And it contradicts my own anecdotal evidence, which effectively means they cancel each other out. — Sapientia
I actually find yours hard to believe, — Sapientia
which makes me suspect that we're interpreting "the extent that they are able" differently. Maybe your mean instead something more like "the extent that they can live with". — Sapientia
When the situation calls for it, yes. If there were a deadly virus which would wipe out the rest of humanity, and you could easily prevent it, wouldn't you feel obligated to do so? — Sapientia
You can send money to the Catholic Worker Movement. They work with the very poor and homeless. — Bitter Crank
We can decide whether their situation is deserving or not: — Bitter Crank
Or, maybe their situation deserves assistance -- a tornado wrecked their part of town (and, coincidentally, they are no more dishonest than anybody else). — Bitter Crank
maybe we should learn him to fish? — Aleksander Kvam
Speaking politically then isn't the rational solution, mores socialism? — Posty McPostface
What's interesting about it? — Posty McPostface
We just don't know where the money will go, so we don't give. — Posty McPostface
If we had assurance, that it would be spent on necessities or the betterment of their situation, then wouldn't you be more inclined to give them money then? — Posty McPostface
Surely, we do. To some extent. — Posty McPostface
I meant this figuratively. Just rhetorical tripe, hehe. — Posty McPostface
What can be done to enlarge our sphere of interest, and if anything should be done at all? — Posty McPostface
dont think anyone has said that its not OK for begging on the streets — Aleksander Kvam
If some random stranger off the street asked you for a hundred dollars for some reason, you wouldn't oblige. — Posty McPostface