Philosophy Discussion Forums

evolution wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 6:14 am

baker wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 6:01 amThe way, for example, Bill Gates earned his fortune.

And how was this way actually 'quite good really'?

For one, it seems that he didn't make all that money by not paying the people who worked for him or via lawsuits (which is the way that some (many?) rich people have become rich).

Who was 'this way' good for, exactly?

Gates himself and no doubt many of his employees.

baker wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 6:01 am In his case, it had a lot to do with there being a major economic niche (that then grew into a major category) and some luck. In his case, the major factors because of which he was able to become so wealthy were not in his control.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that that person had ABSOLUTELY NO control over lessening the amount they charged you for the products that you bought from them?

[/quote]
Of course they had such control. But from what I understood, at those levels of business, money is made not only from from selling products and services, but to some considerable extent from stock options.

And EVERY adult human being who earns some sort of monetary wealth is, in a sense, a thief, a con artist, and a robber. For EVERY one of these human beings who deprives another one of some money, which that one could have used for food or for medicine, which would have then helped them or someone else to sustain a longer or healthier life, then they are stealing from another.

What economic model are you proposing then?

baker wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 6:49 am

evolution wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 6:14 am And how was this way actually 'quite good really'?

For one, it seems that he didn't make all that money by not paying the people who worked for him or via lawsuits (which is the way that some (many?) rich people have become rich).

Who was 'this way' good for, exactly?

Gates himself and no doubt many of his employees.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that that person had ABSOLUTELY NO control over lessening the amount they charged you for the products that you bought from them?

Of course they had such control. But from what I understood, at those levels of business, money is made not only from from selling products and services, but to some considerable extent from stock options.

And EVERY adult human being who earns some sort of monetary wealth is, in a sense, a thief, a con artist, and a robber. For EVERY one of these human beings who deprives another one of some money, which that one could have used for food or for medicine, which would have then helped them or someone else to sustain a longer or healthier life, then they are stealing from another.

What economic model are you proposing then?
[/quote]

I do not, necessarily, look at models. I also do not propose models, especially economic models. I prefer to just look at, and discuss, what is actually True, Right, and Correct, instead. Which is; Human beings do NOT 'need' money to live.

Therefore, looking at and discussing 'economic models' is just a complete waste of time.

Looking at and discussing 'economic models' is also a way for adult human beings to 'try to' "justify" their own very greedy and selfish ways.

evolution wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2020, 9:07 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2020, 6:52 am The context within which the individual got his wealth is what makes the wealth immoral or not so bad, or even quite good really.

In what context/s could an individual get their wealth and that context be quite good really?

1. Luck.

Getting a win from gambling may be risky for the winner's psyche and only then if he is addictive.

Wins from gambling should be taxed (inheritance tax) when the winner dies so that the playing field is level.Money laundering must be illegal.

2. Hard or dangerous work. Inheritance tax applies.Money laundering illegal.

3. Celebrity. Since very few people can be celebrities(???) then rewards for celebrities are not problematic. Inheritance tax applies.Money laundering illegal.

It would be a sad world, saddder than otherwise that is, if there was no possibility of good fortune.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 7:48 am

evolution wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2020, 9:07 pm

In what context/s could an individual get their wealth and that context be quite good really?

1. Luck.

Getting a win from gambling may be risky for the winner's psyche and only then if he is addictive.

Wins from gambling should be taxed (inheritance tax) when the winner dies so that the playing field is level.Money laundering must be illegal.

2. Hard or dangerous work. Inheritance tax applies.Money laundering illegal.

3. Celebrity. Since very few people can be celebrities(???) then rewards for celebrities are not problematic. Inheritance tax applies.Money laundering illegal.

It would be a sad world, saddder than otherwise that is, if there was no possibility of good fortune.

I see wealth and fortune not in monetary terms.

Almost everyone is OK with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth. The idea behind this thread is that as it turns out, if left to it's own devices the current system allows for a greater differential between the top and bottom of the spectrum than in the recent past (though not necessarily unlike more historical eras). Is there a spectrum width (variability) that should not be allowed? IMO the top of the spectrum should not be ruled out by fiat, rather the system should be changed to redistribute wealth downward, just as the system (in the US) was changed in the 60's and mostly in the 80's to redistribute wealth upwards and created the current situation.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm Almost everyone is OK with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

In the days of when this is being written only some are okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Throughout human history a far less number of people, and, relatively, only the tiniest fraction of human beings were okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Saying, "almost EVERYONE" here, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one just LOOKING AT things from only their OWN tiny relative perspective, that is; from an adult's perspective, from, and only in, the days that that one exists.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm The idea behind this thread is that as it turns out, if left to it's own devices the current system allows for a greater differential between the top and bottom of the spectrum than in the recent past (though not necessarily unlike more historical eras). Is there a spectrum width (variability) that should not be allowed? IMO the top of the spectrum should not ruled out by fiat, rather the system should be changed to redistribute wealth downward, just as the system (in the US) was changed in the 60's and mostly in the 80's to redistribute wealth upwards and created the current situation.

The actual idea behind this thread is the one that the author of this thread had, at the time of writing this thread. Only that one KNOWS the actual idea behind this thread.

The current monetary system is based upon and came from greed. So, just take greed out of the 'system', then there would be no problem, which needs solving, nor any issue that would need changing.

Therefore, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.

evolution wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 5:36 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm Almost everyone is OK with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

In the days of when this is being written only some are okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Throughout human history a far less number of people, and, relatively, only the tiniest fraction of human beings were okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Saying, "almost EVERYONE" here, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one just LOOKING AT things from only their OWN tiny relative perspective, that is; from an adult's perspective, from, and only in, the days that that one exists.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm The idea behind this thread is that as it turns out, if left to it's own devices the current system allows for a greater differential between the top and bottom of the spectrum than in the recent past (though not necessarily unlike more historical eras). Is there a spectrum width (variability) that should not be allowed? IMO the top of the spectrum should not ruled out by fiat, rather the system should be changed to redistribute wealth downward, just as the system (in the US) was changed in the 60's and mostly in the 80's to redistribute wealth upwards and created the current situation.

The actual idea behind this thread is the one that the author of this thread had, at the time of writing this thread. Only that one KNOWS the actual idea behind this thread.

The current monetary system is based upon and came from greed. So, just take greed out of the 'system', then there would be no problem, which needs solving, nor any issue that would need changing.

Therefore, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.

So you're cool with the guy who shows up late at work and does a crappy job compared to you getting the same pay as you? Awesome. Sounds like the vast majority of your circle of friends are too. Great.

Just so you know if you distribute anything of value, a percentage of normal humans will want more of that. That's not greed, that's normal human psychology. Though I am dying to hear your plan on how, exactly to take "greed" out of the system.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am

evolution wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 5:36 pm

In the days of when this is being written only some are okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Throughout human history a far less number of people, and, relatively, only the tiniest fraction of human beings were okay with there being a spectrum of compensation and thus wealth.

Saying, "almost EVERYONE" here, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one just LOOKING AT things from only their OWN tiny relative perspective, that is; from an adult's perspective, from, and only in, the days that that one exists.



The actual idea behind this thread is the one that the author of this thread had, at the time of writing this thread. Only that one KNOWS the actual idea behind this thread.

The current monetary system is based upon and came from greed. So, just take greed out of the 'system', then there would be no problem, which needs solving, nor any issue that would need changing.

Therefore, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.

So you're cool with the guy who shows up late at work and does a crappy job compared to you getting the same pay as you?

You made a statement here, but with a question mark at the end. So, are you telling me something or are you asking me something?

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Awesome.

Sounds like you have ALREADY arrived at a conclusion.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Sounds like the vast majority of your circle of friends are too. Great.

WHY did you ASSUME some thing, then BELIEVE it to be true, and then use YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION and BELIEF to then make a further ASSUMPTION, which you appear to also BELIEVE to be true.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Just so you know if you distribute anything of value, a percentage of normal humans will want more of that.

And just for your information it is ONLY 'you', human beings, within a very limited period of years, who SEE money [paper or metal with numbers on it] as some sort of "valuable" thing. So, you are right, only a percentage of human beings will want more of 'that'.

But, obviously, when, and if, you do distribute anything of REAL value, like; LOVE, for example, then ALL human beings will, NATURALLY, want more of 'IT'.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am That's not greed, that's normal human psychology.

Now here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how quick and easy adult human beings, in the days of when this was being written, 'try to' "justify" and "minimize" their Truly greedy ways.

'Wanting' more than you 'need', is just plain greed/y.

But just 'wanting' 'that' what is 'needed' for living a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with EVERY one is NOT greed/y at all.

Wanting to live a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with, and for, EVERY one may well be wanting more than what you 'need', to just live, but wanting this type of life is NOT greed/y, AT ALL.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Though I am dying to hear your plan on how, exactly to take "greed" out of the system.

Did you not read all of what I wrote in that post?

I said, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.


In other words, find out WHY 'you', "your" 'self', ARE GREEDY, then you will have the solution that can (and WILL?) prevent ALL future adult human beings from ever being greedy, ever again.

The 'system', after all, is created and made by 'you', adult human beings. So, obviously and logically, when, and if, ALL of 'you' adults STOP being greedy, then greed will be removed from the 'system'.

evolution wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 8:45 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am

So you're cool with the guy who shows up late at work and does a crappy job compared to you getting the same pay as you?

You made a statement here, but with a question mark at the end. So, are you telling me something or are you asking me something?

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Awesome.

Sounds like you have ALREADY arrived at a conclusion.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Sounds like the vast majority of your circle of friends are too. Great.

WHY did you ASSUME some thing, then BELIEVE it to be true, and then use YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION and BELIEF to then make a further ASSUMPTION, which you appear to also BELIEVE to be true.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Just so you know if you distribute anything of value, a percentage of normal humans will want more of that.

And just for your information it is ONLY 'you', human beings, within a very limited period of years, who SEE money [paper or metal with numbers on it] as some sort of "valuable" thing. So, you are right, only a percentage of human beings will want more of 'that'.

But, obviously, when, and if, you do distribute anything of REAL value, like; LOVE, for example, then ALL human beings will, NATURALLY, want more of 'IT'.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am That's not greed, that's normal human psychology.

Now here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how quick and easy adult human beings, in the days of when this was being written, 'try to' "justify" and "minimize" their Truly greedy ways.

'Wanting' more than you 'need', is just plain greed/y.

But just 'wanting' 'that' what is 'needed' for living a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with EVERY one is NOT greed/y at all.

Wanting to live a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with, and for, EVERY one may well be wanting more than what you 'need', to just live, but wanting this type of life is NOT greed/y, AT ALL.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 2:22 am Though I am dying to hear your plan on how, exactly to take "greed" out of the system.

Did you not read all of what I wrote in that post?

I said, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.


In other words, find out WHY 'you', "your" 'self', ARE GREEDY, then you will have the solution that can (and WILL?) prevent ALL future adult human beings from ever being greedy, ever again.

The 'system', after all, is created and made by 'you', adult human beings. So, obviously and logically, when, and if, ALL of 'you' adults STOP being greedy, then greed will be removed from the 'system'.

Uummm... if peace, love and understanding are what's truly valuable, then why care how much of a nonvaluable commodity, like money, some folks acquire?

BTW, if you've got a problem with $7 vs $15 vs $25 an hour, how are you keeping from having a stroke in a billionaires thread?

Are you familiar with the advice: "pick your battles"?

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 6th, 2020, 2:55 am

evolution wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 8:45 am

You made a statement here, but with a question mark at the end. So, are you telling me something or are you asking me something?



Sounds like you have ALREADY arrived at a conclusion.



WHY did you ASSUME some thing, then BELIEVE it to be true, and then use YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION and BELIEF to then make a further ASSUMPTION, which you appear to also BELIEVE to be true.



And just for your information it is ONLY 'you', human beings, within a very limited period of years, who SEE money [paper or metal with numbers on it] as some sort of "valuable" thing. So, you are right, only a percentage of human beings will want more of 'that'.

But, obviously, when, and if, you do distribute anything of REAL value, like; LOVE, for example, then ALL human beings will, NATURALLY, want more of 'IT'.



Now here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how quick and easy adult human beings, in the days of when this was being written, 'try to' "justify" and "minimize" their Truly greedy ways.

'Wanting' more than you 'need', is just plain greed/y.

But just 'wanting' 'that' what is 'needed' for living a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with EVERY one is NOT greed/y at all.

Wanting to live a Truly peaceful AND harmonious life with, and for, EVERY one may well be wanting more than what you 'need', to just live, but wanting this type of life is NOT greed/y, AT ALL.



Did you not read all of what I wrote in that post?

I said, just find out WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are greedy, then you will have, and thus KNOW, the answer to preventing the 'current system', which is leading to the downfall to ALL of 'you', human beings.


In other words, find out WHY 'you', "your" 'self', ARE GREEDY, then you will have the solution that can (and WILL?) prevent ALL future adult human beings from ever being greedy, ever again.

The 'system', after all, is created and made by 'you', adult human beings. So, obviously and logically, when, and if, ALL of 'you' adults STOP being greedy, then greed will be removed from the 'system'.

Uummm... if peace, love and understanding are what's truly valuable, then why care how much of a nonvaluable commodity, like money, some folks acquire?

Because of the negative and detrimental knock-on effect that has on 'you', human beings, earth, and on 'life', itself, when acquiring that absolutely worthless and Truly non valuable commodity, known as 'money'.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 6th, 2020, 2:55 am BTW, if you've got a problem with $7 vs $15 vs $25 an hour, how are you keeping from having a stroke in a billionaires thread?

Considering that I do NOT have a problem with any of those numbers you mentioned here, the rest is just moot.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 6th, 2020, 2:55 am Are you familiar with the advice: "pick your battles"?

No. Should I be?

What does the advice, "pick your battles", actually mean and refer to? And, what has ANY of 'that' got to do with what I have actually said here?

HJCarden wrote:

'Tangentially, many a time I have heard opponents of capitalism and free market policies argue that the economy should not be favored over people's lives. However, to me it seems that production is so inextricably linked to the quality of life that we are able to enjoy today, that the economy in fact should be favored over lives. Take for instance the "sacrificing grandma for the stock market" phrase that has been consistently thrown around in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the global economic slowdown, something like 150 million MORE people worldwide now or will soon live on less than a dollar a day (read this somewhere, didn't verify, but makes sense to me). This is a level of poverty that is indeed deadly. People simply die quicker when they are this poor, and their quality of life is greatly adversely affected at this level of poverty. So if you look at this from a base utilitarian standpoint, yes it makes sense to sacrifice grandma for the stock market if you think of the total harm a massive economic slowdown can do to the world's population.'

From a utilitarian standpoint it would also make sense to reduce some of the billionaires' wealth in order to increase the wealth of many now in poverty. Trouble is the majority of billionaires, and the governments which allow and encourage them, are not interested in utilitarianism. The Russian oligarchy, Indian "Bollygarchs", and British governments which enable them are spectacular examples of what I mean:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/j ... super-rich

- but also in the US, in Australia, and other wealthy nations, governments are doing all they can to help the billionaires while inequality increases.

The super rich and their enablers tend to have little regard for the poor - production is inextricably linked to wealth creation for a few, at the expense of many.

Lucky quoted "Pick your battles"

Don Quixote was a man who did not pick his battles. The Don was unreasoning but I do sympathise with him. Jesus and Socrates did not pick their battles but, unlike the Don, they were immensely clever men who knew their risks were worth taking.

Nobody that any of us know are as clever as Jesus or Socrates. So we should pick our battles. However it is a small ask that everyone tries to think collectively, and also vote for what we think is right.

Socrates and Jesus did point the way towards thinking collectively. Greed is constant however once we recognise the devil we have more chance to overcome it. I believe in the effectiveness of psychoanalysis.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 6:00 amDon Quixote was a man who did not pick his battles.

Actually, he had a knack for picking battles he was bound to lose.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 6:00 am Lucky quoted "Pick your battles"

Don Quixote was a man who did not pick his battles. The Don was unreasoning but I do sympathise with him. Jesus and Socrates did not pick their battles but, unlike the Don, they were immensely clever men who knew their risks were worth taking.

Nobody that any of us know are as clever as Jesus or Socrates. So we should pick our battles. However it is a small ask that everyone tries to think collectively, and also vote for what we think is right.

Socrates and Jesus did point the way towards thinking collectively. Greed is constant however once we recognise the devil we have more chance to overcome it. I believe in the effectiveness of psychoanalysis.

I do not think anyone is qualified to judge the intelligence of Jesus, since most of the stories about him are clearly fake, and the disparate accounts do not agree. But if half of it is true he was a deluded half-wit. If it is meaningful to report him as a real historical figure?

As for Socrates, there are only three sources; Plato Xenophon and Aristophanes. The latter was contemporary but as a character in a comedy. Despite that did not really depart from Plato's account. As for Xenophon, he was not that bright himself and was not bright enough to report of Socrates' most clever thought.
Obviously Socrates was not smart enough to walk on water and live without sustainence in the desert for 40 days.

baker wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 9:20 am

Belindi wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 6:00 amDon Quixote was a man who did not pick his battles.

Actually, he had a knack for picking battles he was bound to lose.

That is true. Is Quixotry a psychological disability?
In any case, there may be a bell curve (normal) distribution between extreme quiescence and extreme Quixotry.

I do not know what stage of normal is the best stage. I think that whenever it is possible to give some time to reflection on cases then that is what I should do. Circumstances alter cases.

consequentialism
/kɒnsɪˈkwɛnʃ(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

On second thoughts consequentialism will not do, because the intention of an actor also alters the case for his rightness or wrongness.