Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

What you have in common is a need to rationalize rewards you don't deserve.

Heart surgeons who have sacrificed their twenties, work hard and study, deserve to be millionaires. So do many entrepreneurs who have risked bankrupcy. Many other successful people also should not be ashamed of their riches.

But there are planty of people who are wealthy because of the nature of the capitalist system. Options traders, baseball players, rock stars etc. Almost all of them would continue to do what they do if their salary was cut by 80% whether they liked their job or not.

Right now we "steal" a bit of their money through the graduated income tax. So the concept is obviously not foreign. We don't steal more or condone someone else stealing it because it would disrupt the system if we did and we don't want to prevent naive people from dreaming.

But the fact that we won't allow these people to be stolen from in no way implies that they "deserve" their money or that some high quality people don't "deserve" to have it transferred to them.

Those who advocate systems that will protect these people's assests from "theft" are almost always self serving if they claim that it would be "immoral" to redistibute a lot of their money. Nonsense. It may not be a good idea to for practical reasons but its not immoral. People who are rich for technical capitalistic reasons do not truly deserve to be a lot better off than hardworking chemists in Burma. Period. Philosophers who try to claim otherwise are rationalizing.

In a similar vein are those who want a system where God sends you to heaven, not because you deserve to be there but rather because of a system that will reward people due to a technicality. In this case it isn't the technicality that you can make jump shots or arbitrage commododites but rather the technicality that you accept Jesus as the son of God right before you die regardless of how you lived your life.

Both stances make me nauseous. You want to go to heaven or feel that you do not deserve to have your moderate wealth taken away from you? Study hard. Work hard. Use your talent to truly help humanity (that doesn't mean providing liquidity to the orange juice market). Otherwise don't be mortified if you get scammed or go to hell.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

Now you're talking! I almost brought this up in your other thread (i.e. we do in fact steal from undeserving wealthy in the way of tiered taxation).

But I must be a very rare atheist in that I seem to lean a little right. I don't believe in a tiered tax rate. I don't think rich people (who deserve their wealth), should be penalized for their success. Of course, this quickly gets into politics, so I'll stop right there.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heart surgeons who have sacrificed their twenties, work hard and study, deserve to be millionaires.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a list somewhere of "What we deserve" and who wrote the list, and who enforces it and what were the criteria.
The concept is baseless. Each culture conditions us to think there is a 'deserve' list. Get raped .. you get stoned...you deserve that. A different culture may believe somebody with the ability to be a doctor or a great soldier owes it to the culture they were born into, not the other way around.
That's part of the reasoning of Gates and Buffet... the prevailing system allowed them their wealth and they're 'paying back'. Similar reasoning for opposing the lifting of inheritance tax.
I may agree that doctors 'deserve' high pay, the next person may think it's a policeman, or a soldier, but it's not a stone-chiselled Right, it's a cultural/economic outcome.
Any act can be justified if it starts from the premise of "Well, I deserve X, so I'm taking it."

luckyme

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

"Is there a list somewhere of "What we deserve" and who wrote the list, and who enforces it and what were the criteria."

Now you are just being silly and everyone here knows it.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Is there a list somewhere of "What we deserve" and who wrote the list, and who enforces it and what were the criteria."

Now you are just being silly and everyone here knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so. I'm trying to combat your penchant for making ex-cathedra pronouncments and thinking others are bound by them rather than them being contentious issues on their own.

It's not a universal rule that specific roles 'deserve' extra reward. Look around the world. Various cultures reward different 'gifts' or skills.

Your claim that 'doctors deserve' and 'poor chadians deserve' are not valid premises, they are the claims that are in contention. I hope I stay silly enough to recognize them as such. The others are on their own.

silly ol' luckyme

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You go into the vineyard too.'

And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'

But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; <font color="red">I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?'</font> So the last will be first, and the first last."

--Matthew 20:1-16 (RSV-CE)

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

Yes, I get it. It encourages working as little as possible and the rewards should be the same to all. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

Deserves ain't got nothing to do with it.

Personally, I am a hard determinist. Ultimately no one really "deserves" anything; we're just the sum of everything that came before us.

The reason for property rights, or whatever system we implement that rewards a certain behavior and punishes another, is much better looked at consequentially than deontologically. A capitalist system will prosper more than a non-capitalist system; "justice," imho, is a much lesser priority.

[ QUOTE ]
But there are planty of people who are wealthy because of the nature of the capitalist system. Options traders, baseball players, rock stars etc. Almost all of them would continue to do what they do if their salary was cut by 80% whether they liked their job or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't the doctors you mentioned also wealthy because of the capitalist system? They make their money based on trade of personal property, just like rock bands and athletes. No oneis forced to go to a playoff game, yet many, many people are willing to pay top dollar for it. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell them that it's wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that we won't allow these people to be stolen from in no way implies that they "deserve" their money or that some high quality people don't "deserve" to have it transferred to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot limit rewards for the undeserving without also limiting rewards for the deserving. Many people think it is wrong to allow a rich kid to inherit millions of dollars, yet to implement a system to counteract that deprives another man the right to work hard and raise security and prosperity for his family.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

The copy and paste function rewards people like Bluff. He puts little effort into the actual labor of the post. But he puts more into the thinking processes behind the post. No offense intended, but "bible" = "book" after all.

Why do heart specialists deserve that wealth? They ain't stopping death. And let's be frank, except for natural athletic geniuses, a hell of a lot of ball players work hard to get where they are. That's why their salaries are closer to the median of the league and why they compromise most of the league.

The stars, the true stars are people like Michael Jordan, who recognizes his own talent, and instead of cruising along on it, worked at his game until he wasn't merely better, but a LOT better. He's earned some infamy for being a degenerate, this is true, and some silly acrobatics like trying to play baseball. That only shows how little respect he had for gigantic sums of money. But you can be sure it never impacted his overall BR.

Take the olden days before labor union contracts in pro sports, for instance. The athletes got handed a crap deal, the owners kept most of the revenue. They deserve their cut, just as much as millionaire owners do for maintaining an arena for them to play in.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't the doctors you mentioned also wealthy because of the capitalist system? They make their money based on trade of personal property, just like rock bands and athletes. No oneis forced to go to a playoff game, yet many, many people are willing to pay top dollar for it. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell them that it's wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know if anybody is saying going to basketball games or playing b-ball is wrong on the individual level.

What has bad consequences/"is wrong" is the vast inequality that results from all of these uncoordinated market transactions.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot limit rewards for the undeserving without also limiting rewards for the deserving. Many people think it is wrong to allow a rich kid to inherit millions of dollars, yet to implement a system to counteract that deprives another man the right to work hard and raise security and prosperity for his family.

[/ QUOTE ] Only true at a 100% estate tax rate for all inheritance, which isn't advocated by many people (an understatement).

Actually, even then part of it would go back to his family in gov't programs...

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

I don't even get it. Is 'deserved' anything more than your opinion? This is just weak. I'm disappointed. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

David,

Someone told me that you are a republican. It blows me away that any republican could make posts like this. Feel free to just ignore this post, because I don't want to derail your thread, and I think you have a right to personal privacy re: your political stances. Good post.

Best,
Jordan

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Is there a list somewhere of "What we deserve" and who wrote the list, and who enforces it and what were the criteria."

Now you are just being silly and everyone here knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

So... the group with guns decides who deserves what? And at the same time they prevent others from trying to do the same 'moral' acts, based on...?

No, it seems you are trying to rationalize the use of force by your favourite group of thugs.

Also: you are talking about your family, not the government. Just so that you are aware of it.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Is there a list somewhere of "What we deserve" and who wrote the list, and who enforces it and what were the criteria."

Now you are just being silly and everyone here knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you hear a whoooosh sound and have to duck? It is meant to be silly. cheeez. it's trying to point out the silliness of posing a problem that has a) a premise that is false factually b) a premise that a lot of the people you're trying to debate will disagree with anyway (even if you truly believed it is true). So, the problem as posed won't answer the question you want and can't be moved forward.

You'll note that other posted have challenged the exact same premise. so the TRUTH of DS statement "Now you are just being silly and everyone here knows it." must only refer to the form not the content of my objection.

i gotta use more smilies, luckyme

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
People who are rich for technical capitalistic reasons do not truly deserve to be a lot better off than hardworking chemists in Burma. Period. Philosophers who try to claim otherwise are rationalizing.


[/ QUOTE ]

O Almighty Lord, will You send us to hell if we don't accept this scripture?

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise don't be mortified if you get scammed or go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! You answered my question in the same post. Cool [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

"David,

Someone told me that you are a republican. It blows me away that any republican could make posts like this. Feel free to just ignore this post, because I don't want to derail your thread, and I think you have a right to personal privacy re: your political stances. Good post."

I am only sympathetic to people in bad shape when it is no fault of their own. Disabled people, discriminated against minorities, diligigent people from poor countries. Americans who didn't study in school and now work in factories are overpaid.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

Philosophers who attempt to rationalize who "deserves" what is voluntarily given to them and who does not make me nauseous.

It pains me to say this because I have admired your intellect, company, and products for a long time, but you are truly a hypocrite.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

Why

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you presume to decide who "deserves" what is given to them and who does not, which is exactly where you claim "capitalist philosophers" go wrong.

Ergo, you are a hypocrite. QED.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

I'm not deciding anything. 90% of those who I would categorize as obviously not deserving their wealth would themselves agree with me.

I think that his is all pretty much common sense. But if need be I can come up with a more rigorous definition of what I, and almost everyone else, means by "undeserved". And it isn't related to whether the money was freely given to them.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not deciding anything. 90% of those who I would categorize

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you categorize without deciding?

[ QUOTE ]
as obviously not deserving their wealth would themselves agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that his is all pretty much common sense. But if need be I can come up with a more rigorous definition of what I, and almost everyone else, means by "undeserved". And it isn't related to whether the money was freely given to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

Furthermore, I would be interested to know exactly which "capitalist philosophers" you've been reading, because frankly, to quote a great man, deserves got nothin' to do with it.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

I figured it would be for different reasons.

Sklansky made his fortune through gambling (read: screwing people out of their money), and then selling books that teach other people how to do the same. Professional gamblers produce valuable nothing for society, by any stretch of the imagination. They aren't providing "entertainment," they just create a hole of -EV at the table that would otherwise result in everyone else having more money.

While I fully support the right of a professional poker player to make his living (as I am a capitalist, and no one is forcing the grown men sitting at the table to hurl money away), you can't decry professional athletes and rock stars for making millions because people want to give them money and support professional gambling.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
I figured it would be for different reasons.

Sklansky made his fortune through gambling (read: screwing people out of their money), and then selling books that teach other people how to do the same. Professional gamblers produce valuable nothing for society, by any stretch of the imagination. They aren't providing "entertainment," they just create a hole of -EV at the table that would otherwise result in everyone else having more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. The professionals often form the core around which the games coalesce. Without the pros many games would not exist for the recreational player to sit down at. The mere existence of prop players demonstrates this.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

underserving as DS is of defense after his random spewage against philosophers who are the least likely group to rationalise their good fortune, I'm going to do it anyway.

Unless he believes he deserves his good fortune then his not being hypocritical at all. He may be wrong but apart from the philosopher bit I think his basically right. Not the feeling disgust bit, better to be a bit more sangine imo especially as our good fortune is aided by those who think they deserve theirs.

I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

chez

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
underserving as DS is of defense after his random spewage against philosophers who are the least likely group to rationalise their good fortune, I'm going to do it anyway.

Unless he believes he deserves his good fortune then his not being hypocritical at all. He may be wrong but apart from the philosopher bit I think his basically right. Not the feeling disgust bit, better to be a bit more sangine imo especially as our good fortune is aided by those who think they deserve theirs.

I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

First, claiming that someone is "undeserving" is just as arbitrary and subjective as claiming that someone is "deserving", hence DS is a hypocrite.

Second, Sklansky is not simply saying that individuals are "lucky" or "unlucky" in their birth. He is saying that (apparently some) people do not "deserve", i.e. they are undeserving of, that which others have voluntarily given to them. Such a position is arbitrary and subjective. Who is David Sklansky to decide who deserves what? Which brings us right back to the first point.

Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy. So attacking capitalist philosophers by claiming that they are rationalizing keeping what they don't "deserve" is a strawman. It shows a lack of understanding of capitalist theory, and causes me to doubt whether or not DS has actually read any.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ??? 'Deserve' seems to dictate that there are some promises or implied promises of some specific result arising from some specific act or circumstance. "I cut the lawn, I deserve to get paid."
But being born doesn't come with any of those, we're born naked and whining, and adjusting to life entails moving away from both of those conditions.
'Deserve' is a property of social contract, not an inherent property of newborns.
what am I missing?

luckyme

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.


[/ QUOTE ]

We could "vote" on it. Oh wait, that's kind of what we're doing when we decide where to spend our money. Never mind.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is false. The professionals often form the core around which the games coalesce. Without the pros many games would not exist for the recreational player to sit down at. The mere existence of prop players demonstrates this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought of this before (I'm so used to Party Poker :P). If this is true I partially retract my statement.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ??? 'Deserve' seems to dictate that there are some promises or implied promises of some specific result arising from some specific act or circumstance. "I cut the lawn, I deserve to get paid."
But being born doesn't come with any of those, we're born naked and whining, and adjusting to life entails moving away from both of those conditions.
'Deserve' is a property of social contract, not an inherent property of newborns.
what am I missing?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I wish I could have said this so easily.

I would only modify your example to be: "You agreed to pay me to cut the lawn. I cut the lawn. I deserve to get paid."

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
First, claiming that someone is "undeserving" is just as arbitrary and subjective as claiming that someone is "deserving", hence DS is a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe, I doubt it as I think DS can give a workable defintion. If not he is just making a mistake, its allowed.

[ QUOTE ]
He is saying that (apparently some) people do not "deserve", i.e. they are undeserving of, that which others have voluntarily given to them. Such a position is arbitrary and subjective. Who is David Sklansky to decide who deserves what? Which brings us right back to the first point.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be unreasonable but we don't deserve to be born into an affluent society that can voluntarily give us a lot. Footballers get paid a lot today, 50 years ago they got paid very little, today's footballers are no more serving then those 50 years ago they just got lucky. they didn't do anything to bring about the state of affirs where they get paid more.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, DS has a problem with philosophers, I suspect some tongue in cheek though the absense of hi falootin makes me wonder. Still just a mistake rather than hypocracy.i
chez

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

I'd like to point out that any genuinely morally consistent set of beliefs is going to produce a few ethics that, when taken out of context, seem "unethical." For example, it is morally wrong for someone to forcibly prevent another adult from committing suicide under ACist ethics.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
That would be unreasonable but we don't deserve to be born into an affluent society that can voluntarily give us a lot. Footballers get paid a lot today, 50 years ago they got paid very little, today's footballers are no more serving then those 50 years ago they just got lucky. they didn't do anything to bring about the state of affirs where they get paid more.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make them "undeserving" of that which people have agreed to pay them? It doesn't. It can't. They can't be "undeserving" any more than they are "deserving." The concept, as applied in this fashion (rather than the [imo correct] fashion described by luckyme) is useless.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like all ideas of this nature you have to ground it somewhere to give the word meaning but that doesn't mean it has no meaning.

I claim it is meaningful to say that someone who works hard as a cleaner all week deserves the money they get paid for it more than a mugger who beats them up and steals their wages. We can work out the details later.


[ QUOTE ]
That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ???

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that DS's point. Those who think they are deserving when they just got lucky are mistaken. He feels nausea at people who try to rationalise that mistake just because it serves their self-interest.

chez

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would only modify your example to be: "You agreed to pay me to cut the lawn. I cut the lawn. I deserve to get paid."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is clearer and I was going to write a version of that and decided to just leave it implied ( I tend to wordiness as it is :-)

thanks, luckyme

Memo to The Fisherman
 

I'm embarassed to be stating this publicly but I have to say that your posts continue to astound me, and quite pleasantly so.

Of course, even when not from the get-go, then sooner or later, people with exceptional intellect arrive at correct conclusions. I always believed that. But it's nice to see it affirmed, every so often.

Your posts on SMP would be worth the price of a subscription to 2+2, if ever the website goes restricted, even beyond the value of the strictly poker-related texts.

Fantastic work. Keep it up.

Mickey Brausch

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with that, just like I'd disagree with the idea that all morality is subjective. Just because it's hard to decide and there is a lot to consider doesn't necessarily mean that the answer has to be subjective and arbitrary.

I'd argue that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else. Obviously we don't all get that - all other things being equal, the hardworking chemist in Burma I'm guessing doesn't have the same opportunity for quality of life as the hardworking chemist in the U.S. A child born in Sudan has a lot greater likelihood of experiencing life's "hardships" then a child born in many other areas of the world.

So, objectively, I think we can very easily and logically agree that, without knowing further information, many people must have a higher or lower standard of living than they "deserve". But it seems to me there are other relevant questions that we can't answer:

Is there life after death/before birth? Do we have a soul? Does life have a specific purpose (and is it the same for everybody)? Have we had/will we have other "lives"? Could there be such a things as karma?

We don't know the answers to these questions (at least, I personally don't assume to know). It seems to me that the "proper" (morally correct) attitude to a large degree ought to involve an ability to empathize with those less fortunate than ourselves, and look at the question (if we're wondering who deserves what) objectively. Now I realize that money isn't everything, but it's certainly something, and so if you ask me if I'm in favor of, for example, progressive taxation, the answer is yes and I believe it's a morally correct answer as well.

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with that, just like I'd disagree with the idea that all morality is subjective. Just because it's hard to decide and there is a lot to consider doesn't necessarily mean that the answer has to be subjective and arbitrary.
<font color="white"> . </font>
I'd [subjectively assert] that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd [subjectively assert] that all things being equal, each person on the planet "deserves" the same opportunities and considerations as everyone else . . .


[/ QUOTE ]

You think it's subjective to say that, all other things being equal, all individuals "deserve" the same opportunities and considerations in life???