Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you vote, you're not just deciding where to spend your money. You're also deciding where to spend a lot of other people's money - many of whom object to this decision-making process being imposed upon them. Why do you deserve to make this decision for them?

[Darryl_P]

This kind of wording:

"He feels nausea at people who try to rationalise that mistake just because it serves their self-interest."

is non-arrogant, non-magalomaniacal, non-intrusive and non-offensive.

This kind of wording:

"People who are rich for technical capitalistic reasons do not truly deserve to be a lot better off than hardworking chemists in Burma. Period. "

is quite the opposite.

Reason: the first wording implies that DS is not God, nor the center of the universe making rules for mankind, but just has a position/opinion on an issue.

The difference in wording is not just a technical slip. It is a sign that, in at least some moments, some states of mind, those megalomaniacal thoughts are indeed present.

To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest IMO.

To come clean, I'd advise a Bart Simpson-like punishment of writing "I'm not God and it will never be my job to make or enforce life's fundamental rules for mankind" on the blackboard 100 times.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So it is your contention that "obviously" everyone should objectively agree that everyone deserves to have a physical impossibility.

Have a nice life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't use "obviously" in that context. I said that identical and equal obviously don't mean the same thing.

Dismissing the contention that it makes sense objectively that all people "deserve" equal opportunities for happiness/quality of life because they can't live identical lives is just absurd.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I have my own definition (which by the way would make both Donald Trump and a lottery winner deserving), but I have no problem accepting most other people's definition

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you want to reward people for willing to take the risk, so what is your opinion on inheritance? Do people deserve their millions if the only thing they did was to get them from their parents?

P.S.: I am sure that you are dismissing monarchy as political system

[Nincompoop]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times have you heard someone say
"If I had his money, I could do things my way?"
Little they know that it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes me nauseous is when human beings are reduced to economic functions.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many times have you heard someone say
"If I had his money, I could do things my way?"
Little they know that it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because the poor are all satisfied with their lives.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you vote, you're not just deciding where to spend your money. You're also deciding where to spend a lot of other people's money - many of whom object to this decision-making process being imposed upon them. Why do you deserve to make this decision for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't. Reread his post. He's saying that your patterns of spending and abstention from spending are all the "vote" anyone needs (or indeed should have). I.e., he's on your side.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So it is your contention that "obviously" everyone should objectively agree that everyone deserves to have a physical impossibility.

Have a nice life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't use "obviously" in that context. I said that identical and equal obviously don't mean the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't use "obviously" at all, it was implied by your contention that you couldn't imagine anyone could disagree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
Dismissing the contention that it makes sense objectively that all people "deserve" equal opportunities for happiness/quality of life because they can't live identical lives is just absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that word means what you think it means, "opportunity." People cannot have equal opportunities without leading identical lives. For example, I do no have the opportunity to grow up in a beach house if my parents do not live at the beach. Yet you would claim that everyone "deserves" the opportunity to grow up at the beach.

I.e.,

Some have the opportunity to grow up at the beach.
Everyone "deserves" equal opportunities.
Therefore everyone "deserves" to grow up at the beach.

Of course, a little thought makes clear that if this is true, everyone "deserves" everything. Hence this concept of "deserves" is utterly meaningless.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
Some have the opportunity to grow up at the beach.
Everyone "deserves" equal opportunities.
Therefore everyone "deserves" to grow up at the beach.

Of course, a little thought makes clear that if this is true, everyone "deserves" everything. Hence this concept of "deserves" is utterly meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. "Some have the opportunity to grow up at the beach." is not the same as "Some deserve the opportunity to grow up at the beach.", which is the premise necessary for your conclusion.

Perhaps you should put more than "a little thought" into your arguments.

[tame_deuces]

Life isn't fair, that doesn't mean the system is faulty. This way of thinking should be obvious to any serious poker player. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]