Freedom is not safe

and I believe someone sued McD because the coffee was hot and won so

 

[

Point is some people are greedy some are not BUT no one does anything strictly for the good of someone else there is always a reason and feeling good is just as justifiable as earning $$$

 

I'm all for incentives, and I conclude from my reading of history that private entrepreneurs are better at creating overall prosperity than politicians and government bureaucrats. The question is how far does this go? We live in a world where the wealthiest 1% of the world's population owns over half of the world's wealth get 82% of the world's wealth.'World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth', says Oxfam . The three richest Americans (Gates, Buffett and Bezos) hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the U.S. population. How much money does a sane, moral person need as an incentive? The income disparites are increasing by the year, and that creates the potential for serious political unrest. IIt's a values question. What is the marginal utility of the third home or tenth car or thousandth overseas vacation compared to the need a starving person has for sustenance? What does the Bible teach us? “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” (Luke 3:11) I realize that some gazillionaires have gone into philanthropy big time, which is commendable--but also a drop in the bucket in comparison with their total wealth.

Economists have taught us to look at both sides of the equation, costs as well as benefits, in evaluating outcomes. So in deciding whether or not those billionaires brought net benefits or losses to society, we have to look at the entire record, not just of a few billionaires but of billionaires in general. And the costs and benefits are often hard to measure, since they involve things that have no markets: the lives of child workers, the disabilities of workers from black lung disease, etc. The History Channel is doing a rerun of its series on The Men Who Built America. But they built it on the backs of workers, child laborers, women, consumers, and the general public made sick from drinking their polluted air and water. The so-called robber barons of the day--Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Frick--became notorious for ruthless business practices and anti-competitive monopolies. After a public outcry, even Republican government leaders like Teddy Roosevlt called for trust busting and regulation, which helped in controlling the excesses and protecting public safety and natural resources.

The three billionaires you mention--Gates, Bezos, and Musk--certainly deserve credit for their achievements, but are also controversial and not necessarily typical examples. If you added the Koch Brothers, the Mercers, and Trump to the mix, it would be far from clear that their net contributions to society were positive. Bill and Melinda Gates have donated more money than almost anyone in the history of the planet: over $36 billion as of August,2018. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the largest charitable organization in the U.S. Definitely a plus. However, Nation magazine scrutinized his philanthropy and found some problems: the Gates Foundation donated hundreds of millions of dollars to companies in which it owns stocks or bonds Bill Gates Gives to the Rich (Including Himself) His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the latter's conviction for sex crimes has raised eyebrows. Gates' philanthropy began after a suit and trial by the Justice Department and resulting bad publicity for being a ruthless, cutthroat predator required damage control. Bezos came under a lot of criticism for unsafe working conditions at Amazon and allegations of retaliation against whistleblowers who brought the problems to light. Amazon Faces A Crucible Moment With Employees Bernie Sanders criticized him for doing everything in his power to stop Amazon workers from organizing, despite his own great wealth.Bernie Sanders rips into Jeff Bezos: 'You are worth $182 billion ... why are you doing everything in your power to stop your workers' from unionizing? As for Musk, it remains for the future to judge whether his space age visions produce a payoff to justify his outsized wealth.

 

Correction, Second paragraph, fifth sentence should read "drinking their polluted water and breathing their polluted air".

 

wrat

Exactly you seemed to be implying that the ‘suing system’ is not working - is defective - and my point was that a ‘suing system’ is at the heart of right-wing libertarian thinking (as a replacement to ‘government’ regulation) so to argue that the ‘suing system’ isn’t working just goes further to undermine an already tottering right wing argument.

 

Wrat

In this context on a politics forum – I assumed that you were making a political point (I have encountered this argument before usually pushed by the evolutionary minded Social Darwinists)

In simplistic terms much of right-wing thought is based on personal selfishness the idea that the great motivator is personal self-interest, left wing thought is more about community interest helping the community as a whole less motivated by personal selfishness and so more altruistic.

You seem to be using the philosophical argument of ‘pure altruism’ to undermine the idea that left wing ideas are less driven by selfishness and are therefore left-wing ideas are based as much on personal self-interest as right wing thought.

The idea of ‘pure altruism’ seems to be that if someone acts in what seems like an altruistic way and if there is the smallest possibility of the smallest ‘reward’ (that the person might not even be aware of) then that act cannot be ‘purely’ altruistic and some therefore claim ‘altruism’ doesn’t exist and everything is motivated by selfishness - it’s is a viewpoint even warned against in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy piece you linked to.

We have no reason to suppose that human behavior is so uniform in its motivation. A far more plausible hypothesis about human motives is that they vary a great deal from one person to another. Some people are never altruistic; others are just as this weak form of psychological egoism says: they are altruistic, but only when they think this will not detract from their own well-being; and then there is a third and large category filled with people who, to some degree or other, are willing to sacrifice their well-being for others. Within this category there is wide range—some are willing to make only small sacrifices, others larger sacrifices, and some extraordinarily large sacrifices. This way of thinking has the great advantage of allowing our experience of each individual to provide us with the evidence by means of which we characterize him. We should not label everyone as an egoist on the basis of some a priori theory; rather, we should assess each person’s degree of egoism and altruism on the basis of what we can discern of their motives.

*

Those that push the evolutionary theory (and in politics the Social Darwinists) therefore argue that altruism doesn’t exist just self interest BUT I’d argue that humans don’t live in a society of natural selection and can think beyond the constraints of the natural world. Basically we can think beyond our direct and immediate personal survival to see a bigger picture, we can think for ourselves and act accordingly

It is something explored in a BBC article

There is no such thing as a truly selfless act

"Of all the differences between man and the lower animals," wrote Darwin. "The moral sense or conscience is by far the most important." Does Platt's evidence that links our "true" altruism with the apparently selfish instincts of animals devalue this "moral sense", and the charitable actions that result from it?

"Some people have suggested that evolutionary explanations of morality show it to be a kind of illusion. After all, natural selection doesn't care about right and wrong," says Birch. "But I think a lot of this involves overselling the role of natural selection, and underselling the role of cultural evolution."

More than any other animals, we are products of our culture, and the addition of cultural evolution to the mix makes comprehending our own behaviour that extra bit more difficult.

"It's less clear that cultural evolution is a fundamentally amoral process," says Birch. "So a story of human altruism as the product of cultural evolution is potentially more 'morality-friendly' than a story based solely on genetic evolution."

*

So in political terms

1) A right winger that votes for tax cuts because they want to directly benefit from personally having more money for themselves and does not want it to go to others.

2) A left winger that votes for tax increases because they want it to go toward building a better society.

You cannot say that the selfishness of the two are equal because the left winger although gaining no direct benefit might gain some indirect or tangential benefit from living in a better society.

 

Wrat

Everything LOL – are you going to decide to float away because gravity is just a matter of semantics and splitting hairs?

But seriously

To me it is about what ideas stand up to scrutiny and which don’t – as I said and explained in this political context (and we are on a politics forum so that is the context) the altruism argument you put forward doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

The right often seem to push evolutionary idea of self-interest (red in tooth and nail), as something we have to follow when actually we don’t - we can choose to help others and work together for a better society

 

And there is the problem! instead of reading and thinking YOU ASSUMED and then used the semantics you argued against to explain your assumption
if you check post 320 and 322 you might gain a clearer understanding of the points I was making

 

Bullshit !!! - For thirty years I was a blood donor (here in the uk we don't get paid to provide blood, unlike the US system !!! ).

In conjunction with this, I was a co-founder of a neighbourhood Law Centre, giving my time (VOLUNTARILY AND UNPAID ) and passing on knowledge to clients and co- volunteers alike. After the demise of the Law Centre, I continued to provide, advice, assistance and representation (also unpaid) from my home for a further 23 years.

 

My only sense of achievement came from winning benefit claims on behalf of my clients and knowing that the government had to cough up !!!

 

wrat

Do you mean 325 and 328 as the others are not about altruism (322 doesn’t even seem to be a post by you)?

Someone asked if you thought there was no alternative for actions other than greed (personal selfishness/self interest)

Your replied that in your opinion altruism does NOT exist (your capitals) given the context I was assuming (maybe I should have instead used presumed) your statement was a political statement – if I was wrong, please explain why – and if it wasn’t a political statement then why bring that up at all?

People make assumptions given context, if you saw someone grab a handbag off an old lady knocking her over and then running off with it, you make the assumption it is a thief and not a practical joke, if there is a camera crew, and someone with a clapperboard shouting 'action' you might make another assuption.

I made an assuption given what you said and where you said it, if i got that wrong I apologise

Now post 320 and 322 give me no indication of the point you were making – can you explain it for us – then there would be no reason to assume or presume?

Anyway, to me you seemed to be indicating that in your view all political actions from right wingers and left wingers were driven by greed and therefore the same – I’ve given my counter-argument to that view.

But as I say if that wasn’t and isn't your view – what is it?

 

I must admit to mixed motives in advocating fairness and social justice. Deep down inside, I think that treating others fairly and kindly contributes to a better world for me and my family to live in. I think that following a course of peace, love, understanding and social justice would solve many of the world's problems, while following the opposite course contributes to hell on earth. Is that so wrong?

 

Tish

I'm with MeAgain - you must be one selfish son of a bitch -

 

320 and oops 332
point altruism does not exist BUT doing something FOR someone else BECAUSE it makes YOU feel good is just as valid as doing something for monetary gain and has the same end

and 320 has to do with previous post

 

NO it was an one example of a bizarre lawsuit and it was not a point that ALL lawsuits are improper just that IMO using the point that someone sued someone else or some entity for anything is not the basis for a good argument BECAUSE anyone can sue anyone for almost anything then the courts get to determine whether or not its valid

so how about this
Lawsuits Against Mcdonald’s For Obesity | | Justice Matters Action Center

or this?
Three Extreme Examples of Frivolous Lawsuits (agilelaw.com)
Man Sues Kardashians and Kanye West for conspiring with Al-Qaeda.

Judge files $67 Million Lawsuit Over a Pair of Pants.

 

you made my point and NO its not wrong never said it was