But let's get back on track: I do believe the conversation would benefit if the two questions you just posed could be brought to light. I'm a bit confused as to why there is this angst against the rich. I have a feeling it's only some of the rich they're referring.
Indeed. I have a strong feeling that it is not so much a clear and distinct argument that fuels this spite toward the rich, but moral condescension. I mean that we often suppose that if we were in a rich person's shoes, we'd do it "right." On this hypothesis, if no rich person does it the way we would were we to be rich like them, that rich person is worthy of condemnation.
Naturally, it's a hypothesis that we be in their shoes; a hypothesis immediately divorced from reality and predicated on the imagination. I can't be moved by one's bare imagination, argument essentially sourced in The-Way-I'd-Do-It-If...
Our moral outlooks can sometimes trick us into thinking that we can view the world from other realms
, from perhaps a detached station not bound by the dictates of the causal chain. From morality all conclusions seem to just follow.
Moral opinion is given justification on account of its being opinion; and if wrong, it's still just an opinion
. If "right", we've got no idea why it's right. Thus, we're stuck having to observe moral viewpoints given no justification whatever, wrong ones because we have to respect everybody's opinion and right one's because they're mysteriously right (and we have to respect everybody's opinion). So long as we call it an opinion, it gets wiggle room. This is why I go through the trouble of saying to xris: Look, what you've said, despite appearance, is not an opinion. It's akin to a preference
(1) I do not like ice cream.
(2) Obama is a socialist.
(1) is a preference. It doesn't need justification. But if one attempts to get (2) by without justification, and claims that it shouldn't need one ("it's just an opinion" as justification), then it becomes of the same class as (1). It's a preference, not an opinion. I could equally replace (1) with
Thus, (2) falls into the same class as (3). It's (un)fortunately a sequence of markings or sounds that makes into the other class of "intelligible sentences." It's a phenomena that we can do this, make intelligible noise that essentially is not really intelligible (it has no justification). Really, this should be a whole other philosophical topic (thread).
It's almost vicious. This is why I try to steer clear past whether it is right or wrong, but whether it has a justification. The worst kind of moral viewpoint is not a wrong one, but an unjustified one (where justification is not sought to be given).