Exceptions to the rule.

@Elmud,

There're always exceptions to the rule - in science, animals, people, etc.

Warren Buffett - a person I revere - feels that if someone is lucky enough to be borne into the top 1% of society, should give back to the other 99%.

1 Reply

@Jose phil,

Question on the implications of our responses...

It hits me that if so many of us have a distaste - a sense of injustice - towards the filthy rich, then it would seem to follow that this should some how be curbed, not allowed or otherwise discouraged. Or should we all carry this sense of "that's just the way it is - someone to vent our disgust"?

For all things that we feel are 'unjust' or 'disproportionately wrong', from an ethical standpoint, one would have to have resolve this somehow. So how about it?

Is the existence of those filthy rich who have so much an injustice that needs resolution?
Or is this a "reality of how things are" that we just accept?
Or some other middle ground?

In contrast to the "exceptions" we've talked about. I'd be curious to hear how the presence of the grossly-wealthy are resolved.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Come the revolution brother im having that big house on the hill..

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Moral problems are not math problems. How does one go about resolving a moral dilemma without at some point calling, or treating, it in a non-moral way?

Sans the rhetorical.

Quote:

It hits me that if so many of us have a distaste - a sense of injustice - towards the filthy rich, then it would seem to follow that this should some how be curbed, not allowed or otherwise discouraged.

Are you saying "seem" in "seem to follow" so that you might get around the is-ought problem? Because your "should" would then need serious clarification. Is it a moral "should," and if it is not moral, in what sense should it be curbed? On what grounds? Political? Social?

Has anyone here argued that the economy or our political substratum or our social balance will crumble due to there being "filthy rich" persons?

Quote:

... one would have to have resolve this somehow

Why would anyone have to resolve this? For whom? Under which circumstances? Why?

Clearly I side with question 1 in the negative. But is it an injustice? Who has committed it? To we even have a clear view of the villain?

Or have we turned a fact-of-reality into a villain, a villain with no face? Worried ourselves over a metaphysical question of the worst kind: a meaningless one?

2 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Moral problems are not math problems. How does one go about resolving a moral dilemma without at some point calling, or treating, it in a non-moral way?

Sans the rhetorical.

Are you saying "seem" in "seem to follow" so that you might get around the is-ought problem? Because your "should" would then need serious clarification. Is it a moral "should," and if it is not moral, in what sense should it be curbed? On what grounds? Political? Social?

Has anyone here argued that the economy or our political substratum or our social balance will crumble due to there being "filthy rich" persons?

Why would anyone have to resolve this? For whom? Under which circumstances? Why?

Clearly I side with question 1 in the negative. But is it an injustice? Who has committed it? To we even have a clear view of the villain?

Or have we turned a fact-of-reality into a villain, a villain with no face? Worried ourselves over a metaphysical question of the worst kind: a meaningless one?

we may not have a villain but we have a crime..so who is the villain ? Ah i hear you say what crime but I say its down to perception.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

we may not have a villain but we have a crime..so who is the villain ? Ah i hear you say what crime but I say its down to perception.

We usually call crimes "illegal acts" or a "punishable action." Nevertheless, a crime presupposes some form of action. We can have volitional or nonvolitional action.

The former we all rational, to some degree or other, while with the latter we deem these actions either reflexes or "mere movements." It would be absurd to call anything a crime which is an illegal reflex, for legality presupposes some form of volition. Clearly I have committed no illegal act if I be drugged and stumble onto some person's private property. Even clearly, I've done nothing immoral except maybe under the condition that I take the drugs myself. Nevertheless, most persons would not fault me as morally blame worthy if I were to merely step onto his or her land, without permission while drugged. For I had no intent to trespass, no volition to do so.

Like with the "filthy rich." In what ways have we confirmed that these persons aim to be filthy rich for some illegal or wrongful end? And who counts as "filthy rich"? Why do they count?

Nevertheless, a crime presupposes a clear and distinct act done by a clear and distinct entity which committed that act. Even when it comes down to gangs, mafias and concerted illegal action, we look for the originator or sole mind behind it. But nevertheless, the parts of the whole are distributed punishment according to its offenses.

But "the Filthy Rich"? This is how you treat "them." As if they were a clan in an online video game or a club in Upper Manhattan. You've clearly hypostatized your entity, and the majority of this thread is a tribute to philosophical confusion, a chase for Platonic ghosts.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

Filthy rich is a recognisable crime when you have certain politics to guide you.When you look inthe other direction and see starving children and poverty. Why should one man sit in the only life raft when the boat is sinking..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Filthy rich is a recognisable crime when you have certain politics to guide you.When you look inthe other direction and see starving children and poverty. Why should one man sit in the only life raft when the boat is sinking..

1. Who is doing this? Who is looking in the other direction? And how do you know that they are? Are you suggesting that we, against person's freedoms, monitor their spending, their income, so that we might determine who is and who is not "looking in the other direction"?

2. What kind of "recognizable crime" is it? Is it a moral crime? A legal crime?

3. Why has no one recognized it as a crime thus far?

2 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

1. Who is doing this? Who is looking in the other direction? And how do you know that they are? Are you suggesting that we, against person's freedoms, monitor their spending, their income, so that we might determine who is and who is not "looking in the other direction"?

2. What kind of "recognizable crime" is it? Is it a moral crime? A legal crime?

3. Why has no one recognized it as a crime thus far?

A criminal act is ignoring the consequences of being filthy rich when others are starving.It is morally despicable on the big arena of life,maybe not a chargeable offence but a criminal act all the same..political opinion..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

A criminal act is ignoring the consequences of being filthy rich when others are starving.It is morally despicable on the big arena of life,maybe not a chargeable offence but a criminal act all the same..political opinion..

Well, you use a very broad and rather useless definition of "criminal act," for it is too intimately bound up with "mere opinion." By "mere opinion" I mean the kind of thing you pass about at coffee shops and in the grocery store isle as you pick up your intended goods. It is a "criminal act" is a loose and figurative sense, where one might deem your usage hyperbolic and poetic.

Yes, Bill Gates is a "criminal" because he has not, arguably, paid back his "99%" to society. But he is a criminal in terms of "mere opinion," but not in any real (legal) sense. Left up to morality, we have no recognized authority whereby "criminal acts" are demonstrated or made manifest. There is no Final Arbiter of Morality whereby we might say of Bill Gates that he is, conclusively, a moral criminal. Morality has no court.

"The big arena of life" speaks to no one but a select few moral dogmatists, perhaps, but says nothing to moral skeptics. This notion, on its own, carries no force, no convincing property.

I feel you are not being clear generally and specifically, where being clear would very much aid your argument. Specifically: "ignoring the consequences of being filthy rich" quite literally means nothing. There are no direct consequences to being filthy rich. Nothing follows from being filthy rich. The only consequence I can think of is the consequence of being reprimanded for ignoring those in need of help.

But certainly you do not wish to say that a criminal act is that act where one ignores the cries of others. There's nothing uniquely criminal or reprehensible about ignoring others if those cries are not directly addressed and sent to the "Filthy Rich." In short, who are they ignoring?

Being attacked by you is a consequence, should I be filthy rich. Should I merely follow your cry and command? Would this make me morally praiseworthy, heeding your beck and call?

And certainly my being filthy rich does not cause or determine as consequence any other person's financial plight. So you have failed to make me understand why I should treat it as such.

It seems that all you have said is not being altruistic entails being morally blameworthy for others' plight. Is this the claim you wish to defend?

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

You have ignored the all important fact, it is my opinion.I have no desire to change your views on what is criminal and what is not.I have stated it is my opinion that this crime is the outcome of society not the individual.When one person can accrue so much while others have so little is in MY OPINION criminal.Im not asking you to suck on my lolly just observe my opinion..Ide tax them into moderation..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

You have ignored the all important fact, it is my opinion.I have no desire to change your views on what is criminal and what is not.I have stated it is my opinion that this crime is the outcome of society not the individual.When one person can accrue so much while others have so little is in MY OPINION criminal.Im not asking you to suck on my lolly just observe my opinion..Ide tax them into moderation..

Is it your opinion in the way that one might find chocolate ice cream to be better than mint 'n' chocolate chip ice cream? Like how you find Wes Anderson films to be better than Spike Lee films? Might I still tell you that your opinion is wrong? What if you tell me that you find film X to be better than film Y, and that it is just your opinion? If I ask you why you think so, and you tell me "it is just my opinion," might I justifiably tell you that your opinion is wrong or constituted in the wrong way or that it has no substance whatsoever? Is a substanceless opinion an opinion? If you wish not to defend it in any way, why express it? What can I entertain or "observe" if it has no substance, no content? I'd be better off asking for the opinion of the passing breeze or of a rumbling river.

Is this philosophy? A mere accidental archive of sometimes disparate, sometimes overlapping opinion? We're just tossing about opinion here? Heaven forbid on a philosophy forum we should be asked to justify our opinion. Now the question here is not whether or not this is sarcasm, but whether or not it is justified sarcasm. For onlookers: Look at that which I argue against. Look.

I am telling you that your opinion has no substance. Thus, I am pointing out that you have no justification for the actions that you might draw from it ("taxing them into moderation").

For the most part, your opinion is muddled, clouded with confusion and is badly ill-formed. I hardly wish to call it an opinion. It would seem to be much more accurately classified as a gut-reaction which happens to express itself in words or a string of prima facie intelligible sounds; though, this can be misleading because, as said, you have provided no cogent justification for your opinion in that your opinion has received no justification to count as an opinion. It's more like a "**** you!" or a "Cut it out!" Not deserving of analysis or observation in any thoughtful sense.

I'm not asking you to justify your opinion. We can do that later. I'm asking you to tell me why I should consider your opinion an opinion at all because it certainly doesn't look like one. It's truth or reasonableness can be argued after we determine whether or not it has any substance; i.e. that it is without question an opinion. Telling me that it is an opinion is not a justification for it in fact being one. So no, I have not overlooked a fact. I am telling you that it is no fact at all.

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Are you saying "seem" in "seem to follow" so that you might get around the is-ought problem? Because your "should" would then need serious clarification. Is it a moral "should," and if it is not moral, in what sense should it be curbed? On what grounds? Political? Social?

Hmm, let me re-phrase: If you have a problem with the existence of that condition we call those that are 'filthy rich', how do you view or resolve this?

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Hmm, let me re-phrase: If you have a problem with the existence of that condition we call those that are 'filthy rich', how do you view or resolve this?

Depends on the nature of the problem. If you are to act in any way, your action depends on a clear identification and expression of that problem.

Some people are filthy rich. Is not a clear identification of the problem, nor is it an expression of it. "Some people are filthy rich and those who are filthy rich ignore the impoverished," even if it were true, is not an identification of the problem.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Depends on the nature of the problem. If you are to act in any way, your action depends on a clear identification and expression of that problem.

Some people are filthy rich. Is not a clear identification of the problem, nor is it an expression of it. "Some people are filthy rich and those who are filthy rich ignore the impoverished," even if it were true, is not an identification of the problem.

So you dont see a problem and you want me to point it out for you ?

1 Reply

@xris,

1. What kind of problem is it?
2. Why is it a problem?

Suppose that X has $1,000,000,000,000 dollars and that X does not wish to help the needy. What kind of problem is this? Why is it a problem?

Is it a problem that X has that much moolah? Or that X does not wish to help the needy? What if Y has $100? Would we hold the same judgment of Y?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

1% 2% whose counting fats fat....greeds greed....:rolleyes:

I was being sarcastic, by the way. Because "fat" has nothing to do with "greed".

Quote:

Ive concluded that all fat pigs are greedy arm holes..and im right....so there.

This was a joke, right? Well, my comment was.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;54423 wrote:

I was being sarcastic, by the way. Because "fat" has nothing to do with "greed".

This was a joke, right? Well, my comment was.

I believe he was making an analogy.

He's dogmatic about fatness like he's dogmatic about greed. There's no gray area for him on both topics. That's perhaps the only relationship these two topics have with one another. So it is doubtful that he thinks fatness has anything to do with greed.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

I interpereted xris stating:

Quote:

Ive concluded that all fat pigs are greedy arm holes..and im right....so there.

as him not caring to take the time to go through the logical process you set forth two posts before. It appeared to be a joke to me: A sort of mocking of the strict seeking of coherency you had just spoke of.

I then replied, in a jocular manner:

Quote:

I dunno, dude, I think it varies. If the individual has a bodyfat % of 20 or above, then I'd agree. But if it's 19.9% or below, I would call them kinda fat, greedy *******s.

Nonetheless, I understand he wasn't implying either concept had much to do with eachother.

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.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;54427 wrote:

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

(3) Yay!!!

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).

0 Replies

Exceptions to the rule.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know