[Clear]

Before I give you the question I must define two terms:

Necessity wealth: Wealth needed for survival, such as food, water, and shelter from environmental hazards.

Luxury wealth: Any wealth in excess of necessity wealth.


Here's the question:

As long as you own even one penny worth of luxury wealth, is it possible to claim that you are a moral person while there are impoverished people in the world who do not even possess sufficient necessity wealth?

[Praying Mantidae]

I believe that if you have a large, medium, or even small excess of Luxury wealth, then sharing it with those less fortunate would be the just, honourable and overall moral thing to do. It doesn't even matter what, or how much you give, because every little bit helps.

Although, one could claim that they are unaware of those people that are impoverished. However, in this day and age, I'd have to respond by telling them to get out from under their damn rock.

[ThatGuy]

Giving all your extra money to less fortunate people is the right thing to do, but everyone knows that it's hard to give up all our luxuries (like Warhammer ).

[Tenseiga]

1. I have worked my d'yi off for every penny I've ever made, and done so without infringing on the rights of others or screwing over the environment.

2. The government has already taken a substantial portion of that money and made "charitible donations" on my behalf for the less-fortunate.

3. I have personally made charitible donations on my own behalf towards selected charities that I fond worthwhile.

4. There are more (and better) ways to help people than simply throwing money at them.

5. Getting all emo about it doesn't do any good. And getting down on yourself because you, as one person, can't change the world to whatever ideal you hold, isn't going to help either. Do what you can to make the world a little better than you found it. If everyone does this, change is possible.

Your Lord and Master,
Todd

[Solourus]

Originally Posted by Tenseiga

1. I have worked my d'yi off for every penny I've ever made, and done so without infringing on the rights of others or screwing over the environment.

Actualy you are infringing on others rights and screwing over the enviroment by just buying many products in your local store (sweat shops any one?)

Originally Posted by Tenseiga

4. There are more (and better) ways to help people than simply throwing money at them.

I agree, just giveing people money dosent help. We need to help them become selfsufficent with out us.

Originally Posted by Tenseiga

5. Getting all emo about it doesn't do any good. And getting down on yourself because you, as one person, can't change the world to whatever ideal you hold, isn't going to help either. Do what you can to make the world a little better than you found it. If everyone does this, change is possible.

Getting all emo? How dose that work exactly i see absolutly no conection. No one is getting down as far as i can see :-\.

[Farseer Cold-Beer]

Yes, it is moral to have luxuries... if we had no luxuries, and all our money that was not needed for suvival went to someone else, thats called communism, and then no one would do high paying jobs for the same money... no one would be a plumber if they got paid the same as a brick layer (lol, thats abit funny) or a garbage man paid the same as a taxi driver... Hard, disgusting jobs would become un worked...

[Chton]

Originally Posted by The Timeless One

Yes, it is moral to have luxuries... if we had no luxuries, and all our money that was not needed for suvival went to someone else, thats called communism, and then no one would do high paying jobs for the same money... no one would be a plumber if they got paid the same as a brick layer (lol, thats abit funny) or a garbage man paid the same as a taxi driver... Hard, disgusting jobs would become un worked...

That is a common misconception of Communism. Everyone would not earn the same wages. A surgeon would still earn more than a plumber.
(And a garbage man often earn more than a taxi driver, in many countries.)
"Hard and disgusting" job would still be taken, as everyone is entitled to a job.

"if we had no luxuries, and all our money that was not needed for suvival went to someone else, thats called communism"
...no dude...just no.
Please, if you have to speak of Communism, at least read a little background on it first. Just search "communism" on Wikipedia or something.

[Solourus]

Originally Posted by The Timeless One

no one would be a plumber if they got paid the same as a brick layer (lol, thats abit funny)

Dude do you even know what most plumbers do? My brothers an aprentace plumber and he likes his work much better than he would if he was a bricklayer.

[khanaris]

Ideally, a CEO makes a justfiable amount given the difficulty of his job and the qualifications he has earned in order to attain it. Any excess profits should be immediately reinvested into the economy, which should expand as fast as it possibly can. Labor creates the means by which further labor may be done. What is happening now is that the upper rungs of the corporate ladder are reinvesting, but the capital is gradually shifting overseas. It is still trickle-down economics, but it is landing outside the bucket. And because more money is going to the executive levels of corporations than is returning to the economy through their hands, you see a gradual widening of the gap between the upper and middles-classes.

[Crisis 541]

Just giving moey to the problem will sometimes make it more ineffectual. Look at the new minium wage increase in the U.S. With minium going up the emploees will make a little more until the company goes overseas to cheaper areas like China, Indonesia, etc. All the minium wage increase would do is cause the loss of alot of people's jobs forcing a work force out on the streets.

The neccesary wealth would be gone as the job left. Trying to give the workers luxury wealth would only take away their nessasary wealth and move it out of the country.