Is it morally wrong to hoard wealth?

marabhfuil

Is it morally wrong to hoard wealth when you have enough to support yourself and family comfortably and not to contribute more to society than others who have not enough to live comfortably and decently?

Latchy

Isin't this really a question for banks and bank managers ?

Max Power1

it depends on what your criteria for "morality" are..

marabhfuil

Say for example the average cost of living in a country was 1 euro.
If you earn say, 1000 euro per year should you not pay significantly more to society than one who would earn say 45 euro per year.

Suppose so that you earn 10 euro per year in this simplified example of a country. Should you not have to contribute very little say 50cent per year and the one earning 1000 euro should contribute say 500 euro?

The richer one would still be rich and the poorer still poor but the services provided in this country would be well provided for and the rich one could still afford the luxuries that they would desire and he content with less still have a respectable standard of living provided for them,

I mean there are people who have far more money than they could even spend in their lives. this money being hoarded causes inflation to rise does it not?

marabhfuil

Latchy wrote: »

Isin't this really a question for banks and bank managers ?

No its not its a question for whoever is willing to consider it thats all

marabhfuil

Max Power1 wrote: »

it depends on what your criteria for "morality" are..

For example is it not morally wrong to have the means to allieviate anothers suffering and not to do so.

nyarlothothep

something similar on the usually hilarious Vincent Browne show, when he suggested a cap on wages, say if they went into the astronomical. Some halfwit journalist went into hysterics at the idea.

well horse

marabhfuil wrote: »

For example is it not morally wrong to have the means to allieviate anothers suffering and not to do so.

We're just big bundles of matter floating around blindly through space. Morality is an invalid concept when viewed objectively, so fcuk everybody else and just do what you like.

nyarlothothep

tsk tsk, you should realize that subjectivity is as much a part of our existence as objectivity. Why right now your perception of that computer monitor is being filtered by your brain.

silverharp

marabhfuil wrote: »

I mean there are people who have far more money than they could even spend in their lives. this money being hoarded causes inflation to rise does it not?

No , governments create inflation not people. More generally the issue is does the gov. or your community put a gun to your head and make you conribute, or do you do it because you want to.

Max Power1

marabhfuil wrote: »

For example is it not morally wrong to have the means to allieviate anothers suffering and not to do so.

I would not consider it immoral, no. Do you? And if so, why do you not tithe all your income to charity, minus a minimum amount for sustinence of yourself.

Dazd_N_Confusd

marabhfuil wrote: »

Say for example the average cost of living in a country was 1 euro.
If you earn say, 1000 euro per year should you not pay significantly more to society than one who would earn say 45 euro per year.

Suppose so that you earn 10 euro per year in this simplified example of a country. Should you not have to contribute very little say 50cent per year and the one earning 1000 euro should contribute say 500 euro?

The richer one would still be rich and the poorer still poor but the services provided in this country would be well provided for and the rich one could still afford the luxuries that they would desire and he content with less still have a respectable standard of living provided for them,

I mean there are people who have far more money than they could even spend in their lives. this money being hoarded causes inflation to rise does it not?

Somebody sounds like a socialist!

Four-Too

well horse wrote: »

We're just big bundles of matter floating around blindly through space. Morality is an invalid concept when viewed objectively, so fcuk everybody else and just do what you like.

What are you? Or what do you think you (we) are....zombies?? Will you be ashamed when you look down when your dead at all the suffering, and horror, like Iraq etc? I think you will

well horse

Four-Too wrote: »

What are you? Or what do you think you (we) are....zombies?? Will you be ashamed when you look down when your dead at all the suffering, and horror, like Iraq etc? I think you will

I'm a human being. And I think that we are all ultimately biological machines moving through spacetime in one direction only.

What reason have you to believe that you will be "looking down" on anything after you die?

Chi chi

marabhfuil wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to hoard wealth when you have enough to support yourself and family comfortably and not to contribute more to society than others who have not enough to live comfortably and decently?

Morality is morality. Reality is reality. This thing is always wrong in our books. That was why we sometimes wonder where our taxes and welfare have gone to.

minusorange

well horse wrote: »

We're just big bundles of matter floating around blindly through space. Morality is an invalid concept when viewed objectively, so fcuk everybody else and just do what you like.

Whether or not their can be a truly objective morality isn't really the point. Nothing should distract us from trying to establish a moral framework on which to base our lives, and our interactions with and responsibility to other lives.

I try to take comment's like yours with a pinch of salt because I know that you know it's not really a contribution to this discussion.

The question I'm left with then though is why did you even bother posting it?

Really? I'm not trying to have a dig here but it's not funny, and if it's not meant to be funny come on here and defend it.

Is it some sort of solipsistic nihilist rant, or are you just not funny?

minusorange

Peter Singer on the matter

http://cdn3.libsyn.com/pointofinquiry/POI_2009_06_19_Peter_Singer.mp3?nvb=20090812143947&nva=20090813144947&t=05495e3d48ea3fea0e001

Lana80

Yes

FionnMatthew

More Singer:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

He's good on this issue, I think. Like with vegetarianism, I don't think he's wrong. I just don't want to take his advice. I suppose that makes me a bad person.

Black Cross

The OP's question is vague and subjective. You may as well just have taken a poll and told everyone not to debate the subject (which will just become convaluted).

A more pertanent question would have been "Is hoarding conflictive to/exclusive of the fundamental meaning of society/conglomeration/mutual aid?".

This makes the entire debate much more precise, and less subject to personal opinion.

Personally, though, i do believe hoarding is morally wrong... anybody care?

994

By hoarding wealth, you increase the value of everyone else's money by a tiny amount by making money a little more scarce.

FionnMatthew

Black Cross wrote: »

A more pertanent question would have been "Is hoarding conflictive to/exclusive of the fundamental meaning of society/conglomeration/mutual aid?".

This makes the entire debate much more precise, and less subject to personal opinion.

What does that question even mean? What are you trying to ask?

Is hoarding wealth incompatible with the fundamental tenets of society? or something?

Because for a sentence intended to clarify something, your English was comically unorthodox!

Black Cross

Don't make fun of someone elses syntax or word choice while misusing words; It's just ironic.

I was proposing something less restrictive than societal dogma (wtf is that? And how does it pertain to what i said?)

for a sentence intended to clarify something

Erm, no. It was meant to give a couple alternative ideas to the question posed. I wasn't trying to make this topic understandable (it's quite clear as it is, no?), just less vague and subject to opinion.

your English was comically unorthodox

And yet you understood it (even though you substituted 'tenet' for 'meaning', making it less clear :rolleyes:). And there's nothing wrong with being unorthodox (if that's even what it was)... Maybe you're you just lookin for an ego boost? Rough day?

orestes

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Because for a sentence intended to clarify something, your English was comically unorthodox!

Black Cross wrote: »

Don't make fun of someone elses syntax or word choice while misusing words; It's just ironic.

Maybe you're you just lookin for an ego boost? Rough day?

Attack the post, not the poster please. Please read the forum charter for clarification of the rules of this forum.

FionnMatthew

Black Cross wrote: »

Don't make fun of someone elses syntax or word choice while misusing words; It's just ironic.

I was proposing something less restrictive than societal dogma (wtf is that? And how does it pertain to what i said?)



Erm, no. It was meant to give a couple alternative ideas to the question posed. I wasn't trying to make this topic understandable (it's quite clear as it is, no?), just less vague and subject to opinion.



And yet you understood it (even though you substituted 'tenet' for 'meaning', making it less clear :rolleyes:). And there's nothing wrong with being unorthodox (if that's even what it was)... Maybe you're you just lookin for an ego boost? Rough day?

Black Cross,

I meant only to point out that your question needs a bit of work if it is to be of any contribution to the discussion. I'll assume that you'll appreciate some aid hammering out the reformulated question.

'Meaning' is not less clear. The word 'meaning' has multiple nonequivalent uses, plenty of which parse well in the sentence you gave, but none of which is preferable to an alternative, seeing as the situation makes the word vague to begin with. 'Meaning,' for the record, is also considered a crucially vague word in contemporary philosophical discourses.

I suggested 'tenet' as one possible interpretative substitution for your use of the word 'meaning'. I don't deny that there are others. But if what you intended by "meaning" is something like "foundational assumptions," or "ground rules," or "the whole point of having a society," (all of which are permissable from "meaning") you ought to be happier with 'tenets' than with 'meaning,' because 'meaning' could equally imply any number of other possible interpretations, some of which don't go your way.

For the record, if I am correct I do think it's a good question, and I do think it leads us into a better analytic, but I also did think it needed saying that if what we desire is more precision, our language is the first tool we need to sharpen.

I sometimes assume that people won't take things personally, because that's how we do things in philosophy. If you felt exposed by my criticism, directed at what you wrote, and not at you, please accept my apology.

Fighting Irish

marabhfuil wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to hoard wealth when you have enough to support yourself and family comfortably and not to contribute more to society than others who have not enough to live comfortably and decently?

It's your fault you're broke not anyone elses

nyarlothothep wrote: »

something similar on the usually hilarious Vincent Browne show, when he suggested a cap on wages, say if they went into the astronomical. Some halfwit journalist went into hysterics at the idea.

I must be a halfwit as well then

Black Cross

Fionn

It's hard to interpret motive over the internet. My fault.

I do believe 'tenet' is too restrictive to what i was proposing (not that i was proposing we discuss this here) as it reduces 'society' to a doctrine, not something that has inherent value to people. Maybe "purpose" would have been a better choice; either way, i was high, and i don't deny that it inhibits my train of thought (at least while i'm high).

So i apologize.

orestes

FionnMatthew & Black Cross - take it to pm please, I don't want this thread derailed any further by a discussion of semantics. Cheers