richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
No the condition of the person in need is of primary concern i just believe that people should do it of their own free will rather than being forced to do it. And yes many people give to improve their self image rather than out of kindness. For example the Government give's help/other people's money to people for votes or religions will give their help in order to convert people to their religion.
The heart can be as good as people make it to be. Call me idealistic but that's the way i think people can be if the try hard enough. People have heart but choose to ignore it for their own conveinience. And yes their are some legitimately bad people.
And just out of curiosity what was your solution for helping the needy again?
|
It is only an issue of "forcing" someone to do it, if they don't want to do it. And if someone doesn't want programs to help the poor, then I have to question them. What I believe happens with government programs is they come to being because the will of the public is embarrassed by a problem, or offering it sounds appealing, and people fail to address the issue. As a society becomes more secular, and people are taught to focus more on their own satisifation as their purpose in life, government programs will end up growing. And in the charity side, particularly government programs, I get tired of the said "conservative" trope of how conservatives give more, thus it is better.
For myself, having people doing tithing to help the poor would help, along with some training and dealing with people's habits to make sure they learn to manage money better. Need to work with the poor on this, and they need enough resources. But, so long as the culture is one of self, self, self, then you aren't likely to get that. Giving will be out of placating guilt.
|
Firstly, just because you don't want to be forced to support the government's approach to helping people does not mean you don not want to help people in your own way. And i know that their are issue's so great and the public response has not been adequate requiring the government to step in and take care of it, but i think we should be putting more effort into taking over the responsibilities of the government. For example many people need government help because they are getting screwed over by the companies they work for. Since the 90's the bottom 90% of American's have only received 4% of the growth in the economy. This also affects the people receiving help as they no longer have to survive on government handout's.
In conclusion my goal is to reduce the me-centric focus of society and get people to help those in need and give their employee's a fair go which i believe can be done by getting people to feel good about contributing rather than making them feel bad for not helping. It seem's that most of your argument is that society is naturally bad and will only help other's for bad reason's or if their forced to which is such a loser way to think.
I also never claimed that conservative's give more nor would i claim to be a conservative given other stigma's attached to the term.
|
I could say it wwould be good if people do more. But what happens when people's moral sensibilities get offended by things in society, but are so wrapped up in their own things they don't, then the government does step in.
Back to this thread, what religion does is get people to stop being me-centered, by offering something larger. I have to wonder where does it comes from minus this though.
|
I agree with you on that point. Where we are and where i would like society to be are two different things adn till then a different approach is required.
However i disagree with the claim that religion stop's people from being me-centered. If anything religion reduce's the need to care for people's quality of life as they will have a better one after this (which sadly they won't). Also using a lie motivate people to do good is not good enough for me and where i draw the line.
