Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!sundc!gouldsd!mjranum
From: mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus the Ranum)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Poor People/Lazy People
Message-ID: <195@gouldsd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 13:29:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: gouldsd.195
Posted: Wed Oct  8 13:29:21 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 04:34:58 EDT
References: <1010@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <1050001@hpspkla.HP.COM> <1079@kontron.UUCP> <2000@ihlpa.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Gould Inc, ASDD, Landover, MD
Lines: 64
Summary: relative ethics || total responsibility

In article <2000@ihlpa.UUCP>, gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes:

> The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
> "dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth.  The question is whether
> you have obligations to people you don't even know.  If you've got
> any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> you *do* have such obligations.  So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
> number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage.  If those unwashed low-lifes
> knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
> 
> ken perlow       *****   *****

	There are two major problems with your line of reasoning:

1) you are assuming some kind of universal morality, in that YOU assert
that those of use with yuppie-designer brains *DO* have some kind of 
obligations. Simply put: this point is arguable, and depends entirely 
on your moral/philosophical background. I am simply pointing this out,
and refuse to give my position on the matter of absolute morality, since
that would tend to distract you from my main argument that there is no
logically testable proof that "ethics" and "morality" exist outside of
the human imagination. Unless you make an unsupported claim like "you
*ARE* your brother's keeper" there will always be those who prefer to
assume they are not.

2) assume my point #1 is INCORRECT. In that case we do have a moral/ethical
imperative to succor our fellow man when he is in need. This applies to
the unemployed of Amerika, the starving of Africa, the oppressed in Russia,
the Chinese peasant who has a bad year, ad infinitum. Essentially, if you
are so courageous as to be your brother's keeper, YOU HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE
to help EVERYONE that is needy, cold, wet, hungry, poor, oppressed, imprisoned,
denied the right to vote, beaten, etc, etc. It is against your previous
statement that you "*do* have such obligations" if you are going to decide
to only help the poor of Amerika. In fact, people who get so upon their
high horse, speaking of the moral duty of yuppie-designer-brained people,
yet have the time to talk about it, are obviously failing to fulfill their
self-assigned duty. While you wrote those words above, hundreds of people
all over the world were suffering from one disorder or another. Why weren't
you, oh saviour of humanity, doing something about it ?

	in short, either you assume that you owe nobody anything, but can
occasionally opt to help out, or you MUST assume the burden of all humanity
as brothers. I think the first option in this case is the more sensible
one. The last person I recall hearing about who tried the second got nailed
to a tree, or something like that. 
	Personally, it is your last sentence that I feel is the most sensible.
Were it not for the bread and circuses that our tax money provides, the
great unwashed would surely bring about the collapse of Amerika, and Usenet,
and murder anyone who makes over 25,000$/year in their sleeps. To think of
it as "protection money" is not out of the question. Remember the glory that
was Rome, and the gawdawful mess that followed.
	None of this is dogma. I just hope to provide some fuel for thought.
Morality is a terrible responsibility, and I have never met anyone who has
had the strength to do anything other than TALK about it.

Live Free
mjr


-- 
 
Quite a hundred gourds
Be careful of pine-needle points
Waterfall Music