From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Charity (Re: Ignorance
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:35:49 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov14.185635.9511@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov14.061240.17006@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>> have a right to _force_ them to (by means of
>>>government taxes.) Since how much charity is appropriate is a
>>>moral judgement, isn't that imposing the moral views of the 
>>>majority on a minority? (Little different in my mind, from state
>>>religions.)
> 
>>You could either look at it in a morality term, or a term of social
>>need. If you look at it as social needs then the majority has the moral
>>right to set the level (this subject could branch off into a whole 
>>different discussion).
> 
>By this logic, what prevents the majority from claiming _any_ topic
>is a matter of social need, and imposing it on minorities? 30 years
>ago, in Alabama, a majority of the people felt that keeping
>blacks out of many places was a "social need." By your logic, wouldn't
>this morally justify discrimination?

Good point. But since it was ruled un-Constitutional, it is a moot point.
As for Alabama, nobody tried to argue that this was morally right. At the same
time, nobody is trying to argue that helping the poor is morally wrong.
 For instance, the majority 
now is setting the level of money that is going for building roads and
bridges. The roads and bridges are for the social good. There is a need
for them. No one person can pay for them.
	There is also a need to help the homeless. It is in the communities
best interest, both for sanitary reasons as well as keeping the community
from looking run down. But more than that, no one can argue the virtues of
helping the less fortunant on moral grounds anymore than someone can argue
for homocide on moral grounds.
	I may have left some holes in this arguement, but I am sure that
someone will let me know if I did.
> 
>>As for comparing it to state religions, your 
>>arguement takes a stretch of logic to reach. Are you comparing the 
>>social services of this country to Communism?
> 
>No, I'm saying that how much and no under which conditions to give
>to charity is a question of moral standards and views. To me, there
>is very little difference between a system of moral standards and
>views, and a religion. Imposing the moral judgement of the majority
>is effectively no different than imposing a religion.

Yet another good point. This moral judgement discussion always borders
on a fine line. I get very offended (believe it or not) when a religious 
person tries to impose their values on me too. But let me put it to you
another way. Would you consider murder as morally wrong? Of course you would.
Anybody would. That's why it's illegal.
	Now would you consider helping your fellow man when he is hurting
morally right? Of course. So the question isn't whether the morals of the
majority being imposed on the minority are out of line, the question is
WHICH morals are and to what degree. Imposing a certain level of moral
standards doesn't necessarily mean religious standards. It takes a 
certain amount of civility to maintain a society. Am I making sense?

>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder
> 
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7137 ca.politics:9586 talk.politics.misc:60254