Quote:
Originally Posted by Maru
What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.
I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.
LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.
If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.
On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.
Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.
I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.
|
Who's job is it then? In a society that has a social welfare structure paid for via income tax then it is everyones duty to pay ... the rich obviously fall into that and pay proportionately.
What is this inference that the rich are a breed apart who can't contemplate want? Obviously Mr Sheeran can :/