Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?

[oldbadger]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy.

True!

Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Absolutely.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need?

Yes

Should we feed the hungry?

Certainly

Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter?

Urgently.

Do we have a duty of care?

In thought and deed. Yes.

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need?

Our Ideology should be carved in stone, to look after the poor. And we should keep to it.

Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Yes....... I believe in a National Ideology about this, and our children should know it.
(You know what I think about religion, though.... )

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think the first answer to the question is yes, society should help those in need. But the other side of it is that society also has an obligation to investigate and determine the causes and reasons why those people reached a point of such dire need in the first place.

Are people hungry simply because society doesn't grow enough food for everyone to eat? Are people homeless because there aren't enough available houses? Or is there some other reason?

Or maybe there are people with enough resources to feed half a planet, but who'd rather keep it in the bank.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments. I really don’t have anything to add to the excellent points made to date. Its heartening to see that everyone believes to some extent we should help others in need. That could be done though individuals, communities or the institutions that govern us. Of course there is much discussion about the role of the state.

We don’t need religion or any ideology to assist others. For some, religion or ideology can facilitate being a better person, for others it makes no difference or makes people worse in some instances.

 

[robocop (actually)]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Some helpful thoughts.

The Bible tells us there will always be poor among us.

It is good that we take care of them, and we shouldn't think, "It's not working."

If we get rich we should get rich to help others.

If we are poor we should say that if we had money we would give; otherwise we are guilty.

The poor can work with their hands.

 

[Fool]

I'm more in favor of providing people with the means to care for themselves before they are homeless.
In my native country of America, this translates to more of that satanic socialism.
But yes, of course, we should extend a hand to those in need.

the military is a socialist program. The educational system is a socialist program at the primary and secondary levels. The veteran health care is a socialist system. If it's good enough for veterans, it's good enough for me.

 

[Miken]

the military is a socialist program. The educational system is a socialist program at the primary and secondary levels. The veteran health care is a socialist system. If it's good enough for veterans, it's good enough for me.

Without taking sides in any political debate, I still want to offer these comments.

The military is a dictatorship that requires strict obedience to some really serious orders.

In general, the public school system is not as good and too often very inferior to private educational systems.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the veteran health care system is not very good at all.

Are you sure these are the examples you want to use?

 

[firedragon]

But as I explained in my earlier post taxation and the state are a more effective means of assistance to the poor than the drop in the bucket that charity is.

I agree. Definitely.

 

[danieldemol]

In general, the public school system is not as good and too often very inferior to private educational systems.

In Australia private schools students only scored an average of 1 percent better than public school students, which is a woefully small increase for the tens of thousands extra one pays to attend them. If its much different in the US its only due to the underinvestment by a selfish government protecting vested interests of the wealthy.

Besides for the poor private schools typically aren't an option anyway.

 

[Miken]

In Australia private schools students only scored an average of 1 percent better than public school students, which is a woefully small increase for the tens of thousands extra one pays to attend them. If its much different in the US its only due to the underinvestment by a selfish government protecting vested interests of the wealthy.

Besides for the poor private schools typically aren't an option anyway.

In New York City, where taxes on the wealthy are very very high, and operating budgets per public school student are the highest in the country, the quality of public school education - to put it bluntly - sucks. It is not 'underinvestment to protect the wealthy' that is behind this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is the question of chicken and egg. What was the originator of morality and/or "likeliness to care" which are two things, yet related, and is an argument that would go nowhere.

Do you consider religion an institution? In that case its new, and did not exist in the beginning what ever the beginning was. So this "likeliness to care", if it came from Gods initiation then it was there since time immemorial, instilled in humans. If you think religion exists with God himself then well, this existed again since.

If one thinks there is no God, religions and all of those things are hocus pocus, then he would believe that humans were build with this nature. We evolved into being of this nature. So he would argue that we dont need anything, we just need humans to respond to human need, assuming nothing had any influence on humans to be of this nature.

So this would call for a humungous philosophical discussion. Well, at least that's what I think. I think it is unfair to make small assumptions and making small assessments based on our preconceived notions to a question like this.

Sure you can debate it till you are blue in the face.
But it's rather simple imo.

We are a social species living in a cooperative society.
We cannot collectively thrive if everyone individually suffers.
The overall health of a society is going to be determined by the sum of the individual health of its citizens.
In other words, helping fellow citizens = helping society = helping yourself. Yourself, because living in a healthy society is better for YOU then it is to live in an unhealthy society.


There can be no prosperity in cooperation, if people don't.... cooperate. Helping those in need, falls under cooperation. You lift up society, by lifting up individuals.

I don't think it needs much more discussion then that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about non-secular people?

Well, to put it bluntly... Non-secular people help the hungry as well, but they are holding the meal ransom by making them sit through a sermon first.

That's a stereotype off course and not at all reflective of all non-secular charities. But you get the sentiment.

In a lot of ways, it is my opinion that the motives of many non-secular charities are actually corrupt.

 

[Miken]

Sure you can debate it till you are blue in the face.
But it's rather simple imo.

We are a social species living in a cooperative society.
We cannot collectively thrive if everyone individually suffers.
The overall health of a society is going to be determined by the sum of the individual health of its citizens.
In other words, helping fellow citizens = helping society = helping yourself. Yourself, because living in a healthy society is better for YOU then it is to live in an unhealthy society.


There can be no prosperity in cooperation, if people don't.... cooperate. Helping those in need, falls under cooperation. You lift up society, by lifting up individuals.

I don't think it needs much more discussion then that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I have no problem with that. It is the means of accomplishing it that is important. IMO strict adherence to one ideology or another is not the answer. We have to look at each situation in detail before deciding what is best.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is the question of chicken and egg. What was the originator of morality and/or "likeliness to care" which are two things, yet related, and is an argument that would go nowhere.

Do you consider religion an institution? In that case its new, and did not exist in the beginning what ever the beginning was. So this "likeliness to care", if it came from Gods initiation then it was there since time immemorial, instilled in humans. If you think religion exists with God himself then well, this existed again since.

If one thinks there is no God, religions and all of those things are hocus pocus, then he would believe that humans were build with this nature. We evolved into being of this nature. So he would argue that we dont need anything, we just need humans to respond to human need, assuming nothing had any influence on humans to be of this nature.

So this would call for a humungous philosophical discussion. Well, at least that's what I think. I think it is unfair to make small assumptions and making small assessments based on our preconceived notions to a question like this.

I hadn’t really examined this aspect of the question too much. What I had considered was identifying a core aspect of what makes us human. The extent to which we serve those in need is arguably a much more important aspect of what makes us good than any religious or ideological identity. What is the value in being a member of any group if we cannot overcome our tribal instincts to assist the ‘other’. What matters is the journey from selfishness to selflessness. The purpose of religion is then reframed as being something that can make us a better person or not. If religion makes us more compassionate and just then it is of value. If religion leads to hatred and estrangement then it is best avoided. Arguments about the relative truth of religion are meaningless if religion doesn’t positively transform our lives. That’s how I’m viewing the relationship between religion and service.

 

[danieldemol]

In New York City, where taxes on the wealthy are very very high, and operating budgets per public school student are the highest in the country, the quality of public school education - to put it bluntly - sucks. It is not 'underinvestment to protect the wealthy' that is behind this.

Do you have any figures on how students are scoring worse on exams in NY city than their private school counterparts or are you just making up that it "sucks" without any objective evidence?

 

[firedragon]

I hadn’t really examined this aspect of the question too much. What I had considered was identifying a core aspect of what makes us human. The extent to which we serve those in need is arguably a much more important aspect of what makes us good than any religious or ideological identity. What is the value in being a member of any group if we cannot overcome our tribal instincts to assist the ‘other’. What matters is the journey from selfishness to selflessness. The purpose of religion is then reframed as being something that can make us a better person or not. If religion makes us more compassionate and just then it is of value. If religion leads to hatred and estrangement then it is best avoided. Arguments about the relative truth of religion are meaningless if religion doesn’t positively transform our lives. That’s how I’m viewing the relationship between religion and service.

Everything leads to hatred and estrangement. Everything. People fought the biggest wars murdering 40-50 million people for various things, not religion. Then people have fought various wars for religion.

The question what makes us human is already answered brother.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Well, to put it bluntly... Non-secular people help the hungry as well, but they are holding the meal ransom by making them sit through a sermon first.

Please show me the research and statistics. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Sure you can debate it till you are blue in the face.
But it's rather simple imo.

We are a social species living in a cooperative society.
We cannot collectively thrive if everyone individually suffers.
The overall health of a society is going to be determined by the sum of the individual health of its citizens.
In other words, helping fellow citizens = helping society = helping yourself. Yourself, because living in a healthy society is better for YOU then it is to live in an unhealthy society.


There can be no prosperity in cooperation, if people don't.... cooperate. Helping those in need, falls under cooperation. You lift up society, by lifting up individuals.

I don't think it needs much more discussion then that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If that's reasonable to you, that's good. I agree with what you said. But that's not what I was talking about.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not an acolyte of Smith, but his prediction was pretty much the same as what you're suggesting. He was in favour of a minimum wage which far exceeds that of today, as well as simplified taxing which ensured the poor did not bear the brunt of taxation. Concepts such as negative taxation (ie. directly redistributing tax money to the working poor) was one means of bolstering low wages, for example. He was also in favour of a minimum wage far in excess of the current US one (extrapolating forwards).

Anyway...it's all good. Personally, I find some of his theories harder to subscribe than others. But @Sunstone is completely right in terms of intent, and there is more than just 'good wishes' in his work. He supported a whole raft of programs we'd probably not consider as part of a 'modern free capitalist' manifesto.

I'll leave you with two quotes from him, and then bow out. The second take a little more effort, but speaks directly to the negative view he had on monopolists. He wanted businesses actively encouraged to remain small, and competitive. Not large and monolithic.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.

and

…the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against… has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of them, that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature. The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence … If he opposes them…the most acknowledged probity…can[not] protect him from …the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists

Thanks for you post, Dave. Too many people pronounce judgement on Smith without having studied him.

 

[Fool]

Without taking sides in any political debate, I still want to offer these comments.

The military is a dictatorship that requires strict obedience to some really serious orders.

In general, the public school system is not as good and too often very inferior to private educational systems.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the veteran health care system is not very good at all.

Are you sure these are the examples you want to use?

you qualifying them no relevance to the fact. they are socialist programs

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you have any figures on how students are scoring worse on exams in NY city than their private school counterparts or are you just making up that it "sucks" without any objective evidence?

Heh...don't go lightly into this topic, mate.
I've got a professional background in teaching, and am quite interested in the various teaching systems around the world. The US one is fundamentally different in how it's arranged, where funding comes from, and how consistent the education framework is.

For example NY City does pay a high amount per child in public school. Part of the reason for that is a relatively slower increase in State funding.

Yes, in the US there is district and state funding to consider, with property taxes commonly being part of a funding model (it's not consistent, state to state). This means that affluent areas can have access to more direct funding...basically the reverse of what happens here.

There is also a separation in schooling between private, public and charter schools. Near as I can tell, its charter schools that are closest to our concept of a private school. They have an element of public funding, but also adhere more closely to state based curriculum frameworks.

Meh, long story short, whilst they might superficially seem similar to ours, US schooling models are like learning another language.