BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll clear this up, so I don't have to address this again. It really doesn't matter if I equivocate 'position' and 'argument'. For example, "it's impossible to debate someone with constantly shifting arguments " (like this scenario). By 'your position', I mean the one you're presenting. Nothing about your motivations or who you are have affected my arguments because I don't care who you are or what your underlying motivation is (except for the stated motivation/intention in the argument).
My point is that you shouldn't be attempting to "debate someone." The goal of this discussion should not be for you to have an argument with Metsfanmax. It's to learn about various issues related to redistribution of wealth.
Metsfanmax wrote:Anyway, your criteria would've been satisfied under the relative laissez-faire in pre-1900 USA. Was that your intention?
Did people in pre-1900 USA mostly feel obligated to share a substantial portion of their wealth with people much poorer than them?
Initially, your position was: "people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they."
But now, you've changed the criteria. Note the italicized.
So, what's your position now? The first one or this most recent one? I can't address future positions.
Formally, my position is that people are morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are substantially poorer than them in an absolute sense. They should continue to give until the decrease in their pleasure with their lifestyle is a substantial fraction of the increase in the pleasure of the person receiving the wealth. For example, I think that a person with a salary of $100,000 could easily give 10% of their income without fundamentally impacting their way of life, while simultaneously doubling the income of 30 people in Africa.
They don't because the government already takes massive amounts of money from them in the name of helping the poor (even though they haven't helped the poor for 50 years).
You mean, the poor in the U.S.? What about the poor in Africa? The US government spends a pittance on that relative to GDP.
Besides, why are YOU living a life of having a computer, and spending tons of time on a gaming website? Shouldn't you be giving all that to people who are worse off than you since that's your standard of someone having only $10 would be better off with your $10?
Yes, I am being selfish and not acting to the full standard that my moral system dictates. But it does give me something to strive for, and I'm slowly trying to improve the amount I donate. This is not unreasonable; people pick moral systems all the time that they don't fully live up to, as a way to guide them (i.e., people often think that Christ was a good role model, but how many of us are Christ-like in all of our actions? Does that mean that we should give up on him?).