Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Every penny we spend on our comfort is tainted in the blood of innocents watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When such a vast number of people in the world suffer and die as a result of problems like a lack of clean water, nutrition, medicines and vaccines that are easily fixed when money is available to charities and other actors, it is undeniable that every penny we spend on ourselves beyond our basic survival is tainted by the blood of innocents. How do you cope with the guilt of paying for things you don't need when the money spent could have saved lives in the god-forsaken places of our world? I am as guilty of this sociopathic avarice as anyone, but I seem to be the only one who realises how obscene our lifestyles are in the West in this context.

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't and never have felt guilty when buying luxuries because I don't think about people who have it bad when I'm buying them. The thing is, as selfish as it is, 9 time out of 10 I wouldn't donate the money and would proceed with buying said luxury item even with the thought in my head. I suppose it'd be because I'd think "what difference is £50 gonna make". Also....I'm not financially well off either
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well its my money, I will only donate money to charity when im sittin in the back of my rolls royce ghost

    Im not gonna donate when im broke myself
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Do-gooders can continue to beat themselves up all they wish. It's your oddity to deal with.

    Just don't force your flawed ideology on innocent people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catholic_)
    Do-gooders can continue to beat themselves up all they wish. It's your oddity to deal with.

    Just don't force your flawed ideology on innocent people.
    As usual, the Catholics are less Christian than everyone else.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    When such a vast number of people in the world suffer and die as a result of problems like a lack of clean water, nutrition, medicines and vaccines that are easily fixed when money is available to charities and other actors, it is undeniable that every penny we spend on ourselves beyond our basic survival is tainted by the blood of innocents. How do you cope with the guilt of paying for things you don't need when the money spent could have saved lives in the god-forsaken places of our world? I am as guilty of this sociopathic avarice as anyone, but I seem to be the only one who realises how obscene our lifestyles are in the West in this context.

    Thoughts?
    Ridiculous. Should I bring my child up
    In a cesspit so that makes things more equal for people who have less. We don't take things away from them, we buy things that they make.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Our goal isn't simply to survive, it's to live. I don't feel guilty for living beyond basic survival - if everyone lived only up to the point of survival then there would be no point in any of us being alive. We need more than that; we are more complex than animals in the wild.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    Ridiculous. Should I bring my child up
    In a cesspit so that makes things more equal for people who have less. We don't take things away from them, we buy things that they make.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We're talking about people who die in their droves on a daily basis as a result of problems that could be fixed by money. I'm not suggesting we start a communist revolution. Have you even read the OP?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    As usual, the Catholics are less Christian than everyone else.
    No it's just they realise that we are in a personal universe and God is not making the point of life Marxist development. If he wanted he could make everyone billionaires but it's not the point.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    Our goal isn't simply to survive, it's to live. I don't feel guilty for living beyond basic survival - if everyone lived only up to the point of survival then there would be no point in any of us being alive. We need more than that; we are more complex than animals in the wild.
    What you're essentially saying here is that it is justifiable for you to live a life of relative luxury than to save the lives of several other human beings. It's not a strong case.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    We're talking about people who die in their droves on a daily basis as a result of problems that could be fixed by money. I'm not suggesting we start a communist revolution. Have you even read the OP?
    It's usually media exaggerations, these millions dying in their droves. I have been to poor countries and people are generally very happy, more happy than in rich countries.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    No it's just they realise that we are in a personal universe and God is not making the point of life Marxist development.
    Donating money is about as far from Leftism as you can go; Marxism does not have a monopoly on compassion and helping your fellow man. Jesus Christ would be disgusted by the West. He even explicitly repudiated the wealthy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    It's usually media exaggerations, these millions dying in their droves. I have been to poor countries and people are generally very happy, more happy than in rich countries.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    What you're essentially saying here is that it is justifiable for you to live a life of relative luxury than to save the lives of several other human beings. It's not a strong case.
    What you're essentially saying is that everyone should live only to stay alive while others live only to stay alive so that the human race becomes negligible. It's not a strong case.
    Offline

    6
    Poverty-stricken people never even cross my mind when I'm buying luxuries, in all honesty. If I ever become rich, though, I'll probably put a lot of time and money into charity work (I've thought about setting up my own charitable foundation, if I ever do end up earning lots of money).

    At the moment, however, the money I have right now wouldn't make much of a difference. Also, I think it's an even greater crime to pass up the luxuries that are available to us (stuff like books, television, films etc., because we can actually learn interesting things from them). People from deprived countries would really appreciate some of the benefits that our luxuries bring.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    What you're essentially saying is that everyone should live only to stay alive while others live only to stay alive so that the human race becomes negligible. It's not a strong case.
    That's not what I'm suggesting at all, and I think it's quite sad if you see spending money on things we don't need to survive as the most important activity of the human race. Vladimir Nabokov wrote Lolita on index cards, while Sharon Osborne is a multimillionaire who has contributed nothing of value to our culture or society. What I'm saying is that it is extremely morally dubious for us to spend money on things we don't need, luxuries and fancies and unnecessarily more expensive versions of things, when the same money could be better spent saving lives. Cutting out our financial excesses in this way would not make the human race 'negligible'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Donating money is about as far from Leftism as you can go; Marxism does not have a monopoly on compassion and helping your fellow man. Jesus Christ would be disgusted by the West. He even explicitly repudiated the wealthy.
    Thats how left socialist societies work though money from the rich is donated to the poor through high taxes:confused:This whole argument stems from Communism and left wing ideology.Right wingers would have no problem with how the world is because they believe that those who succeed and work hard should get all the money and generally believe in survival of the fittest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Thats how left socialist societies work though money from the rich is donated to the poor through high taxes:confused:This whole argument stems from Communism and left wing ideology.Right wingers would have no problem with how the world is because they believe that those who succeed and work hard should get all the money and generally believe in survival of the fittest.
    You're talking about taxes, not donations. I don't think most right wingers are so callous as to believe that people in such poverty deserve their situation.

    My argument doesn't stem from communism or the left. I'm not suggesting any political changes, just observing the facts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Donating money is about as far from Leftism as you can go; Marxism does not have a monopoly on compassion and helping your fellow man. Jesus Christ would be disgusted by the West. He even explicitly repudiated the wealthy.
    Jesus Christ rebuked the greedy, not the wealthy. Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. You're right in saying he would be disgusted, not just at the West but the whole world - but that's a different discussion altogether.

    Wealth is relative. You can just scrape by in this country, you can be visiting food banks in this country and still be better off than a lot of people in the world. The simple fact is that there is not enough to go around. People cannot be financially equal. If all the wealth of the first-world countries was redistributed around the world, it would just mean that everyone would be miserable, instead of a few. It's just the world that we live in. It's not my 'fault' I was born into a prosperous country, and I will not ever feel guilty for living in one, nor should I.

    My lifestyle is not obscene at all. Most people's lifestyles in the West aren't. Just because I don't make myself dirt poor in attempt to help others doesn't mean I'm not compassionate - in fact, if I did give up everything and made myself destitute for the sake of others, then I wouldn't even be able to help other people and would soon need help myself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    You're talking about taxes, not donations. I don't think most right wingers are so callous as to believe that people in such poverty deserve their situation.

    My argument doesn't stem from communism or the left. I'm not suggesting any political changes, just observing the facts.
    Yes but taxation just acts out the will of those who implement those taxes, who believe that people should donate to help those poorer than themselves, hence why people who donate lots of money compared to the wealth(relative wealth is crucial here) have leftist views.

    I think most right wingers do believe that they usually believe these people haven't worked hard enough and are scroungers.

    In answer to your question thoughts about poverty usually come to me when I am feeling down and I think about how bad a person I must be to be feeling unhappy compared to those who are in absolute poverty.I generally believe in sort of what you are saying adjusted by the amount I have been spoiled by living in the West and thats probably how most people work eg.most people don't view those things as luxuries but essentials eg.life without the internet is hard to even contemplate.There is something important you are missing due to the nature of the West lifestyle and society very poor people in the West can be prone to spend money on luxuries before their essentials eg.Christmas is a great example.

    I also think your argument is very lefty and communist because you are arguing that people should just be getting what they need and that is a big part of the definition of how communism that resources should be given to those in need.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.