- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pope Francis to issue edict on Climate Change, Greed, Social Inequality.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is an issue of cost, not morality
Disagree--people can be maimed or killed as a result. It's also a fundamentally dishonest action which brings it under the definition of "immoral".
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think it is obvious that by itself capitalism will lead to higher values, but there still needs to be some type of judicial system or ethical system to guide it
Because someone brought it up. should a company face financial penalties for putting human lives at risk because they were trying to save some money. IF you say yes than you agree that some ethical principles must be in play, if not than you are suggesting something new and not really happening in society.
Businesses being governed by ethics is nothing new. Letting capitalism run without anything to check it is something not happening in society. We live in a culture that demands ethical practices in business and economics. Our country for the most part has laws in place to guard against these things.
Whether it happens in capitalism itself or outside of it, some type of ethical guidelines must protect the people who are inside of the economic system. That is what the Pope is arguing for and will continue to do so.
Because someone brought it up. should a company face financial penalties for putting human lives at risk because they were trying to save some money. IF you say yes than you agree that some ethical principles must be in play, if not than you are suggesting something new and not really happening in society.
Businesses being governed by ethics is nothing new. Letting capitalism run without anything to check it is something not happening in society. We live in a culture that demands ethical practices in business and economics. Our country for the most part has laws in place to guard against these things.
Whether it happens in capitalism itself or outside of it, some type of ethical guidelines must protect the people who are inside of the economic system. That is what the Pope is arguing for and will continue to do so.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:09 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Disagree--people can be maimed or killed as a result.
this isn't relegated to products you deem bad. this applies to everything. safety costs. there are cost-based tradeoffs with all products
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:14 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
should a company face financial penalties for putting human lives at risk because they were trying to save some money.
every company "puts lives at risk" because they're "trying to save some money"
it sounds great to ask such emotionally-based questions that are based in some perceived elevated moral stance, but it's a bad question that is simply not based in reality. it completely ignores looking at the entire picture and deciding what the line is specifically
quote:
Our country for the most part has laws in place to guard against these things.
and some are terrible and immoral
i can flip your entire argument against your argument, but with much more specific examples
quote:
some type of ethical guidelines must protect the people who are inside of the economic system.
and this type of idealistic anti-thinking is what kept india in poverty. the pope is free to believe this, but he must also admit that his system keeps more people poor, with inferior health, shorter lifespans, and no ability to leave their station (or have their kids improve their station)
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it completely ignores looking at the entire picture and deciding what the line is specifically
Well c'mon man, tell us exactly where that line is, specifically.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
every company "puts lives at risk" because they're "trying to save some money"
you keep dodging the question to prop up your position, and avoid saying I think that capitalism should not be controlled.
Capitalism is by far the most effective system in the world and it works, but it is legit to call for some type of judicial system to watch over the economic system.
I'm sure I can think of hundreds of examples of companies unnecessarily putting lives on the line. Based on what you have said so far you seem to be ok with companies doing things that directly lead to someones death and not be punished in some way for it.
quote:
it sounds great to ask such emotionally-based questions that are based in some perceived elevated moral stance, but it's a bad question that is simply not based in reality. it completely ignores looking at the entire picture and deciding what the line is specifically
ok maybe this is a bad argumentation, but your refutal of these arguments does nothing to disprove my position, it just proves you can answer the question in a way that doesn't destroy your side.
Plus if you actually read the Churches documents on these things, you will see that the Church gives a universal norm to follow and it is up to local groups and governments to make these decisions. The church will never call for specific type of system rather it will give norms and ask others to follow.
quote:
and some are terrible and immoral
i can flip your entire argument against your argument, but with much more specific examples
just because there are some laws that are bad doesn't mean my argument fails, it just shows that no solution is perfect and we make mistakes.
quote:
and this type of idealistic anti-thinking
I love how you just used an ad hominin argument instead of actually explaining how it happens.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:31 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
Well c'mon man, tell us exactly where that line is, specifically.
why? that has nothing to do with my argument and is a weakness to the opposing argument. that's 0% my burden and 100% my opponent's
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:34 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
and avoid saying I think that capitalism should not be controlled.
All part of the libertarian fantasy. When you ask for nuts and bolts you get rhetoric and the same "answers" repackaged or reworded.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:34 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:Anything taken to the extreme
Well c'mon man, tell us exactly where that line is, specifically.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:37 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
but it is legit to call for some type of judicial system to watch over the economic system.
i never said otherwise. that's not based in "ethics", though
quote:
I'm sure I can think of hundreds of examples of companies unnecessarily putting lives on the line.
and the issue is how you define how it is "unecessary", when it's an issue of cost. safer cars cost more money. poor people couldn't afford cars if they were 100% safe. hell the middle class couldn't, either. corners have to be cut to make the product available for consumers. those corners "put lives on the line". it's a tradeoff we make in society.
quote:
I love how you just used an ad hominin argument instead of actually explaining how it happens.
i have already explained how it happens. hell even my "Sweatshop" example was based around India
and it's anti-thinking because we tried it "morally" and India was a terrible place for hundreds of millions of its citizens. we are trying a system based much more in freedom (and therefore unethical, at least in the end) and the script has flipped. it's not an ad hom attack. we already know the results of the different philosophies. defending going backwards to a system that has been proven to be terrible for poor people is a devolution of thought
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:37 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
All part of the libertarian fantasy. When you ask for nuts and bolts you get rhetoric and the same "answers" repackaged or reworded.
i don't even know what you're talking about with this response at that point of of the conversation
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
My bad, just trying to get some structure from a libertarian on how the free market works...again.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:38 pm to NC_Tigah
I want to bring this back into the discussion because I truly believe this is the Church's and therefore the Pope's view of capitalism, at-least he says something that is directly contrary to this.
I'm arguing for the above.
It appears SFP is arguing for the later which JPII argues against.
I'll put it as simply as I can
Should capitalism be circumscribed within a strong juridical framework or not?
My answer is yes
it appears SFP answer is no.
quote:
The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
I'm arguing for the above.
It appears SFP is arguing for the later which JPII argues against.
I'll put it as simply as I can
Should capitalism be circumscribed within a strong juridical framework or not?
My answer is yes
it appears SFP answer is no.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:40 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I'll put it as simply as I can
Should capitalism be circumscribed within a strong juridical framework or not?
i'm not arguing AGAINST a judicial system
courts are necessary to determine ownership of property, damages, etc. they have nothing to do with morals/ethics
you're arguing for a strong statutory framework using the term "judicial" to make opposing the view seem silly
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:42 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
Should capitalism be circumscribed within a strong juridical framework or not?
Yes.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and the issue is how you define how it is "unecessary", when it's an issue of cost. safer cars cost more money. poor people couldn't afford cars if they were 100% safe. hell the middle class couldn't, either. corners have to be cut to make the product available for consumers. those corners "put lives on the line". it's a tradeoff we make in society.
I'm not calling for 100% safe, nothing can be that safe.
I think it's up to societies to draw the line of unnecessary and then up to the courts to decide what that is.
to me human life > growth of GDP. Yes I understand growth in GDP leads to better human life, but I think the thought process of it's ok to sacrifice a few people for the sake of the many is flawed and wrong. Even if you have to do this to improve society it shouldn't be done.
Ok yes there is a trade off, yes we may have little less growth. But I'm not willing to deny anyone what they are due just so GDP can be a little higher.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:46 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
to me human life > growth of GDP. Yes I understand growth in GDP leads to better human life, but I think the thought process of it's ok to sacrifice a few people for the sake of the many is flawed and wrong. Even if you have to do this to improve society it shouldn't be done.
Not many people agree with this.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
courts are necessary to determine ownership of property, damages, etc. they have nothing to do with morals/ethics
I disagree, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere positive in this discussion.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:47 pm to catholictigerfan
Here's another short article on upcoming encyclical.
LINK
quote:
Pope Francis has reportedly spent months drafting his new encyclical on Creation, and respect for the environment.
In March, during an audience with superiors from the Franciscan order, the Pope expressed how much this topic concerns him, and asked them for advice.
FR. MICHAEL ANTHONY PERRY
Minister General, Order of Friars Minor
"The Pope himself brought up the issue of the environment. And he talked about his deep concern that we need, the Church needs, to find the way to respond, using the best of science. But also using the best of goodwill of all of humanity, to bring together a consensus on trying to respond to the crisis, the ecological crisis.”
To help him reflect on this issue, the Franciscan leaders gave him a copy of their "Franciscans for Ecology” text. In it, they cite several initiatives within this field that the Order has promoted, alongside people of other faiths.
LINK
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:49 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Not many people agree with this.
I understand this and this is what I'm trying to argue for.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News