Are other people allowed to have more than you and still be moral people?

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I'm not really understanding your response to the thread I'm trying to get clarification.

There is more that you are not saying hence why posting the thread in the first place, maybe it is guilt or some other issue I don't know but anyway I see it as an issue of inequality which is at its worst in generations hell pre-covid at least in the US it is similarly to what it was in the 1920s. If anything the working class and the poor are seeing as being tax burdens even though there is literally no one else working jobs the middle and upper classes are too good for.

 

[slant]

There is more that you are not saying hence why posting the thread in the first place, maybe it is guilt or some other issue I don't know but anyway I see it as an issue of inequality which is at its worst in generations hell pre-covid at least in the US it is similarly to what it was in the 1920s. If anything the working class and the poor are seeing as being tax burdens even though there is literally no one else working jobs the middle and upper classes are too good for.

And to add to this- yes, of course I feel guilt.

I'm trying to understand why is it that, when I'm in extreme poverty but still more wealthy than people in third world countries, I feel like I'm a "good person" and not part of the problem, but if I have enough money to not have to worry about if I'm going to be able to pay rent if I buy more than $100 of groceries, I feel like I'm a shit person and don't deserve to live.

Obviously this is an extreme reaction but it points to basic human psychology that there is a point of prosperity that we feel guilty at, and a point of which if others have this point of prosperity we think they should feel guilty/are awful human beings.

This is why I'm asking these questions. It seems like it varies person to person what their "level" of disgust is for themselves and for others to have.

It's weird, too, because everyone *wants* to do well and have prosperity, but if they don't have what others have, then that other person shouldn't have it either. But most people when they get prosperity they don't then think "I shouldn't have any of this, this is wrong" they simply think that finally they have what they should have had all along. It's a very confusing thinking process and you seem to embody it. And I think the same way.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

And to add to this- yes, of course I feel guilt.

I'm trying to understand why is it that, when I'm in extreme poverty but still more wealthy than people in third world countries, I feel like I'm a "good person" and not part of the problem, but if I have enough money to not have to worry about if I'm going to be able to pay rent if I buy more than $100 of groceries, I feel like I'm a shit person and don't deserve to live.

Obviously this is an extreme reaction but it points to basic human psychology that there is a point of prosperity that we feel guilty at, and a point of which if others have this point of prosperity we think they should feel guilty/are awful human beings.

This is why I'm asking these questions. It seems like it varies person to person what their "level" of disgust is for themselves and for others to have.

It's weird, too, because everyone *wants* to do well and have prosperity, but if they don't have what others have, then that other person shouldn't have it either. But most people when they get prosperity they don't then think "I shouldn't have any of this, this is wrong" they simply think that finally they have what they should have had all along. It's a very confusing thinking process and you seem to embody it. And I think the same way.

Personally I am near the bottom end of the economic pole and so it all is like looking through the shop window for things I'll probably never have while those who do get to live life comfortable if not in easy mode. If it were as it was back in the 80s or 90s preferably without there being outsourcing and nafta there would be a lot less to complain about other than how some personality types shouldn't be in management.

 

[Matty]

Overindulgence or perhaps disordered indulgence is more of a problem than having any particular amount of something.

Deciding when and how you can enjoy things is less self degrading than always acting on impulse. For example, having something especially nice to eat can be reserved for when you're with friends, so that enjoying a nice meal is more about sharing the experience with others, than just spoiling oneself. I like to put off getting something I want, but don't need, until Christmas and Easter. This Christmas I'll be getting myself a good electric razor.

 

[John K]

I'm trying to understand why is it that, when I'm in extreme poverty but still more wealthy than people in third world countries, I feel like I'm a "good person" and not part of the problem, but if I have enough money to not have to worry about if I'm going to be able to pay rent if I buy more than $100 of groceries, I feel like I'm a shit person and don't deserve to live.

Some more thoughts - a bit of a ramble, really ....

Do you feel the same way about other things? For example do you think people who are very intelligent, or have superb physical skills compared with others should feel guilty about it and should avoid developing their gifts. Or should people born white feel guilty about that, or people who have a gift for music? What about people who are blessed with a long life and go on well into their 90s in good health, compared with those who die young? What about happiness - do you feel guilty if you are generally more happy than others?

Maybe, as others have said, one way to try out a different angle on this is to separate in your thinking what someone has in terms of these attributes from what they do with it. Take someone like Henry Ford, for example, who made a mint out of the car industry, but who made it possible for ordinary people to own a car - before him and his like, only the very wealthiest of people could own one. A lot of wealthy people are in similar situations - we might moan about the tyranny of large corporations like Microsoft and Apple and Samsung, but then everyone who wants a smart phone can have one pretty cheaply these days. When I was a young adult these would have looked like science fiction, yet now they have improved our lives enormously in ways we just take for granted. I know these devices - cars, computers, phones - come with undesirable baggage as well, but the answer to that is not to go back to Victorian times when people were immeasurably worse off than they are now, apart form a privileged few.

But how we obtain and what we do with our personal gifts - our intelligence, our musical skill, our joke-telling ability , our wealth - that is where the focus on morality should be, not on their actual possession. Even there it's ambivalent - we put up with all sorts of bad behaviour from an actor who is brilliant on screen for example, or from a star sportsperson on our favourite team. To my mind, someone who possesses great intelligence is just as open to this sort of question as someone who is wealthy. If someone is given great gifts, then much is expected of them as it says in the New Testament, and this isn't just looking at wealth.

I have an instinctive repulsion from any sort of levelling, myself. The world is full of inequalities, and these feel very important for the health of our societies. Nature isn't fair as much from necessity as from blind chance. As far as wealth is concerned, a civilised society should ensure that people don't fall below a minimum level, and should be given lots of opportunities to rise up to higher levels, but the sky's the limit as far as I'm concerned. It should also put constraints on people who have very much, to ensure they don't damage or constrain others less fortunate. This isn't an issue just with wealth - we can all see the havoc a political leader with an abundance of intelligence and bullshit can wreak, regardless of how wealthy they are.

 

[slant]

Some more thoughts - a bit of a ramble, really ....

Do you feel the same way about other things? For example do you think people who are very intelligent, or have superb physical skills compared with others should feel guilty about it and should avoid developing their gifts. Or should people born white feel guilty about that, or people who have a gift for music? What about people who are blessed with a long life and go on well into their 90s in good health, compared with those who die young? What about happiness - do you feel guilty if you are generally more happy than others?

Maybe, as others have said, one way to try out a different angle on this is to separate in your thinking what someone has in terms of these attributes from what they do with it. Take someone like Henry Ford, for example, who made a mint out of the car industry, but who made it possible for ordinary people to own a car - before him and his like, only the very wealthiest of people could own one. A lot of wealthy people are in similar situations - we might moan about the tyranny of large corporations like Microsoft and Apple and Samsung, but then everyone who wants a smart phone can have one pretty cheaply these days. When I was a young adult these would have looked like science fiction, yet now they have improved our lives enormously in ways we just take for granted. I know these devices - cars, computers, phones - come with undesirable baggage as well, but the answer to that is not to go back to Victorian times when people were immeasurably worse off than they are now, apart form a privileged few.

But how we obtain and what we do with our personal gifts - our intelligence, our musical skill, our joke-telling ability , our wealth - that is where the focus on morality should be, not on their actual possession. Even there it's ambivalent - we put up with all sorts of bad behaviour from an actor who is brilliant on screen for example, or from a star sportsperson on our favourite team. To my mind, someone who possesses great intelligence is just as open to this sort of question as someone who is wealthy. If someone is given great gifts, then much is expected of them as it says in the New Testament, and this isn't just looking at wealth.

I have an instinctive repulsion from any sort of levelling, myself. The world is full of inequalities, and these feel very important for the health of our societies. Nature isn't fair as much from necessity as from blind chance. As far as wealth is concerned, a civilised society should ensure that people don't fall below a minimum level, and should be given lots of opportunities to rise up to higher levels, but the sky's the limit as far as I'm concerned. It should also put constraints on people who have very much, to ensure they don't damage or constrain others less fortunate. This isn't an issue just with wealth - we can all see the havoc a political leader with an abundance of intelligence and bullshit can wreak, regardless of how wealthy they are.

I like this perspective and I think it is more natural for me. I don't remember being much focused on envy or what others have that I don't- I was usually caught up in my own world. But I was modeled this behavior of envy and jealousy and the sense that if somebody else has success it means you can't have any and therefore nobody should have success. It's a weird mindset, but I'm realizing because I believed that I surrounded myself with people who reenforced it. It's painful to change your mindset and see that there are going to be those out there who have a lot of resentment towards you. But that's really their issue, right? Should we not enjoy life because others will see it and be unhappy? Why not be inspired by others instead of angered? I see this pattern of, I'll be happy when xyz and a now it's all political: when we solve racism, when there's no wealth inequality, on and on. Bad things in the world can exist and we can be upset about them but still find joy and our lot in life.

But I do still want to understand or have a sense of empathy for these perspectives that I think make people so unhappy- I used to think the same way and I could have thought that way my whole life, I just didn't. We have to co exist with different life philosophies, some of them just don't resonate with me at all

 

[ErikAlberto]

Some more thoughts - a bit of a ramble, really ....

Do you feel the same way about other things? For example do you think people who are very intelligent, or have superb physical skills compared with others should feel guilty about it and should avoid developing their gifts. Or should people born white feel guilty about that, or people who have a gift for music? What about people who are blessed with a long life and go on well into their 90s in good health, compared with those who die young? What about happiness - do you feel guilty if you are generally more happy than others?

Maybe, as others have said, one way to try out a different angle on this is to separate in your thinking what someone has in terms of these attributes from what they do with it. Take someone like Henry Ford, for example, who made a mint out of the car industry, but who made it possible for ordinary people to own a car - before him and his like, only the very wealthiest of people could own one. A lot of wealthy people are in similar situations - we might moan about the tyranny of large corporations like Microsoft and Apple and Samsung, but then everyone who wants a smart phone can have one pretty cheaply these days. When I was a young adult these would have looked like science fiction, yet now they have improved our lives enormously in ways we just take for granted. I know these devices - cars, computers, phones - come with undesirable baggage as well, but the answer to that is not to go back to Victorian times when people were immeasurably worse off than they are now, apart form a privileged few.

But how we obtain and what we do with our personal gifts - our intelligence, our musical skill, our joke-telling ability , our wealth - that is where the focus on morality should be, not on their actual possession. Even there it's ambivalent - we put up with all sorts of bad behaviour from an actor who is brilliant on screen for example, or from a star sportsperson on our favourite team. To my mind, someone who possesses great intelligence is just as open to this sort of question as someone who is wealthy. If someone is given great gifts, then much is expected of them as it says in the New Testament, and this isn't just looking at wealth.

I have an instinctive repulsion from any sort of levelling, myself. The world is full of inequalities, and these feel very important for the health of our societies. Nature isn't fair as much from necessity as from blind chance. As far as wealth is concerned, a civilised society should ensure that people don't fall below a minimum level, and should be given lots of opportunities to rise up to higher levels, but the sky's the limit as far as I'm concerned. It should also put constraints on people who have very much, to ensure they don't damage or constrain others less fortunate. This isn't an issue just with wealth - we can all see the havoc a political leader with an abundance of intelligence and bullshit can wreak, regardless of how wealthy they are.

Brilliant. I love these points, John. I couldn't agree more. I’m so glad you brought up this perspective. Thank you.

 

[uuu]

how we obtain and what we do with our personal gifts - our intelligence, our musical skill, our joke-telling ability , our wealth - that is where the focus on morality should be, not on their actual possession.

This a sensible and powerful insight.