Would it be moral? Updated

[MtnBiker]

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be moral?

[Missileman]

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be moral?

No, it would be liberal.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be moral?

Exceptional analogy!!! :clap:

While I have long surmised that perhaps 'progressive libs' have perceived themselves as modern day Robin Hood & merry men - the truth is they are nothing more than a band of thugs who rob the working class to provide for those who milk the system for all it is worth.

There is nothing moral or ethical about taking from one to give to another. You cripple the one by taking their resources and you cripple the other by making them dependent on the system.

[Little-Acorn]

Exceptional analogy!!! :clap:
I agree 100% - it's great!


perhaps 'progressive libs' have perceived themselves as modern day Robin Hood & merry men -

Have you read up on the actual Robin Hood legends? Robin Hood didn't exactly "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Guess who he actually took the money from: GOVERNMENT TAX COLLECTORS AND TREASURY AGENTS! And he gave it back to the people they had just taken it from: Farmers, craftsmen, workers who had actually earned it in the first place.

Robin Hood was a conservative!

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Guess who he actually took the money from: GOVERNMENT TAX COLLECTORS AND TREASURY AGENTS! And he gave it back to the people they had just taken it from: Farmers, craftsmen, workers who had actually earned it in the first place.


Yep, I am aware of that. However, I am also aware that libs want to take from those who have to give to those who have not; and in doing so they miss the whole point of capitalism. They see their cause as noble (as was Robin Hood's cause), but there is nothing noble about making people dependent on the government for their day to day support.

[MtnBiker]

Responses so far do not support the two men forceablely taking money to help the homeless man. A counter arguement will be an assumption that doing nothing is also not moral. However there is a flaw with that assumption.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The two men have no right to forcibly take money from another to provide for the homeless man. If they are so concerned that they feel moved to take action, that action should be productive, one that leads him to a place where he can become equipped to sustain himself. That would be moral.

[SassyLady]

Responses so far do not support the two men forceablely taking money to help the homeless man. A counter arguement will be an assumption that doing nothing is also not moral. However there is a flaw with that assumption.

The moral thing to do is: first - do no harm. Ask the homeless man if he's happy living the way he does. If he says "yes" then do nothing and wish him luck.

If he says "no", ask him what he is willing to do to change his lifestyle. Once that is determined the next step would be to provide information on how to make the changes.

Another option would be to take him home and let him do some chores around the property and either pay him so he can purchase food and clothing, or to give him food and clothing after he has helped out.

What I would never do is to outright give the man money, whether from my own pocket or from another's.

[MtnBiker]

The flawed assumption I had in mind was, either the two men could take money from the women to benifit the homeless man or do nothing.

Some like to present arguements with an either or game. Either support my plan or more will die.

[SassyLady]

The flawed assumption I had in mind was, either the two men could take money from the women to benifit the homeless man or do nothing.

Some like to present arguements with an either or game. Either support my plan or more will die.

I know.....that type of thinking leads to "group think"; cultism, etc. also known as peer pressure. What this world needs is people who think outside the "either/or" mindset.

I have a tendency to rebel against the "either/or" mindset because I am as far away from "cultism" as it gets. That's why I don't belong to any groups or religions......can't get on board with the "you either believe this, or.........."

[MtnBiker]

Interesting, no one has supported the action of the two men taking money from the woman to give to the homeless man as being moral.

[SassyLady]

Interesting, no one has supported the action of the two men taking money from the woman to give to the homeless man as being moral.

Perhaps this hasn't been read yet by the progressive liberals of this board. :poke:

[MtnBiker]

Well this was predictable, Senator Baucus finally puts forward his bill and as a sells pitch calls it a "moral obligation".



Mr. Baucus called health care reform a moral obligation.

"This is our opportunity; this is our moment to help fulfill that moral obligation for our kids and grandkids to pass something better," he said.


http://http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/baucus-releases-health-bill-without-gop-backing/

[Kathianne]

Well this was predictable, Senator Baucus finally puts forward his bill and as a sells pitch calls it a "moral obligation".



http://http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/baucus-releases-health-bill-without-gop-backing/

Will it pass?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10572


Preliminary Analysis of Specifications for the Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act
CBO has just issued a preliminary analysis of specifications for the Chairman’s mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act, which was released by the Senate Finance Committee earlier today. Among other things, the Chairman’s proposal would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code.

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s proposal would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $49 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $500 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $774 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $215 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $59 billion in revenues from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $409 billion over the 10 years, and by other tax provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $139 billion over the same period. (The $139 billion figure includes $134 billion in additional revenues estimated by JCT apart from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $5 billion in additional revenues from certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions estimated by CBO.)...

I'd suggest reading the whole thing...

[MtnBiker]

Well the debate on healthcare continues, and so far I do not see a moral justification for the example from the op.

[Noir]

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be moral?

0.o

Archaist model much?

[MtnBiker]

0.o

Archaist model much?

Forceable taking money from one person to give to another?

[Noir]

Forceable taking money from one person to give to another?

Yes, when the Government is the 'forceable taker' thats a classic anarchist analogy.

[HogTrash]

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be moral?Someone's opinion to this question would depend souly on whether or not they're a liberal.

If they were a liberal they would say that it was justified but they would have made some adjustments to the transaction.

First they would have hired a committee of friends, relatives and people they owed favors, to over-see and regulate the "donation".

Of course these peoples wages would have to come off the top along with carrying and handling charges for the two guys who collected the "donation".

All said and done at the end of the day after bureaucracy fees were deducted from the $200, the poor homeless recipiants benefits would roughly be $9.73.

And of course this selfless new commitee would form an agency and begin actively seeking more needy homeless people that could benefit from their generosity.