It would be a reactionary response to a fear of what? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know what these people are afraid of.

And you have conveniently answered a question I hadn't asked yet. I was going to ask "Why did the Republicans become really religious and start getting in the way of scientific progress in the 1980s?"

So now we know. Money.

Power doesn't necessarily corrupt, though often it does. The possibility of getting a hell of a lot of money corrupts even more, because most people would be thrilled to have a million dollars land on them and would use it to fulfill their personal interests. (If you have lots of power but you have 2 cents in the bank, you can't advance your personal interests as much as you can with little power and 5 million dollars in the bank.)

Having a lot of money and power will also get you a lot of followers. And if the money and power corrupts you, then those followers will be corrupt as well.

This relates to the topic at hand because of another question: Is it the corrupt voters who pressure the politicians stand in the way of scientific progress or the corrupt politicians who convince the voters to stand in the way of scientific progress?

LOL. How about North Korea and a whole new regime? The economic changes in China? There are dozens of low hanging fruit...

My family is wealthy. I can tell you that it didn't "corrupt" any of us unduly. Don't imagine that money automatically equates to greed. In point of fact, philanthropy is very important to my people, as it is to most of the people I grew up with and went to school with.

I've always been amused/appalled by this presumption. It's a bit like saying "all poor people are good and pure."

I've seen a great deal more corruption and abuse of power by people who have very little power, and therefore abuse what little they have.

As to the last, the tail wags the dog politically.

I don't go with the general presumption that every instance of individuals getting hold of vast resources or much authority leads to corruption (as trends dipped from that level during recent human history), or that the same can't happen among the lower rungs of society.

But, money & power are incentives/means, of sorts, to such an end. On the other hand, there are those of wealth who do go into philanthropy, & most of wealth pay their taxes as it is.

People either do decent things or get on with their lives, or they pursue other ways of profiting, some of these surprising.

Whether a lover or a fighter, whether decent or greedy, it's a case of having the bigger guns (money & information etc. are already powerful stuff).
Don't presume, but by all means, take any establishment or profiteer with a pinch of salt. Then you can find their true nature.
They're not labels or profiles, but windows. Like a minor version of playing god. Playing God isn't always a disaster recipe, but it's potent & volatile at very high levels (& depending on the situation).

Do we use them only in need (& hopefully not to the expense of others), or do we immediately do what many (but not all) like to do with assets of such a nature?

There was probably a fear factor in the pressure on S.Korea. But there will always be layers & layers to it; &, with all sincerity, oppurtunism will lead to more.

Fear is just part of survival, the core factor. British politicians have the links they do with the papers because they desire a buffer to make themselves look good (I've listened to the audiobook 'winston's war', & of course, you also have the leveson enquiry). And similar deals are struck worldwide.

Asking to alter what has been proven, read over & irrefutably confirmed is driven somewhat by the seeking of worth & power, which links in to survival. This may well pass the fear factor on the way, as you've said.

Many things may well be driven by fear/survival/social standing in the troop or pack. But this is a questino of how it manifests itself. Asking the state to change the rules for absolutely everyone, possibly affecting the future education of future citizens, does seem a bit much.
But we can relate this to a trend, for certain. Though there is undeniably more to it.

Heh, I'm not surprised by your answers; most people don't agree with my pessimism. And by saying that many rich and powerful people are corrupt, I'm not necessarily saying that all poor people are good and pure either. It's just that a larger percentage of the people who are rich and/or powerful are corrupt than those are poor, and I don't think it's a coincidence.

I naturally distrust politicians and the very rich. That's my nature.

CloudyVision wrote:Heh, I'm not surprised by your answers; most people don't agree with my pessimism. And by saying that many rich and powerful people are corrupt, I'm not necessarily saying that all poor people are good and pure either. It's just that a larger percentage of the people who are rich and/or powerful are corrupt than those are poor, and I don't think it's a coincidence.

I naturally distrust politicians and the very rich. That's my nature.

OK, I'll pass that I spend a lot of my time working with homeless people. And here we're talking the poorest people this country has, and while I am really close to many of the people whose dogs I vaccinate out by the river, I regularly see the aftermath of people whose faces were held in fires because they wouldn't tell where they hid the MD2020, mentally ill women who are pregnant by any number of men who use them because they can, and like stellar examples of how good people are to each other in the absence of resources.

And when I try to help some of them find services, I run up against petty social workers who reject food or medical care because the starving pregnant mentally ill woman can't produce a birth certificate or remember what her name used to be. Or who stop their applications because they don't have a "valid mailing address" of their own. And shelters who will turn away children because they are the wrong sex or colour and send them back into the night.

I don't blame the desperately poor for some of what they do, but morality is not meted out on the basis of income, no more than any other quality.

... when you peel away the skin...

Post derped.

Same as how I explained with religion: I don't think intelligence gets metered out based on religion, and I don't say the same about income level. A very poor person may be twice as intelligent as a very rich person, but now matter how intelligent the rich person is, they are more likely to become corrupted. There are just more opportunities for them to satisfy their own desires than there are for poor people.

And what is your job? Sounds like you're doing your best to make society a better place.

CloudyVision wrote:Same as how I explained with religion: I don't think intelligence gets metered out based on religion, and I don't say the same about income level. A very poor person may be twice as intelligent as a very rich person, but now matter how intelligent the rich person is, they are more likely to become corrupted. There are just more opportunities for them to satisfy their own desires than there are for poor people.

And what is your job? Sounds like you're doing your best to make society a better place.

Whether the oppurtunities or possibilities increase or decrease is really dependant. Small amounts of money can mean a lot when you're on the edge. Though I have to say, it is a case of having the bigger guns.
Some people wouldn't lift a finger if you upgraded their arsenal (metaphorically speaking), but others would catch a window.

But then again, there are both philanthropists & the corrupt, on each different scale.
Both good & bad can occur. But committing ill acts can go further, when in a seat of greater power.
So by all means, be skeptical to authority (albeit co-operative, of course).

CloudyVision wrote:Same as how I explained with religion: I don't think intelligence gets metered out based on religion, and I don't say the same about income level. A very poor person may be twice as intelligent as a very rich person, but now matter how intelligent the rich person is, they are more likely to become corrupted. There are just more opportunities for them to satisfy their own desires than there are for poor people.

And what is your job? Sounds like you're doing your best to make society a better place.

Yeah, a poor person MAY be twice as intelligent, but it's not predicated to follow that they WILL be. Or kinder, or less valiant, or more miserly... What a person is is not what they have. But whether they survive at all is about resources. And resources will not change that no-longer-poor person a bad person, even if they later become rich. See?

I'll tell you what I'm about via PM, so I don't sidetrack this thread any further than it already is.

It actually links in quite well to how & why people make decisions such as the santorum amendment & the recent decision in S. Korea.

Income isn't all of morality, but it represents a tool & a window. Like being able to fire lightning from your hands or turn into a powerful demon, in metaphorical terms.
You can either do good or bad, both potentially more impacting. do you provide renewable energy with your lightning, or singe a guy's face off?

I don't know where we'd be without Bill Gate's kind donations to charity. Then again, I'm better off without many of the corporate influences in politics.

I just want to put this in about the talk about moraility. Might need to take it with some salt as it doesn't focus between rich and poor.

I would like to add a comment. . . a person's goodness is not defined my his/her own definition, but how other's view them to be. That is why we brand some as evil doers, and others as good. Of course. . . this random view which is so prevalent leads one to wonder whether there is any established sense of morality. For example, some might say that homosexuality is wrong, others say it is perfectly fine.

Who's right? No one knows. It's all opinion and no amount of science, philosophy, or any other medium can explain which is or which is not good or evil.

How then can we say that one idea is worse than the other? All seek the gains to their own disposition at the expense of the other. In that sense they are considerably wrong to one another.

The ultimate evil then is not so much the ideas, but the arguments and the dissension created thereof. The hatred and malicious ill will devised by the strong opinions, not the opinions themselves.

Yet how is that even wrong or right? Who knows?

That is why it is not a matter of morality, for who is to say what is morale?

What even is survival other than the harm to another for one's own gain. Many cultures adore the idea of "loving your brother as yourself." The very idea of nature in competition with itself and against itself for the survival of the fittest trashes that view of loving. After all, love is the expression of selfless compassion for another being at your own expense, rather than theirs.

So why emotions? Why love or joy or even compassion? Why should I do any of that when nature itself is a hostile and bigoted creature looking to preserve its own species? And as I stated before, who is to say that this view is wrong or right?

The answers will forever elude the world. . .

So you mean killing an innocent baby then drinking its blood is good if no one finds out and judges you about it?

Is it good or evil to you? That is the question. . . what is good or evil? That is what I am trying to say. . . some say killing unborn babies right, other say its wrong. Most say murder is wrong, there are a few who do it for fun.

If nature is by chance and fighting for survival, there is no law except the law of survival. According to scientists, there is no fundamental law as there is no supreme being to issue the law except nature which will dictate the laws to its own advantage.

Evolution will dictate the laws of prey and predator. Killing a baby? Animals will kill a human baby and eat it for food. Is that wrong? So what's the difference if a human kills a human baby for food? Animals do it, and we are evolved from animals. There is now law according to evolution, only chance, survival of the fittest, and death to the weaker species.

@Isak

I wouldn't say so. But, interesting trick thar.

They would judge the act badly in theory (we know how our culture & psyche work now, folks), but if they have no evidence of this, they're unlikely to think it happened in practice (even if it did), so they don't judge the killer. They do if they find out about the fiasco though.

IF word got out, judgement would come pretty swiftly based on past experience, & people would find the affair obscene. If not, how will they know?

But to be fairly honest, we have formulated these rules (of sorts) to judge these things, & we've even gotten to such theoretical questions as the one you pose. Though the rules themselves are buggy here & there.