Affluence

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, I don't think it's possible for me to disagree with you more. I do not think that any person is superior to any other. Down that road is a very dark place indeed. In fact, if my children end up believing what you wrote, I think I will have comprehensively failed as a parent.

"I do not think that any person is superior to any other." This is a pretty absurd statement.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superior

2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.:

3. of higher grade or quality:

The way I'm using the term the two definitions are more apt. For example saying "The Spurs are superior team to the Nuggets" it instantly is a statement that can be debated by sports fans however there generates no moralistic concern. So why then can we not do the same with people? In fact we can! You interview two people for a job and you will pick the superior candidate. The one who provides the most value to the organization. None of this is wrong, people can be evaluated by a metric, the metric used is obviously going to be subjective but most people can agree on some common traits that are universally good. (Honesty, Loyalty, Ethical Behavior, Intelligence, Ability)

"It is possible that I might charitably read your statement not as referring to the innate worth of a human but rather to their ability to 'succeed' in life - by my own metrics, being able to contribute to the betterment of society and raise a caring and well-functioning family - then yes, some character traits, values, and skills will stand them in good stead compared to others. But that does not in any may make them more valuable than anyone else - perhaps just more fortunate in the circumstances of their birth, family, community, and nation."

Actually yes, it does in fact make them more valuable. If I had the choice of saving two strangers that I know nothing about except that one is a world renown scientist on the cutting edge of creating medicine and the other one is a librarian. Which do you think I should save? I would go for the person who could provide more to the world.

Alternatively if I do know some things about two people, maybe not their profession but their criminal record. I have a murdering rapist on one hand and on the other I have a druggie. I'd save the druggie and let the murdering rapist die. Why? Because the murdering rapist is less worthy, he is inferior as a person than the druggie.

"Lewk, as I understand it you're a religious man. I'd direct your attention to Chapter 8 of Deuteronomy, especially verses 11-17. It sounds a whole lot better in the original Hebrew, but the gist is clear even in English. It's all too easy to attribute temporal success to one's own 'power and strength of hands' and to look down on those others who have not enjoyed the same success. But the fact of the matter is that much of our success is a product of circumstance (or, alternately, Providence) and not due to some innate or learned superiority over others. This is not to discount the value of hard work, and good values, and developing knowledge and skills. Yet in no way do I want my children to feel like they are the sole arbiters of their own destiny, with the implicit suggestion that those who have not had as easy a path through life are solely responsible for their situation. This is a deeply pernicious and destructive belief that has justified no small number of atrocities."

The biblical quote is appropriate however does nothing to alter the argument on weather people can be evaluated by their abilities and actions. God is essentially saying "I saved you from slavery and then starvation, the fact that you are doing fine now doesn't mean you can forget what I've done for you." It is of course important for people to remain humble, again I use the example of Bill Gates, brilliant guy but he doesn't go around talking about how great he is.

The parable of the master giving his servants resources is an example of what I was originally getting at. If God has given you much, then much is expected of you. Noblesse Oblige can be religious or not. Hell we could get inspiration from it from Spider-Man "With great power comes greater responsibility."

The message isn't "Hey some people are better than others so you lesser people have to serve them." It should be "Some people are better than others, so use your talents to uplift the people who don't have them." Which of course is why I find value in Church and Charity in giving people a helping hand as opposed to eternal welfare state that merely enables people to exist without requiring growth from them.

[wiggin]

"I do not think that any person is superior to any other." This is a pretty absurd statement.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superior

2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.:

3. of higher grade or quality:

The way I'm using the term the two definitions are more apt. For example saying "The Spurs are superior team to the Nuggets" it instantly is a statement that can be debated by sports fans however there generates no moralistic concern. So why then can we not do the same with people? In fact we can! You interview two people for a job and you will pick the superior candidate. The one who provides the most value to the organization. None of this is wrong, people can be evaluated by a metric, the metric used is obviously going to be subjective but most people can agree on some common traits that are universally good. (Honesty, Loyalty, Ethical Behavior, Intelligence, Ability)

If I just read what you wrote here, sure, I'd be willing to see things your way. People can certainly have certain skills or abilities that make their performance at a given task superior. But then you write this:

Actually yes, it does in fact make them more valuable. If I had the choice of saving two strangers that I know nothing about except that one is a world renown scientist on the cutting edge of creating medicine and the other one is a librarian. Which do you think I should save? I would go for the person who could provide more to the world.

Alternatively if I do know some things about two people, maybe not their profession but their criminal record. I have a murdering rapist on one hand and on the other I have a druggie. I'd save the druggie and let the murdering rapist die. Why? Because the murdering rapist is less worthy, he is inferior as a person than the druggie.

I believe that each human life has intrinsic value and that this value is indistinguishable from that of someone else. There are certainly circumstances when it is necessary to take a life (outside of the realm of trolleyology), but it should never be done lightly. Most importantly, the justification must never be that one person's value is higher than another. Just because someone may have a unique skill set, or have charted a more law-abiding course through life does not make their life more worthy of continuance than another.

The biblical quote is appropriate however does nothing to alter the argument on weather people can be evaluated by their abilities and actions. God is essentially saying "I saved you from slavery and then starvation, the fact that you are doing fine now doesn't mean you can forget what I've done for you." It is of course important for people to remain humble, again I use the example of Bill Gates, brilliant guy but he doesn't go around talking about how great he is.

This isn't about humility (though humility is nice). It's about recognizing that one's temporal successes are largely due to factors outside of your control. Humility will result from this realization, but it is not where you must begin.

The parable of the master giving his servants resources is an example of what I was originally getting at. If God has given you much, then much is expected of you. Noblesse Oblige can be religious or not. Hell we could get inspiration from it from Spider-Man "With great power comes greater responsibility."

The message isn't "Hey some people are better than others so you lesser people have to serve them." It should be "Some people are better than others, so use your talents to uplift the people who don't have them." Which of course is why I find value in Church and Charity in giving people a helping hand as opposed to eternal welfare state that merely enables people to exist without requiring growth from them.

I don't disagree that relative abundance and fortune incur an obligation to help those who are less fortunate. But it stems not from the better-off being actually better or more worthy; rather, it is because human beings have intrinsic worth (again, from a religious perspective, being created in the image of God) irrespective of their station and we should work to ease those who are suffering. This is in fact a basic egalitarianism that is built into the American ideal that you, as a red-blooded American, should find deeply familiar. The US was founded on the premise that all men are created equal; we have no castes or nobility, no royalty or hereditary superiority. While the US has frequently failed to live up to this lofty ideal, it is still intrinsic to our identity; being American is the great historical leveler.

We help the needy not because we are uplifting the wretched masses with our superior sensibilities. We do it because we are righting a wrong in the world, where some human have not the means to fully provide for their needs and dignity. Charity is not an act of grace, but an act of justice.

[Lewkowski]

I believe that each human life has intrinsic value and that this value is indistinguishable from that of someone else. There are certainly circumstances when it is necessary to take a life (outside of the realm of trolleyology), but it should never be done lightly. Most importantly, the justification must never be that one person's value is higher than another. Just because someone may have a unique skill set, or have charted a more law-abiding course through life does not make their life more worthy of continuance than another.

Why? You feel strongly about this but I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Everyone values people differently. I value my son over a stranger's kid. I value people I know more than people I don't. I value the 'good' people as I define it, more than the 'bad' people. I refuse to believe that you consider all life truly equal, no one does.

This isn't about humility (though humility is nice). It's about recognizing that one's temporal successes are largely due to factors outside of your control. Humility will result from this realization, but it is not where you must begin.

I don't see that being the primary purpose of the passage. Nor do I believe the idea that every section of the bible had a message for all people of all eras. All of it is important in understanding the whole but not all of it is applicable to each person's life. That passage could literally be just about the people of Israel during that era.

Temporal success can certainly be influenced by factors outside of one's control. Getting hit by a bus is a big derail-er to success. Being born cognitively impaired really limits your options. However I do believe that outside of corner cases the effort someone puts in to bettering themselves is typically rewarded. The frugal reap financial stability. The diet conscious live longer. Those that stick by their friends will have life long positive relationships with them. I believe in empowering people is the way to get people to become better. I don't like the idea that people are as good as they will ever be and it is impossible for them to better themselves.

I don't disagree that relative abundance and fortune incur an obligation to help those who are less fortunate. But it stems not from the better-off being actually better or more worthy; rather, it is because human beings have intrinsic worth (again, from a religious perspective, being created in the image of God) irrespective of their station and we should work to ease those who are suffering. This is in fact a basic egalitarianism that is built into the American ideal that you, as a red-blooded American, should find deeply familiar. The US was founded on the premise that all men are created equal; we have no castes or nobility, no royalty or hereditary superiority. While the US has frequently failed to live up to this lofty ideal, it is still intrinsic to our identity; being American is the great historical leveler.

The premise "all men are created equal" does not mean "all men remain equal." Furthermore it is more an aspirational legal distinction. Just because you were born to nobility doesn't mean you deserve more protection under the law. This I fully agree with, the law should be blind. I'm actually quite in favor of allowing less subjectivity in sentencing - and anyone who actually wants to eliminate the possibility of racial/gender bias should also be in favor of it.

We help the needy not because we are uplifting the wretched masses with our superior sensibilities. We do it because we are righting a wrong in the world, where some human have not the means to fully provide for their needs and dignity. Charity is not an act of grace, but an act of justice.

Will probably have to agree to disagree on that but I'm very curious as to how you define justice.