2010 Think-Off question

[vibes]

The 2010 Great American Think-Off is an amateur philosophy

contest organized by the New York Mills Regional Cultural Center in

Minnesota.

The nonprofit has been organizing the contest for 18 years.

Anyone can enter free by submitting an essay of 750 words or fewer.


This will lead to one entrant being

named "America's Greatest Thinker for 2010."


This year's debate question is, "Do the wealthy have an

obligation to help the poor?"

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[jeff of pa]

Common' now Nobody Has an "Obligation" to help anyone,

Except for The government since Everyone supports them
by Paying Taxes.

Since We have an Obligation to support Them

They Owe us. But that's it.

 

[Urban Prospector]

Never got how we owe and pay them so they can owe and pay us. Why not skip a step and keep it in the first place, it would sure cut back on expenses.

 

[DBFISHER]

I'm sure some of these wealthy people own their own bussineses and sure these bussineses get big fat tax abatements or some other kind of tax break from the gov't. or state. so if the gov't. asks them to help out the poor i think they should obey without a problem.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Sorry Prospector40,

Just because you are poor, does not mean you don't have a job.


My personal opinion - the rich may not have a legal obligation, but that they do have a moral obligation.

Most rich people made their money from the backs of less rich people.

B

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Well, excuse me if I have a different opinion.

If there are poor people living better than you - I guess you need another job or a second job.

I do volunteer and charity work - and I'm not rich, so what?

B

 

[GPURS]

Sorry Prospector40,

Just because you are poor, does not mean you don't have a job.


My personal opinion - the rich may not have a legal obligation, but that they do have a moral obligation.

Most rich people made their money from the backs of less rich people.

B

That's about one of the goofiest things I've ever heard! Rich people making money from the backs of less rich people,,,,,,how pathetic.. It's called a guy taking a chance and putting every thing he has on the line, and in the process giving jobs to people who are not willing to take such chances. It is really a shame how perverted a view some people have of capitalism. Kool aid anyone

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

It's capitalism when you do it - what do you call it when it gets done TO you.

When the big bosses are making huge bonuses even though the company is taking taxpayer money? What do you call it then?

Get real - its a "think off" question - if you don't like my answer, take it to the politics forum.

I won't meet you there.

B

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Texastee,

Well said!!

B

 

[jeff of pa]

Although I am Open to Helping some In
certain Circumstances, and Sometimes go out
of my way to do so.

I Believe the Sentence "moral obligation"

Is no more then Blackmail.

& I have to admit
telling Me it's My "Moral Obligation"
in any way to help a person
has always Made me Laugh
& Say No.

 

[naturegirl]

I like the question! It doesn't have the word moral in it. That's up to individual dictates, right? The previous threads about being prepared or not makes me wonder if those prepared will share? Thanks vibes, this question digs deep! Each answer is so revealing. My answer? As a Christian I say yes! Those who have been given much, should give much. BUT, I don't think that is an EXCLUSIVE Christian precept. It's a humanitarian one. and as things get tighter, an ever increasing question we shall be forced to answer.
Nice brain-fodder for a laid-off-from-work, fridgid winter day. I have heat, I am wealthy. I wonder who doesn't?

naturegirl

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Morally I have an obligation to help everyone in legitimate and realistic need.
If you have ever talked to any one in that situation and asked them what caused the predicament.
MOST of the time is was something very traumatic that happened in their life that caused the strife.
Of course there are some that need to get on over feeling sorry for themselves, Put the bottle or the crack pipe down,pick up the boot straps, and get there pitiful butts into productive in society. Those are the ones I have the issues with. But, the ones that have legitimate needs I will bend over backwards for.

It's written in the Bible...Check it out.

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Not sure if you ever got a bonus before or not, but if you did, did you ever get more than someone else? Doesnt matter if they worked in the same company or the same state. Did you feel guilty that you got more than someone else? I guess since you got more than someone else that makes you greedy and capitalism is the one at fault.

What I am saying is that in this country, if someone is poor (really poor, not what the govt says is poor) than its by choice. I still happen to think that people can do and be whatever they want to in this country. If someone lacks the vision, motivation, or whatever else to get where they would like to be, than its their problem, not capitalism.

Nobody has an obligation to give what they have to anyone. If they choose to then thats well and good. But is someone doesnt, that is ok to. Is it right or wrong? That is also up to the individual.

There is a point at which it becomes counter productive to support the ones that we call poor. Even if they do have cell phones, cable tv, multiple cars, flat screen tv, and all the other good things many have never worked for.

If someone is decides not to be poor, there is always a way out. That's their choice

Yeah. That's basically what I said. In a nutshell. Agreed....This thread is doomed for the politics forum.

 

[jeff of pa]

Not sure if you ever got a bonus before or not, but if you did, did you ever get more than someone else? Doesnt matter if they worked in the same company or the same state. Did you feel guilty that you got more than someone else? I guess since you got more than someone else that makes you greedy and capitalism is the one at fault.

What I am saying is that in this country, if someone is poor (really poor, not what the govt says is poor) than its by choice. I still happen to think that people can do and be whatever they want to in this country. If someone lacks the vision, motivation, or whatever else to get where they would like to be, than its their problem, not capitalism.

Nobody has an obligation to give what they have to anyone. If they choose to then thats well and good. But is someone doesnt, that is ok to. Is it right or wrong? That is also up to the individual.

There is a point at which it becomes counter productive to support the ones that we call poor. Even if they do have cell phones, cable tv, multiple cars, flat screen tv, and all the other good things many have never worked for.

If someone is decides not to be poor, there is always a way out. That's their choice

Yeah. That's basically what I said. In a nutshell. Agreed....This thread is doomed for the politics forum.

Looks like it's getting Closer to Religon

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Its definitely headed for a different forum.

But, it amazes me - the fact that there are still people in the world who think that poor people are poor because they are lazy or because it is their choice, and too bad, so sad.

It must be nice, up there in that ivory tower.

Good Job!


B

 

[GPURS]

In this country there are few victims and many volunteers .. As was stated before, you have to almost try to be poor in this country .... Good day, Gpurs..

 

[Arizona Bob]

This year's debate question is, "Do the wealthy have an obligation to help the poor?"

I think certain terms in the question are too broad, such as "wealthy" and "poor". For example, the terms "wealthy" and "poor" should be more carefully defined. Even if "wealthy" refers only to financial wealth, as stated in the original question, it would include all types of financial wealth. Conversely, the definition of "poor" would include an extreme lack of financial wealth, but might be limited to only those "poor" who fall into a certain grouping (club/religion/etc).

So I might ask, does a "wealthy" illegal drug dealer have an obligation to help the "poor". I doubt it. (They may only help their "poor" customers.) Does a wealthy supporter of al-queda (Osama Bin Laden) have an obligation to help all "poor", or only those "poor" who may be of the Islamic persuasion. I think you can see what I mean, when I say the some of the terms are too broad.

Only when this question is more carefully defined, can I produce a more useful answer. If I allow myself to define the terms, I'm afraid I would bore the members of TN.

 

[naturegirl]

Ah, but the broad parameters of the question is what makes it a good one. A yes or no question wouldn't be worthy of this contest. I find myself in mcgearheads position almost. And, I guess we all define wealth and poverty to suit ourselves? The winning essay would be intresting to read. I'm wealthy because at this moment I have no un-met needs, meaning I could be in a worse situation. I guess for me, it's a condition of spirit.

Plebah, if this thread is destined to be sent to the rubber room, then rouse the rabble.

 

[packerbacker]

Do you have to sound really philosophical to the point that most people won't understand your essay or can I submit a simple "No" and save the other 749 words? I think the only requirement is to be humane to humanity; all other requirements are considered taxes. Now go forth and multiply!

 

[packerbacker]

And to answer one of our fellow students questions from last week: the reason there is air is to blow up tires.