I am not aware of everything that's going on out there, but here are a couple of case studies.steve wrote:
I was not aware that Judaism had ever produced the social results you are advocating.
Again - we have an old discussion here: shall we gauge Christianity by its adherents or by its paragons?kaufmannphillips wrote:
But centuries of "Christian results" speak well enough for themselves.
steve wrote:
I was not aware that there have been centuries of "Christian results" from which to draw any conclusions. In my limited knowledge of history, I am not aware of even one century in which most people (including most who call themselves "Christians") have followed Christ's teachings. Therefore, as someone cleverer than me once quipped, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried."
But either way, we have centuries where Christianity has been unequal to handling the scope of human poverty.
Character formation would fall under the scope of education. Social connections are well-deserving of attention.steve wrote:
When someone asked you how you define the needs of the poor, you said that they have always been the same—food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education. Without diminishing the validity of these needs, I would place (further back in the consideration) two other assets: the need for 1) character and 2) social (preferably family) connections.
The last bit is overwrought. Rather, good character would be loathe to take charity without having made a decent effort at contribution to society. A slow-witted paraplegic might have to labor 100 hrs/wk to "earn their way" in an unregulated market. A society with good character would not require this of them. Rather, a society with good character will require that its constituents make decent efforts that befit their respective abilities.steve wrote:
Good character would include a good work ethic, which would be loathe to take charity without having done everything possible to earn one's way...
One issue here is that people can acquire things that they cannot rightly retain for themselves.steve wrote
Good character would include ... a lack of covetousness of what others have acquired...
A parable: There are one hundred smoots living in a forest. Every year, ten thousand smootberries ripen in the fall. Each smoot depends upon these berries to sustain them through the ninety-eight days of winter, eating one smootberry a day.
But then, one golden autumn, Dexter Smoot designs a smootberry harvesting machine, with which he can pick ten smootberries for every one that his fellow smoots are able to harvest. Dexter builds four machines and forms a partnership with three other smoots; and at the end of autumn, the remaining ninety-six smoots find themselves with only seventy-three or so smootberries in their pantries.
Dexter Smoot and his partners are thrilled with their success; since they each have seven hundred-plus smootberries, they proceed to paint their huts smootberry-red, and dye their caps in smootberry-juice, and take up the sport of smootberry-dodgeball, which is gratifyingly splattery.
What then will the other ninety-six smoots do, in the face of their shortfall? If this were a Grimm’s fairytale or a historical narrative, chances are they would rush the four colleagues, seize their smootberries, and play dodgeball with their ignominiously-removed heads. But in this parable, they resort to Elder Smoot, who intervenes to help the four partners see the wrongness of their ways, paving the way for redistribution of the remaining resources.
In our world, as in the smoot forest, it is possible for individuals to acquire resources that they cannot rightly retain for themselves.
Of course, there are numerous occasions where the means of one social web are insufficient to the needs of its participants, and meanwhile, neighboring webs are abundant with unneeded resources. These disparities are far from uncommon, given social tendencies toward stratification and cliquishness between economic classes.steve wrote:
Social connections provide a safety net for those who, despite their very best intentions and diligent efforts, are unable to work and support themselves. If someone has good character, all other things being equal, this will enhance his social connections. When people of good character are connected socially (preferably as family members, or members of a voluntary association, like a religion), their voluntary working and sharing together will generally preclude any one of them dying of starvation or exposure. Given such connections, even in a dire economic environment, those who gather much will have no extra, while those who gather little will generally have no lack.
Furthermore, a nation is a social web - a real "social connection." When a nation establishes policies, this is "voluntary working and sharing together," insofar as nationhood is a voluntary association.
If I see a man nearby who is trying to strangle a woman, there is no guarantee that I will be able to stop him. Does this mean I am not obligated to try, according to my capacity to do so?steve wrote:
As for healthcare, well, no one, including the government can guarantee anyone that he or she will be healthy. All health care availability is relative and limited to 1) the existence of remedies for a range of medical emergencies, and 2) the quantity of medicines and health workers available in proportion to the number of sick people. No government, no family, no amount of money, can guarantee that people will not get sick and die. We must content ourselves with such medical interventions as we may obtain without violating the rights of others, and then entrust ourselves to the hands of God.
The mere fact that there are limits to medical efforts does not vacate one's obligation to try to do what one can.
Now, if my neighbor is in critical need of medical attention, and the only obstacle to their receiving it is financial, then what right would I maintain to extraneous resources that I have on hand?
If my neighbor needs an appendectomy, but is denied it for lack of finances, what right do I have to hoard my Hawaiian vacation fund? Shall I excuse myself by entrusting my neighbor to the hands of G-d?
When I hoard what is necessary for my neighbor, but unnecessary for me, what I do is not right. And no one has a right to do what is not right.
There are different models of socialism. A decent socialist system will involve not only decent financial participation by citizens, but also their decent participation in labor. And if the system ensures that all citizens receive decent and equitable compensation for their labors, this not only would encourage labor, but also would temper covetousness.steve wrote:
Many say that socialistic systems are a detriment to the nurturing of these phenomena, in that socialism does not encourage a non-covetous work ethic among the poor recipients of government welfare, and it does not encourage family and friends to voluntarily assist their poor, since it is assumed that some bureaucracy has assumed that responsibility.
As for family and friends assisting the poor - I will note once more the issue of stratification and cliquishness: poor people tend to have poor family and friends, and wealthy people tend to have wealthy family and friends. So relegating assistance to family and friends means that, as ever, poor circles will tend to bear the heavy burden (greater needs with lesser resources) and wealthy circles will tend to bear the light one (lesser needs with greater resources).
And is this fair? Should persons who have won the "friends & family" lottery enjoy ample satisfaction of their needs and luxuries besides, while those who did not win the lottery must do without and even suffer and die?
What is more, this sort of arrangement stands to poison the development of relationships that transcend economic class: on one hand, there is significant disincentive for a wealthy person to make a poor friend or intermarry with a poor family, when this increases the likelihood of having to subsidize those persons; on another hand, there is significant incentive for a poor person to play the "gold-digger," forming friendships and intermarrying for financial advantage.
How much better it is for persons to form friendships and family relationships without an eye to fiscal repercussions! Then the question is not "Can I afford to feed her three kids?," but rather "Can I love and edify these people?" On the flip side: the question is not "How will we eat if I don't marry this guy?," but rather "Will this fella feed my soul and the souls of my children?"
When a national agency attends to the material needs of citizens of all classes, then familial bonds and friendships can be formed more on the basis of the heart, and less on the basis of the stomach (so to speak).
The transcendental dynamic is equitablity. Equitability is not only basic to intuitive "fairness"; it derives from the principle of each person loving their neighbor as themself.kaufmannphillips wrote:
As for government policy - "establishing a healthy economic environment" involves legislation that mandates certain business practices: e.g., profit-sharing; employee participation in corporate governance; minimum compensation tied to the Consumer Price Index.
steve wrote:
What is your transcendental source of an ethic that regards these specific policies as essential to "fairness" or "healthiness" in an economic system?
When one loves one's neighbor as oneself, this demands balance: their decent hopes, desires, and ambitions become as compelling as one's own; their well-being becomes as precious as one's own; their well-needed skill and effort become as respectable as one's own.
And so:
~ profit-sharing derives from recognizing that all participants in yielding a profit should equitably share in that profit, as a matter of equitable respect;
~ employee participation in corporate governance derives from equitable respect for each participant's insight and dignity;
~ minimum compensation derives from equitable concern for each participant's needs, and from equitable respect for each participant's contribution.
When participants in an economic system are deeply concerned about equitability, this yields a more balanced system - one less distorted by narrow vectors of interest and ambition - and this redounds to the healthiness of the system. Indeed, one common dynamic in unhealthiness (be it physical, mental, or social) is disproportion.
It is not astonishing that it didn't occur to you; it can be difficult to escape the conventional thought of the society that we grow up in. But our society has warped hermeneutics: it is willing to commoditize a person's life and abilities, rather than engaging employment as an interpersonal relationship.steve wrote:
I have been poor most of my life. Like most people, I am quite sensitive to being treated "unjustly." I worked at minimum-wage jobs for twelve years—most of them after the birth of my first child. However, even when we were dirt poor, it never occurred to me that my employers owed me a share of the company profits beyond the wage at which I had agreed to work, nor that I had any rightful claim to the making of decisions for a company that I neither founded nor owned.
When Cassie looks at an employee as a commodity - as a quantity to be manipulated and used in the furtherance of her business - then so long as she can keep an adequate employee at the rate, she will pay minimum wage without the slightest concern. But if Cassie looks at an employee as a person - and not only a person, but her neighbor - then she will treat her employee with respect and with concern for their needs, and will pay them accordingly (if she is able).
And if Cassie looks at an employee as a participant in the business - not just a tool - then she will treat her employee with respect, and will involve them in the decision-making process of a business that they are building/operating/making together.
Cassie must ask herself: does my business use people?; or is it made up of people? Our society has become very comfortable with the notion that employers may use people, basically as appliances. But one cannot love one's neighbor and simply use them.
In an economy where there is a labor surplus - and where employers do not love their employees - one is hard put to seek better wages. And of course, many people are not adequately skilled or temperamentally suited to be self-employed; that is no sin, and no reason to have to settle for less than a living wage.steve wrote:
As for minimum compensation, I was willing to work for what they offered. If I and other employees were not willing to work for what they offered, the company would have had to offer more to induce our participation. If I was not content with the wage, but other employees were content with it, I had the option of finding an employer who would treat me better—or else to be self-employed.
Our ways of thinking about justice and mercy and “rights” may be profoundly different.steve wrote:
Justice has to do with upholding the "rights" of other people—not their desires, nor even their needs. I have no intrinsic right to the fruits of another man's labor, nor has he the right to mine—though I am at liberty to sacrifice what is mine by right in order to assist another. My assistance to the poor, meeting their needs, is not a matter of justice, on my part, but of mercy.
I will characterize “justice” as that which accords with and accrues toward a holistic right state of being. One may compare this with biblical diction – q.v., the tz-d-q triad (see link1, link2).What is more - when one considers tzedaqah (cf. link1, link2, Deuteronomy 24:13) and what it means to be a tzaddiq (see Psalm 37:21/25f., Proverbs 21:26, cf. Daniel 4:27), one may consider that there is more to justice than some persons imagine – particularly in terms of mercy and charity.
Incidentally, in Jewish tradition tzedaqah came to be the conventional term for charity (link1, cf. link2). Even in antiquity, the translators of the Septuagint often rendered tzedaqah with eleemosune, a Greek term based upon eleeo (mercy).
Accordingly, justice and mercy are not separate ethical matters; rather, justice and mercy are indivisible. Indeed, justice is mercy, and mercy is justice; justice is a merciful thing to do, and mercy is a just thing to do. And when justice is not attentive to the fulfillment of what is merciful, it is less than just; when mercy is not attentive to the fulfillment of what is just, it is less than merciful.
You wrote: “Justice has to do with upholding the "rights" of other people…”Present-day Americans are inheritors of a philosophical tradition that emphasizes individual rights. Yet, different people in our society will cherish different catenae of "rights."
I don't have a catena - just a basic principle: "rights" are claims to the fulfillment of what is right. It is right for people to speak no slander; thus, Clarence claims a "right" not to be slandered. It is right for people to make restitution for fraud; thus, Shlomo claims a "right" to receive restitution for fraud.
It is right for people with resources to provide for widows and orphans; thus, Naomi and Annie claim a "right" to receive provisions from people with resources.
What is more - it is right for people to be merciful, in certain cases; thus, in certain cases, Ella claims a "right" to mercy. And rightfully so.
In all these matters, people claim a “right” to the fulfillment of what is right. So when one considers that justice is “that which accords with and accrues toward a holistic right state of being,” one can see that justice naturally will involve concern for "rights" – yet not just for some curtailed catena of “rights,” but for all rightful claims to fulfillment of what is right.
You wrote: “Justice has to do with upholding the "rights" of other people—not their desires, nor even their needs.”How can this be so, if it is right to love one’s neighbor as oneself? As I have stated previously, when one loves one’s neighbor as oneself, then their decent hopes, desires, and ambitions become as compelling as one's own, and their well-being becomes as precious as one's own. This is right; and justice is about being in accord with and accruing toward holistic right.
Accordingly, justice has to do with engagement of the needs and decent desires of other people, in a way that is equitable with the way one engages one’s own needs and decent desires.
You wrote: “I have no intrinsic right to the fruits of another man's labor, nor has he the right to mine…”Even under American convention, individual “rights” are understood to have limits. A classic example: the individual’s legal right to freedom of speech does not entitle them to unnecessarily cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. In such a circumstance, the individual’s “right” does not extend so far as to afford the unwarranted endangerment of others.
From my perspective, individual “rights” are fundamentally circumscribed according to their impact upon a holistic right state of being. To insist on individual rights to an extent that is detrimental to a holistic right state of being would be myopic. Indeed, at such an extent these “rights” would cease to be right – and thus would cease to be “rights.”
And so – an individual’s “right” to hold property comes into tension with another individual’s “right” to receive charitable provision. How shall these “rights” be resolved?
Once again to the well: one shall love one’s neighbor as oneself. From this we find that the principle for resolution is equitability.
And from this, we find that others have an equitable “right” to our attention and our consideration and our emotion and our hope and our desire and our ambition and our time and our abilities and our labors and our resources. And likewise, we have a “right” to theirs.
If somebody wishes to retain an exclusive “right” to the fruits of their heart and their mind and their hands, then – very simply – that person must take care not to have any neighbors. (Even then, they could not sustain such a “right,” if G-d was their neighbor – and chances are G-d would direct some measure of his “right” to engaging other people … thus breaching the unencumbered privilege of isolation.)
You wrote: “I have no intrinsic right to the fruits of another man's labor, nor has he the right to mine—though I am at liberty to sacrifice what is mine by right in order to assist another.”Some people may wish to imagine that justice is an obligation, but mercy is not. In their view, justice is requisite; mercy is optional.
But if, in a certain instance, mercy is the right thing to do, then it is not merely optional; indeed, it is obligatory. It is never the case that the right thing to do is merely optional.
You wrote: “My assistance to the poor, meeting their needs, is not a matter of justice, on my part, but of mercy.”But if the mercy is the right thing to do, then it is a matter of justice.
And if it is not the right thing to do, then it is not mercy.
Justice is hardly objective; just ask a few people about how “justice” should handle the Aurora shooter.steve wrote:
As a Christian, I am committed to both justice and to mercy. However, justice is an objective value, which must be upheld by every government. Mercy cannot be dictated by law. It is not objective, but subjective, personal and voluntary.
In our society, we don’t just pass one dictate – “Do justice” – and run with it. Rather, we articulate a variety of laws that (hopefully) accrue toward the fulfillment of justice. And of course, these laws reflect subjective notions of justice that are found in our society.
The same would hold for mercy. One example – we could articulate a law that requires citizens to spend a certain amount of time monthly in some sort of service to disabled persons. That is more easily prosecutable than a vague “Do mercy.” And it might be consistent with subjective notions of mercy – and the responsibility to be merciful – in our society.
Once again, some people may wish to think differently about justice and mercy: they may wish to imagine that justice is an enforceable obligation, but mercy is not.steve wrote:
If the government takes my money forcibly and gives it to a poor person, no one in this picture is being merciful. Bureaucrats are giving away the fruits of another man's (not their own) labor, and I am not acting through mercy but coercion.
I fail to see why the government would have the province to make people act rightly by abstaining from evil deeds, yet would not have the province to make them act rightly by performing good deeds. In either case, the individual’s heart might not be in accordance with their activity; in either case, potential detriment to others would be avoided; in either case, the individuals’ behavior would be directed into a healthier practice, which could in turn affect their mind/heart and the minds/hearts of those who dwell with them.
I will reiterate, for there are some Christians who see no value in doing the right thing if the heart is not right. On one hand, right-hearted or not, doing the right thing spares others from the harm of doing the wrong thing. And on another hand, right-hearted or not, doing the right thing can contribute to character formation: perhaps the doing will yield a breakthrough experience that transforms the heart; perhaps the doing will gradually yield a force of habit that contributes to the slow evolution of the heart; perhaps the doing will bring one into contact with others who are doing likewise, and their company will affect the development of the heart.
steve wrote:
If fairness means "justice," we will get on fine together in this discussion. However, if you are using the word "fairness" to mean "equal standards of living for all, regardless of the value of their labor," then I am going to have to hold out for a more rational defense of such a definition than I have seen presented.
“Equitability” is a complex concern, which is not reduced to “equal standards of living for all, regardless of the value of their labor.”We may differ on valuation of labor. I would consider decent effort by a disabled worker to warrant a decent living, even if their productivity was less than that of an average decent worker.
I will warn against excessive attachment to rationality. Of course, I use rationality as a tool. But it is not the only tool, and there is no rational way to substantiate that human rationality is capable of discerning everything that is worth discerning.steve wrote:
The Bible says taxes are "due" to the government because its agents are full-time workers in the service that God has assigned to them. This service is said to be the punishment of criminals and the praise of good behavior. ...
However, when a government arbitrarily decides to provide and charge for services that neither God nor the law of the land (in our case, the Constitution) authorizes, and to do so over the protests of the majority of its population at that, there is nothing that enables the government to do this but force.
The Constitution can be construed quite reasonably to authorize building of roads and funding for public education and subsidization of citizens’ needs. I am unaware of where the bible claims to be the final word on political science. Of course, you may identify where I might have overlooked this claim.As for the bible’s view on government, I will reiterate: national leaders are frequently spoken of as shepherds; and shepherds have a responsibility not only to defend their flock, but to pasture and water it as well. How did Joseph respond to the impending famine in Egypt? With a laissez-faire policy? Even Herod melted down palace gold to feed the needy in time of famine.
So what does a good shepherd do? A good shepherd doesn't leave lagging sheep to learn by consequences. No - a good shepherd swats and cajoles and carries and nurses and patiently and sacrificially does what is feasible, trying to help the laggards through.
Beyond this – sometimes the shepherd makes arrangements to obtain water and pasturage from other parties. Indeed, the shepherd may shear the flock and exchange the wool for access to grazing land and water. Now, some of the sheep may give more wool than others, but the good shepherd takes as much wool as is needed to ensure that the entire flock is fed and watered.
Indeed, the shepherd also will seek to provide veterinary care. If one or two of the sheep are ill, the good shepherd may exchange wool from many sheep, just to hire a veterinarian for the few.
And indeed, the good shepherd provides for things that the sheep might bleat their objections to. The shepherd might impose sheep dip on an entire complaining flock – and once again, the shepherd might exchange wool to do it.
In our society, every voter is a shepherd. And if I am a voter, the question is: will I be a good and prudent shepherd, or will I be a neglectful and naive shepherd? Do I expect the flock will naturally take care of itself, or do I expect that it will be necessary to intervene, in multiple ways, to make sure that all are cared for?
