I took a survey over the weekend. The further along I got in it, the more disturbed I became by the underlying assumptions that seemed to have been made.
My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:
I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)
“Rich and Poor Survey”
1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?
Yes
No
Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?
2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?
Agree
Disagree
Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.
3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?
Yes
No
Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.
4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?
Yes
No
Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?
5. Does the rich give or take from society?
Give
Take
Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.
6. What is the purpose of charity?
In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.
7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?
Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.
8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?
Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.
9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?
What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.
