Humans (and other primates) apparently have an innate sense of
fairness. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html

Given the vastly disproportionate distribution of material wealth in
the world, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the Bill Gates and
Warren Buffets of the world engage in philanthropy because
subconsciously they feel tremendous guilt at the obvious disparities
between themselves and the rest of the world?

Similarly, isn't it equally reasonable to conclude that we middle/
upper middle class folk donate money to charities and such because we
too can't ignore the subconscious pangs of guilt generated from the
obvious disparities between ourselves and the poor?

Or perhaps another way to ask the question is: aren't these great
disparities in material wealth "unnatural", in the sense that they
conflict with our innate sense of fairness?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:10:54 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com>
wrote:

Not necessarily.

Well Art, I've been raised under capitolism, and I've been concerned
with the state of things for quite some time... and not just in
America, everywhere.

What do you think would happen if every single person in America with
more than a billion dollers was forced to give 5 million of it away to
starving kids? Would they fight it? Would they miss that 5 million?

If you've got people that are strugling to make their mortgage
payments, but still give money away to charity, would it be all that
much to ask the rich and powerfull to do the same?

I know for a fact that the Bill Gates gives away a lot of money every
year, so why not the rest of them? (and I'm not saying that noone else
does, just that they all should)

On Jul 24, 9:20 am, T-minus108 gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:39 pm, Art zilch.com> wrote:

ta nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:810d05ae-ddb2-428b-a4bb-3d9c422cac28@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 23, 6:39 pm, Art zilch.com> wrote:

Ok. But possibly, right?

On Jul 24, 12:28 am, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:10:54 -0700, ta wrote:

May be true but it is 'duty' that has been the age old reason for the
richer to assist the poorer. Some saw this as a civic duty others a moral
duty but a duty none the less.

Guilt breeds resentment. It is associated with wrong doing. So it is
natural that a person wants to free themselves from doing this wrong.

Giving to others, out of guilt, is a form of self-imposed extortion
because even though you relieve yourself from the guilt by giving you
continue to do that for which you feel guilty so you continue to make
payments to keep the guilt men off your back.

Duty on the other hand is cold. It is a matter of fact. The underlying
virtue is a given. It is not done to alleviate wrong doing but to act
according to a given civic or moral principle.

One of my favorite lines from film goes something like this:

"To Col. Lawrence, mercy is a passion, to me it is merely good manners. I
will leave it to you to decide which is the more reliable."

On Jul 24, 8:00 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

But isn't "duty" just a nice word for describing the compulsion to
compensate for perceived unfairness? (aka, guilt)