But I understand what you mean by that, and no, I would not automatically save the baby first. --Modigliani

Your views are insane, in my opinion. I have trouble believing that you really live by them.

I've come to respect them more than I respect any of my colleagues, and they deserve more than what they have. --Anaralia

I also definitely respect anyone who works to the best of their ability, whatever that ability may be. I think that if someone does so consistently, eventually they WILL be successful. It's not fair that everyone starts on different levels, I guess. Some people start off rich and just need to get richer. Some people grow up in a terrible situation and need to play catch-up. But that's the nature of the world. That's not the fault of humanity as a species. It's impossible for everyone to be equal in all ways. It IS possible for anyone to ascend to any height though, and that's what's important.

They can create opportunities for themselves, but the law of economy predicts that they will fail.

Yeah, I think I vaguely remember learning that in economics class. Wish I'd paid attention. But anyways the same people aren't unemployed all the time. Like you said, it rotates. I've been unemployed in the past (and the present ). You have too. But someday I won't be. Say everyone is unemployed for a year or two total out of their lives; that could cover all the required unemployment in the economy, and yet the vast majority of people have a job the vast majority of the time. Fact remains that at any given time, there's a whole newspaper filled with available jobs just in my city.

Some try and try and simply can't get ahead.

I just don't believe this, I guess. If you're never successful, you're just doing something wrong. If you show up to work every day on time, do your job and do it well on a consistent basis, you're so far above most of the bums in the world that you can't help but rise. Maybe I'm naive.

No, because socialism is when the government grabs your paycheck and gives part of it away to the poor without asking for your permission.

I mean, your ideology is socialism. Our government isn't socialist, no, but socialism is what you believe in, right? At least in the specific sense I mentioned, if not in general.

"Should" implies that you are better off going down this route, but if you don't want to, fine.

"Should" implies a choice, but it also specifies which choice is the correct choice. In terms of ethics, "You should do X" means that X is right and Y is wrong. "You should not kill people" meaning killing people is wrong. You still have the choice to kill people, but you would be wrong to do so. "You should give your money to poor people"; I have the choice not to do so, but if I choose not to, I would be wrong.

This is an argument of semantics, it seems to me. But in any case, aside from the meaning of the individual words, w're talking about right and wrong here. You speak of feeling guilt when you don't do something, and that doing something is the right thing to do; those are words of morality, to me.

When you proclaim something right or wrong, I give that proclamation a whole lot of weight. "You should not kill people"; if that's true, then I have a moral duty and obligation not to kill people. I am compelled not to kill people, in other words. Even if I want to kill someone, it is morally wrong to do so, and so I shouldn't do it. If I am a good person, then I am forbidden to do so. I am compelled by my own beliefs that doing the right thing is the right thing to do; I'm not compelled by physical force, but I am compelled nonetheless.

When you say "You should give your money to poor people", if that's true, I am morally compelled to give my money to people, even if I don't want to. I feel that it is not just to give my money to other people when I don't want to, because I've earned it and they haven't. Being compelled to give my money to other people, even though I don't want to, is the definition of robbery. It's not robbery in the physical sense; I use "robbery" and "slavery" as a metaphor, but it is very similar in my mind.

A moral is an obligation, insofar as I demand of myself that I be a good person. It's technically a choice, yes; the choice is, either do X, or be immoral. That is not a choice to me though, because being a bad person is not an option.

If we can't agree on this one, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because we'll never see eye to eye. This is the very essence of the point I was making.

I am in favor of doing nice things if you want to. Giving money to poor people is "nice", if it's voluntary. Being morally compelled to give money to poor people is all I have a problem with, for reasons stated above. The only way for something to be voluntary is for there to be no moral attached to it. I feel that the axiom "You should give money to poor people" is something that looks good on the surface, but is not moral in reality.

puppies, kitties, and other sentient creatures can feel pain; our actions, knowing this, should reflect this truth and act accordingly. Meaning we shouldn't cause a sentient creature pain. --PG

Pain is not inherently evil. If it was, dentists would be the most evil people on earth. I don't believe that animals feel pain in the same way we do. They don't feel emotional pain, because they have no emotion, and emotional pain is what matters. Causing pain to animals seems wrong to us because WE have emotions, and we associate pain in animals with something physical pain in ourselves, which causes emotional pain in ourselves. I think that kicking puppies is wrong because it will make me sad, and it will make people who see me do it sad, etc. The puppy, however, being dumb as a bucket of dirt, doesn't care, because there is no such thing as "caring" in animals. If it feels the pain of being kicked, it will instinctively do something (probably bite me). If it feels me petting him, it will do something else. It's mindless and automatic. Animals are sentient, but they aren't rational beings. That's an important difference.

That's just my belief though. I can't say I'm an expert in this; I'm no biologist or animal psychologist, if such a thing exists. And I don't hurt animals, but only for the reasons stated; it makes me sad to do so.