Subject:
|
Re: Pay It Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:34:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > I think that's the general idea. But I think I'd say there are a few
> > responses people would give to avoid "paying it forward":
> >
> > - How do I know person X is deserving? What if they're Adolf Hitler? I
> > wouldn't want to help evil people even if I could, so I don't want to take
> > that chance.
>
> What if person X *was* Adolf Hitler? Maybe your random act of charity might
> have forever changed him and prevented what he would have otherwise done.
>
> And, isn't the question "How do I know person X is deserving?" in itself
> "evil"? Are we capable of making such determinations, seeing we all have the
> same flawed make up?
I'm not saying that the above excuse is a good one. Dan asked why would or
wouldn't people do it-- and I answered. And I'm *very* sure that *some*
people would give that reason.
> > In short, take the example of Communism. Great idea, never worked well in
> > practice.
>
> I disagree that it is a great idea that has never been implemented properly.
> Why is the notion that everyone should have an equal share of the pie a good
> idea? Some people earn, and indeed deserve, a bigger share.
Rather selfish, I'd say. Sure I consider my skills to be better than some
others, but I don't think they deserve any less benefit than I do-- as long
as they're not under the impression that they're my equal (or that they're
my better in those respects). But that's also the reason the system would
never work. A system which treats its members as equals will inherently
avoid natural selection, and will most likely stagnate.
> > Personally, I think that's one of the reasons Christianity
> > is so successful. It promises "heaven" for those who are charitable, and
> > "hell" to those who are not.
>
> Actually, the promise of heaven is never given in return for "charitable"
> deeds. Likewise hell is not promised "to those who are not." Ones actions
> are, in light of the cross, irrelevant. All are on equal standing based on
> performance alone. Even in the OT people were "justified by faith." Actions
> are only pertinent in so much as they demonstrate ones faith.
Regardless of what the "true" essence of Christianity says, I stand by my
assertion that it's what has made it as big a success as it is. Heck, what
you said above promises even MORE that one will be admitted into heaven,
again regardless of their actions. The idea that you'll be rewarded for your
faith/actions/whatever-- just the fact that you'll be rewarded-- is what I
think has given Christianity its success; even if that's not what
Christianity is about, it's still the edge that's benefitted it so.
> > But I'll opt for something different. My philosophy on the matter is not to
> > pay forward 3 big favors. Pay forward as many favors as you can, big or
> > small.
>
> I agree here. Why stop at three? The premise of the movie almost comes
> across as Multi-Level Marketing, doesn't it?
Definitely agree (how could I not? :) I guess what did it for me was
thinking about someone who's already done 3 who has the opportunity to do a
fourth. What does he say? "No, I've already done my 3 favors"? Just seems
rather selfish.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pay It Forward
|
| (...) What if person X *was* Adolf Hitler? Maybe your random act of charity might have forever changed him and prevented what he would have otherwise done. And, isn't the question "How do I know person X is deserving?" in itself "evil"? Are we (...) (23 years ago, 26-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
