Morality question 2

[Wootah]

Is it ok to replace families with other families simply because their house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

[Wootah]

Is it ok to replace families with other families simply because their house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

Possibly. In his 'Critique of the Gotha Program' (1875) Karl Marx recommended: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. If you think that is unfair, then I see it no more unfair than 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his bank balance', which is the neo-liberal alternative. It may just be that a civilised nation is one that has found a satisfactory compromise between these two extreme positions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't see your connection to the topic. Karl was wrong and now we have people using their jealousy and envy to justify their actions. I don'tknow what it will take to disassociate good intentions from evil actions.

[2ndRateMind]

Is it ok to replace families with other families simply because their house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

Possibly. In his 'Critique of the Gotha Program' (1875) Karl Marx recommended: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. If you think that is unfair, then I see it no more unfair than 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his bank balance', which is the neo-liberal alternative. It may just be that a civilised nation is one that has found a satisfactory compromise between these two extreme positions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't see your connection to the topic...

Oh sorry. Suppose you have a family living in a 4 bedroom house. And then, regrettably, the children are all killed in some war or other, 'defending freedom for all'. Marx would say the family no longer needs such a big house, and downsize the survivors to an appropriate flat. The neo-liberals would say it doesn't matter whether they need the space, or not, so long as they can pay for it.

Contrariwise, if you have 4 children and assorted grand-parents to house, Marx would say you ought, at least, to inhabit that four-bedroom dwelling because you need it, and replace the occupancy. The neo-liberals would just say that if you can't afford it, you can't have the accommodation, however much you might need it.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, so clearly one wants a solution that optimises advantages and minimises disadvantages.

Hope that clarifies.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 2 by Tcg]

It's hypothetical.

Suppose your neighbour went and fought a dragon and won but lost most of their sons. Is it OK for you or others to claim the unused land of that neighbour as yours because well most of them are dead.

I would say yes, as long as the party disadvantaged by this appropriation is not already a disadvantaged minority.

It would be really horrible if the ones who went and fought that dragon were the first Orcs to own any of the fertile land previously monopolised by Humans, having paid dearly for all of it, and that the instant the Humans could, they gobbled the choicest land back up again.

In any other situation, fine, there's no reason for the land to go fallow if it could feed people.

[Bust Nak]

Well I would presume that if we gave the remnants of that family time they would repopulate.

AKA replacing the family living there with another family simply because the house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

[Adstar]

[Replying to post 2 by Tcg]

It's hypothetical.

Suppose your neighbour went and fought a dragon and won but lost most of their sons. Is it OK for you or others to claim the unused land of that neighbour as yours because well most of them are dead.

No..

As long as their family has a surviving member then that person should rightfully inherit that land/property..