Are socialists really more humane than individualists?

[musashi]

"Are socialists really more humane than individualists?"

Call me crazy, but isn't this like asking which style of artistic painting, like Cubism vs. Neo-Impressionism, is "better" than the other?

Yep I agree that it is a very subjective question. I asked it for a couple reasons.

• A. I wanted to get a better understanding of both philosophies
  
  B. It seems a common prejudice that socialist are automatically considered humane. There seems to be a broadly held view that because socialist engage in a ponzie scheme that they are more charitable, thus giving them the high moral ground.
  
  Likewise it seems a common prejudice that objectivists are niggardly, because of their focus upon net worth, value to society, the dollar. I do not know any greedy Objectivists. I know some competitive Objectivists. It has been my experience that Objectivists are quite charitable. They have the greatest capacity to give.

The thieves and strong-arm robbers… er Socialists shout with a self-righteous indignation, “those rich people don’t give enough!” All the while siphoning some part of the loot off for their own personal gain. As you can tell, I believe Socialism is rotten to the core and totally immoral. Further I understand that my opinion is in the vast minority in our world today.

I was hoping this thread would provide some resonating opinions to my own. Which it has. Thank you all. It is good to know that there are people in the world that share similar views. And while in the real world, Are socialists really more humane than individualists?, is a subjective question. In the perfect world dreamt about in my imagination, this question has an objective answer – Hell No.

[musashi]

While “normal” may not ever be adequately defined, I believe good has more resonance in the human heart than evil. As the father of two young boys, I’ll join you in kicking in NMBLA skulls, but I’ll know it was their evil that inspired my own, not that I was good or admirable.

There is a rub here Dul, and I apologize, but it is why I tied the pedophiles to the kicking post. Today almost everyone can agree that pedophilia is grotesquely immoral.

We could both feel justified in destroying the evil pedophiles, and most people would agree with us.

A few decades ago, people felt the same way about homosexuality, and women’s suffrage. A few hundred years ago people didn’t feel this way about slavery. The “best” qualities of mankind are clearly a changing target. What we might consider as maximizing the happiness and mutual benefit today, might not seem so good tomorrow.

Neither of us would feel much justification in killing a suffragette or an escaped slave today. But at some point in the past we may have felt this righteous fervor.

Heck in the world of tomorrow pedophilia may be the expected norm. Bestiality may be a vacation industry, like prostitution is today. It may become even more grotesque: mutilation; cannibalism, infanticide… We humans are a demented lot.

This “time-based” influence on morality is one of the reasons I think this could be a fascinating and beneficial field of study. Unfortunately in our current culture of political correctness, drawing clear distinctions what is bad and what is good and by what degree would be vilified.

[DagnyTaggart]

good vs bad

good vs bad.....




what about neutral?