whos life would be better the simple farmer who grows food for his family to live on leads a simple but happy life or the millionaire ceo of a multinational company who has a hectic busy but satisfying life and the abilty to buy anything he or his familly needs, assuming that both people are in full health and have no outside factors such as war, crime or discrimination affecting them
2006-10-29 05:30:15 · 9 answers · asked by clearair1234 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
i appologise for the prejudice in the question i should have said that both people were happy and satisfied with there lives
2006-10-29 07:45:43 · update #1
Whose life is BETTER? I think that really all depends on who's judging the meaning of better.
In my opinion, it's the one who's centered in the Lord.
2006-10-29 14:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Turmoyl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is the life of a farmer which is better. A man can earn lots of money but he can't find satisfaction. So far I think, mostly farmers are satisfied soul with whatever they have but a millionaire is a worried soul who is worried to get more and more and who is scared in his heart. I admire the life of a farmer and like to be the part of such a family. Money can't give satisfaction, it is the root of all dissatisfaction.
2006-10-29 14:13:30 · answer #2 · answered by goodbye 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it kind of depends on your philosophy. Even the multi-millionaire CEO could be incredibly unhappy if all he really wanted was to lead a simple life growing food for his own family. And even the third world farmer could be unhappy if all he wanted was to live a busy life and be able to buy anything his family needed. But each of these people could be perfectly happy if what they wanted was exactly what they had.
2006-10-29 05:40:58 · answer #3 · answered by infinity 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is in the prejudice of the question. The farmer's life seems better becauseyou used the adjective happy to describe the farmer's life whereas you used the adjective satisfying to describe the CEO's life. You set the qualifiers so you set the result. The farmer has the better life at least from your perspective. Had you said tey were both happy then the focuse might have been on what they did or had. As is it remains on your qualifiers.
2006-10-29 05:39:04 · answer #4 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Lord Z.
It is difficult to say whose life is "better" and we really cannot. Yet,
we are more likely to vilify the CEO because of cultural prejudices and political correctness. Both are men who must live their lives and find God in their own way.
2006-10-29 07:26:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If your a millionaire, sack the job and live off the interest!! Whats stressful about that? The farmer doesn't have any option whatsoever.
2006-10-29 05:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably neither. It's better to be somewhere in between, to have enough to get by and save for the proverbial rainy day, but neither so little nor so much that you fear the consequences of losing what you've got.
2006-10-29 11:24:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they are both happy then their lives are each as good.
2006-10-29 05:39:15 · answer #8 · answered by kif 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if was a millionaire i would not live in a big house, nor many cars,
2006-10-29 05:34:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋