in other words, if i abuse the lower class by buying BMWs and Mercedes and a huge house to show them how "special" i am,,, do i owe them anything? Could my families pride actually damage the lower class?
2007-12-04 04:44:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
what i meant was should i take care of JUST my family or my entire culture..
isnt it personal responsibility to take care of all that i am around,,,
but the answer is self-evident, i just am shocked at some of the answers i read...
2007-12-04 04:48:44 · update #1
Pdooma that is true, but it takes the damaged ones a while to learn that... this is self-evident also....
2007-12-04 04:49:46 · update #2
George Lakoff has put a fine point on it. It has a lot to do with what a person thinks a family is as to what they think about family and responsibility.
The "Conservative" family is what Dr Lakoff calls the "Strong Father" though I tend to think "Abusive Father" family is more like it, particularly as physical abuse is both common and even recommended. Also the father is the lead and reason for the family that he has like he has a dog or house. It is his responsibility to take care of and protect them, and in return they must obey and be loyal.
Tus the poor are "immoral" even if it is beyond their power to "fix" it. If beyond their ability, as in disabled then they are inferior and should just die and make way for those who are "able". They may not believe in "Darwinism", but they are quite happy to promote "Social Darwinism".
The "Liberal" family is what Lakoff calls the "Nurturant Parent" which is ideally that the raising of the children is the reason for the family, and each parent hold the other accountable to sacrifice to advance the cause of the child to become the best person possible.
By focusing on the needs of others, and instilling that kind of morality, with maximized communication, and support of the needs of others, the cause of all is advanced.
In their selfish rage (often over abuse suffered as a child) Conservatives refer to this as the "Nanny" problem, and consider any call to do their part to support others theft, even as they feel that all they can acquire, is rightfully theirs, no matter who or what was damaged to do so. They feel that the denial or neglect they suffered in the past gives them rights to deny others now.
This is why many "Strong father" types often buy meaningless toys to strut their "success", and then get outrageously drunk at the meaninglessness of it.
2007-12-04 04:55:11 · answer #1 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you take responsibility for the money you made to buy the things that show how "special" you are? Donate to charity if you think you owe something to the lower class, or send a huge tax payment. Do you really need to government to mandate how much you should pay?
The lower class could do much to better themselves. I just heard on the radio this morning that families in poverty are only working an average of 16 hours per week. (I know there's some people not able to work more than that or at all-those are not the ones I refer to)
That tells me they need to take personal responsibility for the fact they should working more.
2007-12-04 04:54:52 · answer #2 · answered by Sparxfly 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What is best for the individual IS what is best for the group.
(what is in your best interest is to work hard, save money to protect yourself and your family from future hardship, if everyone did that this would not be an issue)
1 you are not abusing anyone but yourself by buying luxury goods. (read "the millionaire next door")
2 You do not "owe" the "lower class" anything, do what you think is right.
2007-12-04 05:03:43 · answer #3 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How does driving nice cars or buying expensive things damage the lower class?
Wouldn't your purchase of these items necessitate a sales associate to assist you with your purchases and a factory to build the goods you wish to purchase?
So ultimately with wealth and the spending of wealth you have actually helped the lower class by providing them with jobs.
2007-12-04 04:51:27 · answer #4 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Personal responsibility applies to everybody.
And showing off really doesn't damage anybody - just makes you look like an a**.
2007-12-04 04:47:28 · answer #5 · answered by Willow 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How would what type of car you drive be ABUSE to anyone? Personal responsibility is taking care of yourself and your family. People who are focused on what other people have instead of trying to improve their own situation, are NOT due anything from society.
2007-12-04 04:52:54 · answer #6 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is personal and applies to you and how you provide for your family. You cannot be held accountable for society because you cannot change society by yourself. Now for larger groups that influence society or for Celebrities that are role models the responsibility is bigger because they influence a larger segment of the population.
2007-12-04 04:53:19 · answer #7 · answered by Tip 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think of that traditionally adult adult males are predicted to be financial to blame and the provider, on a similar time as women individuals are predicted to be greater virtuous. that isn't be the case anymore, yet tha'ts the classic view on gender relatives. a number of which has possibly survived.
2016-10-02 06:26:50 · answer #8 · answered by john-patrick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personal responsibility only applies to middle and lower class americans.
if you are very rich, a corporate leader or a politician, you don't need to worry about ever being held to account for your personal conduct.
just ask larry craig - who has now 'not been gay' about 100 times in some of the sleaziest places i have ever heard of.
but he is still called senator...
2007-12-04 04:48:32 · answer #9 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
- Eleanor Roosevelt, 'This Is My Story,' 1937
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)
2007-12-04 04:47:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋