Five v. Fifty

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Ok, here's a hypothetical situation, i want to know your opinion on it. I'll give arguments for both sides.

There are two groups of people, a group of five and a group of fifty. The group of fifty live in poverty, and there's really nothing they can do to escape poverty as trade is non existent and there's no farm land around. The people are starving and will eventually all die. The five are all very rich, they control the land around the fifty and they have more than enough money to help out the fifty, but they refuse to because they are greedy sons of b****s. Is it alright for the fifty to overrun the five and take their money?

Against: No, you can?t take the five?s money. It?s immoral. The five did nothing wrong and rightfully acquired their riches, nothing and no one has the right to take it from them. The rights of the five individuals should not be taken away for the sake of the fifty. If you take away the rights of an individual then society breaks down and everybody loses those rights. Just think if you?re in the position of one of the rich people, how would you feel if you worked your life earning the money and saving up to just lose all of it because of a group of greedy people?

For: This is very simple, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The five people should not keep the money for themselves and just let the fifty die. The fifty have a right to take the money from them because of necessity. They absolutely need the money to survive, and since there are ten times more of them than the five, their need is much greater than the five?s. In the end fifty are saved and five are lost as a pose to 50 are lost and 5 are saved.

My opinion: Well, since sharing isn?t an option in this scenario I?m going to have to side for the ?for? side. But I disagree with the principle. I believe in the individual?s rights, and they should not be broken in most cases, though I believe that certain principles need to be broken in certain cases, such as this.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]For the sake of survival the morality of stealing the money would probably not cross my mind if I and my 'group' were wallowing in ruin/nearly dead.

I would not judge their actions as being moral or immoral if their lives were on the line. That is a situation that I cannot comprehend and assume to be extraordinary to say the least.[/color]

[NekoSama101]

I would say that stealing the money would be the best logical answer. But then what would happend to the fifty people afterwards? would they become so obsessed with the thrills of crime that they would continue? would the fifty people start killing each other after being so consumed with greed and wanting of each other's money? And what would happen to the five? would they be killed? if then, what about the people who killed them? would they be overcome with greif for what they did? And if the five were to live, they would just become poor like the others. Sorry if i'm over analizing this, but it can't be helped. it's a no win situation.

If the world was perfect, then i agree with the fifty.

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]NekoSama: Haha, yeah, maybe you're overanalyzing it just a bit. ^L^ But it's ok. It's good stuff. They're good questions. The people broke the law once, sunk down to the level of stealing once, who's to say they won't again?

In this situation yes, the five would perish if the fifty steal their money.

In the perfect world the fifty and five societies would combine into one society of fifty-five. Everybody would be middle class and things would be dandy. Too bad we don't live in the perfect world.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Zephyr]

Here is a rather interesting way to view the situation: in either case the five are doomed. Here is how I came to that conclusion. I view the group as representing society as a whole, as such one could expect no aid from a group outside the 55 listed (since they are everyone). If the fifty storm the homes of the five and take all, the five are reduced to the fifty at best, killed at worst.

However, if the fifty save their morals until the very end they are lost, and a five survive in the short term. In the end the five would also die off, as the fifty would have likely been the only source of labor, and thus food, housing, clothing, etc., in the group. As a result the five would have to become the new fifty and fend for themselves. Such a sudden change would result in hoarding, in-fighting, and closing themselves off from each other. In the end, they would either kill each other, or starve if they failed to perform as laborers.

Viewed as such, it would be better to attempt to same the largest group. While it may not be moral to steal and kill, the society was already too corrupted by those unwilling to help their fellow people. Right now I feel like using a quote from the Boogiepop novel: "Do you think to do nothing when you see a fellow human crying?"

(End of cynical moment)

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Gemini, that's a very interesting point. I don't know whether i agree with it or not, and i didn't specifically think of the 55 people to represent all of society, but i can see how you'd think that.

But the main question i was trying to get answered was this: Can the rights of individuals be sacraficed when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

This whole discussion with my friend started with talking about how the government has too much power nowadays. The government is supposed to protect the people, not control them. We both believe that the government has too much power.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Gemini, that's a very interesting point. I don't know whether i agree with it or not, and i didn't specifically think of the 55 people to represent all of society, but i can see how you'd think that.[/COLOR'] [/FONT][/quote]
[size=1]Gemini's right on the money -- the only way the five could remain rich is if the fifty were working for them.

This situation is representative of the world. The western world has five people, and the rest of the world has fifty. What's also happening is that the five people are hoarding the money, and succeeding at it as well, as they are oppressing the fifty and living off the fifty's cheap labor.

I'm all for the fifty rising up and stealing from the five -- the needs of many certainly outweigh the few, and when faced with a crisis as dire as this, anyone would side with revolution. My question is this: why is revolution only chosen in this hypothetical situation, and not real life? If the situations are synonymous, why are people driven to say "yes, the five should give to the fifty," but don't actually do anything in real life?[/size]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#656446]Wait a minute... who said the fifty worked for the five? The given parameters were just:[quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]There are two groups of people, a group of five and a group of fifty. The group of fifty live in poverty, and there's really nothing they can do to escape poverty as trade is non existent and there's no farm land around. The people are starving and will eventually all die. The five are all very rich, they control the land around the fifty and they have more than enough money to help out the fifty, but they refuse to because they are greedy sons of b****s. Is it alright for the fifty to overrun the five and take their money?[/COLOR'] [/FONT][/quote]...which leaves open the possibility that the 50 poverty-stricken persons are indolent creatures and the 5 [i]actually[/i] worked for the money,wealth,etc.

If I say the five oughta give donations to the fifty, it's almost like I'm implying that these five work for the fifty. The five are not stewards of the fifty and thus are not obligated to aid them.

Also, stealing is stealing no matter what reason compelled the thief to commit it. 'Tis a crime, baby.

IOW, [b]Against[/b].[/COLOR]

[Manic Webb]

I [i]want[/i] to say stealing from the Five would be wrong, but the revolutionary in me (and it will be televised, folks) wants the Fifty to overthrow the Five. It's just like when I was studying the French Revolution in high school; I knew killing the Noble Class was wrong, but life was only getting worse for the people in the Third Estate. If the people didn't take France for themselves, they would've collapsed onto themselves and died. A revolution was in order, and the impoverished Third Estate got bloody vengeance.

Of course, things then got [b]way[/b] out of hand, and it reached the point where a man could accidentally send his own son-in-law to the guillotine ([u]A Tale of Two Cities[/u]).

When you fight the power and win, you become the power. And it's at that point that you must beware of the power going to your head.

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Delta pretty much said what I was going to say to Retribution. The scenario is made up, and I?m the one who made it. Gemini?s opinion is just that, an opinion. It?s one way of looking at the situation I presented to all of you, there?s no right or wrong.

And yes, the 5 did work hard to get their money, but now they?re pretty much living the easy life. Think of the self made tycoon. That?s who the 5 people are.

So, is stealing alright now that we know that the 5 worked hard to be where they are? Did it change anything?

I still think the 50 should steal the money, but I don?t think the 50 should reject the 5 from their new society. In my eyes I still see the best case scenario as them all working together and sharing.




[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Boo]

[size=1]...In the situation you stated, there's no sign of any conflict between the two. The five are just greedy, the fifty are poor. That's all. There's not a single reason to overrun anyone, except for their hunger.

[quote name='Delta']The five are not stewards of the fifty and thus are not obligated to aid them.[/quote]

Exactly. It'd be nice of them if they would aid them, but they don't have to.

Anyway, if the fifty would overrun the five, they'd still fail. They're poor and assumably have no idea of how to control money. The ammount that they achieved by taking over the minority, will be gone in no time. The way the five men obtained the money is most likely too hard for the fifty aswell. They'd just be screwed. Boohoo.

I'm against the situation. [/size]

[Kitchen Sink]

Double-edged sword?
I'd like the fifty to have enough to survive without stealing, that they became self-sufficent or something, made it happen for themselves, rather than robbing and stealing from the five becuase they ddin't give hand-outs.

Stealing from the five is only a short-term solution, because soon, that is going to run out. I'm against stealing from the five or overthrowing them anyway, because they have earned their money and deserve to u se it however they will. (not accounting those who have been born into wealth, thogh somewhere along that line,there was hard work put int ot achieve this standing in society.)

[Retribution]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']...In the situation you stated, there's no sign of any conflict between the two. The five are just greedy, the fifty are poor. That's all. There's not a single reason to overrun anyone, except for their hunger.[/size][/quote]
[size=1]You're completely right. Aside from the knifing hunger that'd eventually kill you, your friends and your family, there's absolutely no reason to steal from those five. The conflict between these two groups would have to be enormous -- think of all the resentment harbored by the fifty looking at the opulent five. I'm sure stealing would've crossed their mind more than once.

[quote][size=1]Anyway, if the fifty would overrun the five, they'd still fail. They're poor and assumably have no idea of how to control money. The ammount that they achieved by taking over the minority, will be gone in no time. The way the five men obtained the money is most likely too hard for the fifty aswell. They'd just be screwed. Boohoo.

I'm against the situation. [/size][/QUOTE]
I think you're underestimating the common sense of people. Furthermore, you're basing all of this off of nil -- it's like saying that all the "commoners" of Medieval Europe would never be able to control money, that they're just too foolish, as there children will eventually be, and their children's children, etc. Now look at Europe -- The top nine most livable countries are in Europe. My point is that everyone (I would assume) given a slight bit of education, would know how to manage the money.

I think everyone currently against the situation should put themselves in the shoes of the fifty for a moment. Think -- you're starving to death, dirt poor in the cold, while five men feast in their warm mansion. Everyone you know is poor. Your brothers and sisters, your mother and father, your friends and relatives -- they're all just as poor as you are. And you look at this mansion and see five men feasting, with too much, and if they'd just share with you, everyone would be fed.

But they don't share. Never.

I'm certain everyone would steal. It's not really even a debate when you think in those terms. Sure, everyone can argue the ethics of stealing from a man who worked hard for his money, but things change when you think you might actually die from malnutrition.[/size]

[Boo]

[size=1]One way or another, the fifty are poor. This has nothing to do with the rich five. Be realistic, would those fifty truly be so poor if they'd know how to earn and maintain money?

Those five people assumably found a way to get their ammount of money. They are doing something right, that the fifty are doing wrong.

You mention the Medieval. Do you realize how amazingly long that is ago? The whole civilization in West-Europe started from scratch to say it roughly. They had to build it up. Sometimes they got invaded by some more advanced countries, took over their ways and stuff. It took thousands of years to get to the state where we are now.

And no, I can't possibly put myself in the shoes of one of them. I'm living in a wealthy country and I enjoy being here. [/size]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Boo][size=1]One way or another, the fifty are poor. This has nothing to do with the rich five. Be realistic, would those fifty truly be so poor if they'd know how to earn and maintain money?
[/size][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]That?s not necessarily true, my friend. Think of the time of the great depression. The very few rich people were rich before the depression and managed to keep their money when the stock markets crashed. The rich people then pretty much oppressed the poor by offering very very low wages. Have you ever read the book the Grapes of Wrath? The Joads were once successful farmers, but then as a result of the depression and the dust bowl they were pretty screwed. And when they went to Cali they had to work for very low wages because the rich could set whatever price they wanted. There was always people willing to work, and if they didn?t want to work at the super low wage then somebody else could and they could just starve.

Some people are lucky while others are unlucky, that?s how things are sometimes.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']And no, I can't possibly put myself in the shoes of one of them. I'm living in a wealthy country and I enjoy being here. [/size][/quote]
[size=1]Thanks for burying your head in the sand. I suppose you like it there.[/size]

[Lord Rannos]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I think that the point to be made is that the 5 [B]should[/B] give to the 50, but they are [B]not obligated to[/B]. Morally, sure, the rich should be helping the poor. Especially if the rich fell into their money. But these people worked hard for their money. They have earned their right, in my eyes, to live in luxury.

Now, without more information we cannot condemn the 50, but supposing for a moment that they didn't work as hard as the 5 did? Does that mean that they are still entitled to money when they might have been one of the 5 if they had just worked those extra hours? I know that wasn't given, but it's a factor to consider.

Also, is it right to call the 5 greedy when they're not the ones trying to run other people down for their money? They're just living their lives, not bothering anyone necessarily, whereas the 50 would go and rob, ruin, or kill these people for their money.

I side with the 5.[/COLOR]

[Boo]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Thanks for burying your head in the sand. I suppose you like it there.[/size][/quote]

[size=1]You can't imagine being in their situation either. Be happy with that fact.

[quote name='The13thMan][color=orange']The rich people then pretty much oppressed the poor by offering very very low wages.[/color][/quote]

In my imaginary situation this did not happen. The rich have nothing to do with the poor except for being the same race on the same planet.

[quote name='Lord Rannos][color=darkred']Now, without more information we cannot condemn the 50, but supposing for a moment that they didn't work as hard as the 5 did? Does that mean that they are still entitled to money when they might have been one of the 5 if they had just worked those extra hours? I know that wasn't given, but it's a factor to consider.[/color][/quote]

Exactly. [/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']You can't imagine being in their situation either. Be happy with that fact.[/size][/quote]
[size=1]It's not whether I can fully comprehend the gravity of the situation. It's that I attempt to, I make an honest effort to empathise with those people, where you blow it off as something that's negligible.

Sure, I'm happy with the fact that I live in America, but I actively try to understand how others in those situations might feel, so that I am more ready to help.[/size]

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Retribution, I think what Boo?s trying to say is that you can?t possibly fully understand how someone in that situation might feel. It?s like saying you understand what it?s like to have someone close to you die when you?ve never experienced yourself.

And Boo, c?mon man, you didn?t even attempt to empathize with the poor. At least try and put yourself in their position, here I?ll help. You?re poor, you were born poor, you had very little opportunity to change that, now you?re starving and so is everyone you love and the whole f-ing population to boot. Then you see a couple of rich guys, with more than enough. How can you possibly say you wouldn?t walk up there right then and take whatever you could? Or at least attempt.

^L^ Later.

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Boo]

[size=1]I didn't say I don't try, I merely say I can't. Especially not since I'm raised to be fully against stealing, and I raised myself to not put myself before anyone else, be it rich men.

Do not think I have no heart. I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation. I see no solution in trying to feel like one of them, since I'd just feel bad knowing I can't do **** about it.

The actions should come from the rich, not from the poor. The best solution would be when someone, who has a zillion dollars, would give 99% of it to the poor, but I doubt it that [i]that[/i] will ever happen.

Retribution, just let that situation rest since there's no way you can convince me to your opinion.

Let's just expand the information given about the situation a bit more, because now we're all thinking of an other one.
[/size]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]As much as I would like to say it?s immoral I would probably take from the fifty. I?ve lived in poverty before and I know what it?s like to have nothing to eat. It?s easy to sit back and claim you would never steal, but could you sit back and watch your children starve to death because a few refused to do anything?

There?s also the problem that if these are the only people left on earth then by not stealing to save the fifty humans would end up dying out. Five people just aren?t enough to keep humanity going. Fifty really isn?t enough either, but it?s a much better chance for survival with that many.

I?d like to say I would never steal, but at the same time I don?t think I could stand by and watch others starve because a few were too greedy to care. [/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Ok, I?ll make the situation a little more specific.

The ?55? people are in California. This is during the time of the Great Depression and caused directly by the Dust Bowl Migration. The Dust Bowl Migration happened when a wind blew up all the topsoil in the farmland, mainly Oklahoma, and made the soil unusable. So then the Oklahoma farmers got it in their heads that California was a sort of promise land so they migrated there. Then they got there and realized that there were very few rich people that owned all the farm land and they were hiring the workers that had migrated for insanely low wages. So that?s the situation, 5 rich guys forcing the 50 to work for dirt cheap. The 5 guys still earned their money respectfully, and the 50 were just unlucky. The 50 aren?t stupid or anything, it?s not like they don?t know how to handle money, they only don?t have it. And also, the 55 people are exactly alike in personality and mindset, the only difference being their wealth.

Boo, so maybe you can?t fully comprehend their situation, I can understand that. But can you at least empathize with the people and see their motives for stealing?

[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Lord Rannos]

[COLOR=DarkRed]The scales seem to be tilting in the 50's favor. But the fact stands: [B]it is not the rich people's fault the poor people are poor.[/B] What, just because they're less lucky than the 5 the 50 now have the right to break the law? The 5 didn't cause the 50 to lose their livelihoods, nor did they force the 50 to move to California.

I'll give you that it may seem wrong of the 5 to offer the 50 lower wages, but I think that since it's during the depression they're lucky to have any job. For that matter, the 50 don't have to work for the 5. They can go try to find jobs somewhere else.

In the end, it's never going to be right for the 50 to rob the 5. I admit that, in that situation, I wouldn't do the right thing, either. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to do it, just that I could understand their reasons for doing it.[/COLOR]

[Boo]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]
Boo, so maybe you can?t fully comprehend their situation, I can understand that. But can you at least empathize with the people and see their motives for stealing?
[/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[size=1]I see their motives, I just don't agree with them.

And with that more specified situation I will now leave this discussion. America stinks anyway.[/size]