It’s a nuanced argument. If taxes are paid and the billionaire created value for overall society, why would it be immoral? If they dodged taxes and cheated their way to the top, then yes, that is immoral.
When garbage collectors to the police, to the CEO, all helped to create profit, what is moral about sole ownership of profit going to the first one who gets their hands on it?
They weren't born this way but put in the required amount of effort in order to get here - which is what you're doing, by listening to these kinds of debates. You can also improve yourself.
Not immoral to be a billionaire. Immoral for a system to create billionaires. Immoral for policies to benefit billionaires at the expense of the poor. Both billionaires and non-billionaires are immoral based on personal conduct.
Of course it's not immoral. That would imply either an arbitrary line where you suddenly become immoral for how much money you have, or a moral spectrum where the more money you have the less moral you are... Both of which are ridiculous.
yes I completely agree with your point! I can understand people who think its immoral with the system in which wealth is distributed (tax avoidence etc.) and how high or low taxes should be etc. (I already think the very rich pay huge amounts of taxes already) but you cant go after individuals and say some are moral and others are immoral. We have both moral and immoral people who are super poor and moral and immoral people who are super rich.
Well argued, sir. While I don't agree on all points, I concede that you've argued the point in a way that I find moral, which is more than I can say for certain others.
Morality is developed by public sentiment that later reflects in government policy and law. What we should be talking about is what we expect, morally, from our billionaires. If we can agree on that, then policy should reflect those wishes and billionaires will be encouraged to act in accordance with that morality in fear of the legal consequences. The fact that the law doesn't reflect the sentiment towards billionaires in terms of tax etc, says a lot about the morality of our policy makers rather than the billionaires.
Perhaps there isn't an arbitrary assessment that becoming a billionaire automatically makes you immoral, but how do you think people become billionaires? One must surely understand the importance of both inheritance and exploitation as a vital component of the process of becoming a billionaire. It's all well and good to say 'you must not hate a billionaire based on their wealth, but on what they do with it'. Poverty still is an issue, and thus it becomes more so 'WHY are billionaires immoral' than 'billionaires ARE immoral'
The presence of poverty doesn't make a billionaires immoral. It's naive to think that billionaire can eliminate poverty simply by donating money. There has to be enterprise for the poor. And event them not all poor can maintain it.
The questions need to be worded better. Arguing technicalities is not interesting. The question should have been whether or not to abolish the billionaire class or are billionaires a benefit or hindrance to the world?
Honestly, the debate should have been between those thoroughly educated in economics and philosophers so that claims like that 'redistribution of wealth' by means of intervention is good wouldn't have been made, cause economically it isn't, and the idea that you can't 'be' immoral by means of inaction (not immoral action but inaction to help despite large sums of disposable incomes) isn't possible would also not be made.
I claim that redistribution of wealth by means of intervention is good, prove me wrong. One piece of evidence: It is generally agreed that the best countries to live are those in Northern Europe, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, maybe Iceland and Denmark. One thing all of those countries have in common are very strong labour rights, union laws and high taxes that are used for redistribution.
If everyone had a conviction that they owned too much, and it caused them to give all they could give to those who have less, than both capitalism and socialism would work equally well. Problem is, we all are born selfish, most die selfish and most strive to enrich themselves upon the misery of those with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin.
Don’t really agree with the analogy made by the second speaker RE a billionaire being indistinguishable from the non billionaire if they were standing in a line and a moral adjudicator were asked to select the moral from immoral. A billionaire must already, hypothetically, have burgled and thieved from the poor in order to acquire the wealth - the burglary/theft does not proceed but necessarily precedes their status as a billionaire. Thus, a billionaire will be inevitably ‘caught in the act’ in their aggregation of wealth by the moral adjudicator.
Tell it to the millions of starving people and those without acess to adiquate health care, tell them how its not immoral for you to spend millions on having fun while they suffer, starve and die of curable disseises.
This is the problem 1. There is only one truth good or evil 2. Humans are intelligent creature yet they themselves lack moral 3. You cannot have a master both God and devil it should be either of them Now the biggest problems of this world is not laws its not govt its not even weapons of mass destruction but "HUMANS" themselves, you see a person who have surely killed someone, gets to court,the lawyers have proff, yet if the person is from a strong financial and political backing he would get low years in jail OR fine sometimes just out to free, BUT never a death sentence this is happening in the biggest democracy in the world, who is making these laws??? Who is implementing these laws??? Upon whom is these laws subjected??? And by now I hope you know what I'm sayinh. I won't be surprise it might be the case in other parts of the world. So when we debate why don't we know that there is one truth. Why are we confusing ourselves that something is both good and bad for God sake black and white are two very DIFFERENT,when you are supporting BAD even when you know it's BAD and WRONG you come to conclusion YOU are the Problem of your problems 😎
It is impossible to keep wealth unless you have a desire to use violence against any person that harms your wealth. Also, as wealth is the property you hoard above what is needed for a comfortable life, as the greater your wealth the greater is your ability to hire guards, lawyers and politicians to protect your wealth, always do you lust for more wealth than you have.
I think he's confused the morality of the person who is a billionaire, and the morality of the actual existence of the billionaire. So when JK Rowling becomes a billionaire, she doesn't just automatically become immoral, and then moral again when she gives it all away. Its more that her position as a billionaire is immoral in itself. The person who is the actual billionaire is irrelevant.
A well cherry-picked speech. Just because a very few billionaires were not immoral in their paths to becoming billionaires, it does excuse the rest that did, nor does it negate the whole concept of billionaires being inherently immoral.
@@nickallbritton3796 It does matter, because that means there's either a line that fundamentally changes the person's morality based solely on their net worth increasing/decreasing one more cent, or there's a sliding scale where you just become more or less moral depending solely on your net worth. I see no correlation in either case. That's why I'm asking about where the line is, because there's no realistic or consistent standard to base it on.
This is the problem 1. There is only one truth good or evil 2. Humans are intelligent creature yet they themselves lack moral 3. You cannot have a master both God and devil it should be either of them Now the biggest problems of this world is not laws its not govt its not even weapons of mass destruction but "HUMANS" themselves, you see a person who have surely killed someone, gets to court,the lawyers have proff, yet if the person is from a strong financial and political backing he would get low years in jail OR fine sometimes just out to free, BUT never a death sentence this is happening in the biggest democracy in the world, who is making these laws??? Who is implementing these laws??? Upon whom is these laws subjected??? And by now I hope you know what I'm sayinh. I won't be surprise it might be the case in other parts of the world. So when we debate why don't we know that there is one truth. Why are we confusing ourselves that something is both good and bad for God sake black and white are two very DIFFERENT,when you are supporting BAD even when you know it's BAD and WRONG just go to hell sorry
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch the full debate here: th-cam.com/video/LieWDaAA-6I/w-d-xo.html
It’s a nuanced argument. If taxes are paid and the billionaire created value for overall society, why would it be immoral? If they dodged taxes and cheated their way to the top, then yes, that is immoral.
💩
What is moral in paying taxes? Is it moral that a state force you to pay a part of your own property? Doesn't it make a slave out of you?
if you want to use public infrastructure you need to pay taxes. Dony you enjoy having roads and shit?
When garbage collectors to the police, to the CEO, all helped to create profit, what is moral about sole ownership of profit going to the first one who gets their hands on it?
I really hope this was deadpan sarcasm, b/c this is not nuanced....at all
literally his arguments were #Notallbillionaires and "wow 1 billion is such an arbitrary number to focus on"
It’s nice to see intelligent debates like these, agree or disagree, they’re far more charismatic than everyday normal people like me, :(
They weren't born this way but put in the required amount of effort in order to get here - which is what you're doing, by listening to these kinds of debates. You can also improve yourself.
This is such a stupid motion. It should have been something like "should people be able to become billionaires?".
exactly my thought as well.
Not immoral to be a billionaire. Immoral for a system to create billionaires. Immoral for policies to benefit billionaires at the expense of the poor. Both billionaires and non-billionaires are immoral based on personal conduct.
Of course it's not immoral. That would imply either an arbitrary line where you suddenly become immoral for how much money you have, or a moral spectrum where the more money you have the less moral you are... Both of which are ridiculous.
yes I completely agree with your point! I can understand people who think its immoral with the system in which wealth is distributed (tax avoidence etc.) and how high or low taxes should be etc. (I already think the very rich pay huge amounts of taxes already) but you cant go after individuals and say some are moral and others are immoral. We have both moral and immoral people who are super poor and moral and immoral people who are super rich.
It’s immoral the price of every one dress in this room
Well argued, sir. While I don't agree on all points, I concede that you've argued the point in a way that I find moral, which is more than I can say for certain others.
Greed and envy are opposite sides of the same coin.
Morality is developed by public sentiment that later reflects in government policy and law. What we should be talking about is what we expect, morally, from our billionaires. If we can agree on that, then policy should reflect those wishes and billionaires will be encouraged to act in accordance with that morality in fear of the legal consequences. The fact that the law doesn't reflect the sentiment towards billionaires in terms of tax etc, says a lot about the morality of our policy makers rather than the billionaires.
Perhaps there isn't an arbitrary assessment that becoming a billionaire automatically makes you immoral, but how do you think people become billionaires? One must surely understand the importance of both inheritance and exploitation as a vital component of the process of becoming a billionaire. It's all well and good to say 'you must not hate a billionaire based on their wealth, but on what they do with it'. Poverty still is an issue, and thus it becomes more so 'WHY are billionaires immoral' than 'billionaires ARE immoral'
Inheritance isn't immoral and you're going to have to prove the exploitation.
The presence of poverty doesn't make a billionaires immoral. It's naive to think that billionaire can eliminate poverty simply by donating money. There has to be enterprise for the poor. And event them not all poor can maintain it.
While I don't quite understand his last argument, I still have to say that his opposition is well constructed and logical. Great work.
The questions need to be worded better. Arguing technicalities is not interesting. The question should have been whether or not to abolish the billionaire class or are billionaires a benefit or hindrance to the world?
Honestly, the debate should have been between those thoroughly educated in economics and philosophers so that claims like that 'redistribution of wealth' by means of intervention is good wouldn't have been made, cause economically it isn't, and the idea that you can't 'be' immoral by means of inaction (not immoral action but inaction to help despite large sums of disposable incomes) isn't possible would also not be made.
I claim that redistribution of wealth by means of intervention is good, prove me wrong.
One piece of evidence: It is generally agreed that the best countries to live are those in Northern Europe, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, maybe Iceland and Denmark. One thing all of those countries have in common are very strong labour rights, union laws and high taxes that are used for redistribution.
Rowlings is a different sort of wealthy. She is an artist. Artist typically are more sensitive to the world around them.
If everyone had a conviction that they owned too much, and it caused them to give all they could give to those who have less, than both capitalism and socialism would work equally well. Problem is, we all are born selfish, most die selfish and most strive to enrich themselves upon the misery of those with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin.
Don’t really agree with the analogy made by the second speaker RE a billionaire being indistinguishable from the non billionaire if they were standing in a line and a moral adjudicator were asked to select the moral from immoral. A billionaire must already, hypothetically, have burgled and thieved from the poor in order to acquire the wealth - the burglary/theft does not proceed but necessarily precedes their status as a billionaire. Thus, a billionaire will be inevitably ‘caught in the act’ in their aggregation of wealth by the moral adjudicator.
Tell it to the millions of starving people and those without acess to adiquate health care, tell them how its not immoral for you to spend millions on having fun while they suffer, starve and die of curable disseises.
I think you missed his argument.
Yes!! YESS!!!
What’s going on here? A vote or just a debate?
it's a Oxford-style debate. Here, two positions argue on a motion, and the audiece vote on which side persuaded them better.
This is the problem 1. There is only one truth good or evil
2. Humans are intelligent creature yet they themselves lack moral
3. You cannot have a master both God and devil it should be either of them
Now the biggest problems of this world is not laws its not govt its not even weapons of mass destruction but "HUMANS" themselves, you see a person who have surely killed someone, gets to court,the lawyers have proff, yet if the person is from a strong financial and political backing he would get low years in jail OR fine sometimes just out to free, BUT never a death sentence this is happening in the biggest democracy in the world, who is making these laws??? Who is implementing these laws??? Upon whom is these laws subjected??? And by now I hope you know what I'm sayinh. I won't be surprise it might be the case in other parts of the world.
So when we debate why don't we know that there is one truth.
Why are we confusing ourselves that something is both good and bad for God sake black and white are two very DIFFERENT,when you are supporting BAD even when you know it's BAD and WRONG you come to conclusion YOU are the Problem of your problems 😎
It is impossible to keep wealth unless you have a desire to use violence against any person that harms your wealth. Also, as wealth is the property you hoard above what is needed for a comfortable life, as the greater your wealth the greater is your ability to hire guards, lawyers and politicians to protect your wealth, always do you lust for more wealth than you have.
I think he's confused the morality of the person who is a billionaire, and the morality of the actual existence of the billionaire.
So when JK Rowling becomes a billionaire, she doesn't just automatically become immoral, and then moral again when she gives it all away. Its more that her position as a billionaire is immoral in itself. The person who is the actual billionaire is irrelevant.
Great job. Excellent debate speech.
You are going to be a very good politician.
Agree and probably already set himself on the path, given that a year has passed
Chatsematice every day normel day
A well cherry-picked speech. Just because a very few billionaires were not immoral in their paths to becoming billionaires, it does excuse the rest that did, nor does it negate the whole concept of billionaires being inherently immoral.
Appna introdaction bhir hi
Oppetion subject upsc
"not all billionaires"
Miss universe india
My talk transegander youme mind Pagel it all is
Naïve!
YAWNING RIGHT NOW.
Yes it is
Is it immoral to be a millionaire as well?
@@niclastname yes
@@nickallbritton3796 Okay what about someone having 6 figures?
@@niclastname then it gets tricky but me not being able to draw a line doesn't change the truth at the extremes. Use ur noggin
@@nickallbritton3796 It does matter, because that means there's either a line that fundamentally changes the person's morality based solely on their net worth increasing/decreasing one more cent, or there's a sliding scale where you just become more or less moral depending solely on your net worth. I see no correlation in either case.
That's why I'm asking about where the line is, because there's no realistic or consistent standard to base it on.
First!
This is the problem 1. There is only one truth good or evil
2. Humans are intelligent creature yet they themselves lack moral
3. You cannot have a master both God and devil it should be either of them
Now the biggest problems of this world is not laws its not govt its not even weapons of mass destruction but "HUMANS" themselves, you see a person who have surely killed someone, gets to court,the lawyers have proff, yet if the person is from a strong financial and political backing he would get low years in jail OR fine sometimes just out to free, BUT never a death sentence this is happening in the biggest democracy in the world, who is making these laws??? Who is implementing these laws??? Upon whom is these laws subjected??? And by now I hope you know what I'm sayinh. I won't be surprise it might be the case in other parts of the world.
So when we debate why don't we know that there is one truth.
Why are we confusing ourselves that something is both good and bad for God sake black and white are two very DIFFERENT,when you are supporting BAD even when you know it's BAD and WRONG just go to hell sorry