Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
NOT POLITICAL THEORY.
You say : "If you LOVE your fellow man then you will achnowledge that you should not live life for others in anyway but should live merely for yourself. If ALL men acceppted this then maybe they would propigate a means to surivival on their own instead of relying like a parasite on others."
Your point assumes giving to "fellow man" and implying the "fellow man" capable and not in need. What about a parents supprot and nurturing of a child? what about societies care of orphanes? What about societies care for the sick? Elderly? Mentally disabled, or those met with tempory needs after disaster? Even in the animal kingdom many species will care for each other in time of need. When animals do it, do you call that a political theory also?
There are a few holes in this point: "If a man who worked and owned all his proceed's was to give all he had except that which he need to survive to anouther, each would come out worse."
Motzart died pennyless, gave all he had, made the world a better place.
Mother Teresa died pennyless, gave all she had, made the world a better place.
When I got divorced I gave my ex-wife everything except what I need it to survive, and I came out better!  How do you explain that? |
Ace I do agree with you on this. It isn't POLITICAL THEORY, taking care of the society and others is the nature of man. Societies that have stopped caring about their advancement and helping each other have died off, look at Rome, as a great example of a society that stopped caring about the people and the ruling class lived for greed.
To add to your list: Thomas Jefferson died pennyless but had given everything he had to better society, setting up libraries, schools, and so on.
People remembered and revered throughout history have not been the rich, in fact they often died pennyless but bettered society at great cost to themselves.