Problem description:
My friend is studying in Canada. Philosophy is a public course, and homework is a small paper.
The topic is "the possibility of more wealth should not be subject to any contradiction (for example. Through taxes) ". Aid with less wealth (through government social assistance programs)-The rich should not take responsibility (for example, through taxes) to help those who have no money (through social assistance programs).
Good friends should provide some arguments. They should hold water. I really appreciate it．
Analysis:
It is not an obligation for the rich to help the poor, but most poor people still think that it is natural for the rich to help the poor. Once the rich refuse to help, they will be accused, attacked and even abused. Such hatred is hard for the rich to accept.
In addition, irregularities in the rescue link also occur from time to time. The rich can't reach the poor by organizing donations. A wealthy overseas businessman once donated a huge sum of money to his hometown, but most of it was "swallowed up" by grassroots cadres in various names ... The unhappiness bred in the rescue led to the rich becoming more and more indifferent to helping the poor. Even if you are willing to help, you prefer to use the name of "one person" instead of "one person"
In addition, charitable behavior in the social transition period often lacks "rational return", such as encouraging charity through tax policies and other mechanisms, and the lack of security of the rich themselves during this period. The distortion of some "help-seeking" events will make the rich disheartened. If people can treat these details rationally, it will be more helpful to establish a benign interaction between the "rich" and the "poor".
? How does the "middle class" between the "poor" and the "elite" view the absence of the rich? In fact, most people know nothing about Zhang. Miss Huang, who works in a foreign company in Beijing after returning from Canada, read Zhang and his "Grateful China" materials, and thought that the relief for the disadvantaged groups should be the responsibility of * * * first. In foreign countries, even individual charitable acts are based on the guarantee and relief mechanism of * * *. As an individual, there is actually no such obligation, and this kind of thing is simply inexhaustible. Miss Gao, an executive of a state-owned enterprise in Shenzhen, believes that the moral standard of the whole society is still lacking. Even if the rich class is not much better, most of the rich people still belong to the nouveau riche in the primitive accumulation of capital period and have not yet returned to the society's consciousness and realm; Mr. Li of the People's Bank of China believes that if it is for show, elites will consider activities with great media influence; And if it is really out of personal love, the elites will not choose Zhang as the "intermediary", and there is no agreement on the internal needs and methods of the elites, which may be one of the reasons why Grateful China failed to attract the rich.
? In the interview, Mr. Liu from Shanghai also raised a question about Zhang from the psychological point of view: it is the psychology of ordinary people to help others in their spare time; Although it takes some energy, it is the psychology of a kind ordinary person to help others within the scope that has no significant impact on his own interests; From the psychologist's point of view, it is a bad psychological state to sacrifice and suppress one's normal needs and rationalize one's behavior with higher moral standards, which is also discouraged.
? It seems that there are obviously more than one force that determines the future of Zhang and his "grateful China". But fortunately, Zhang is very modest about these different opinions: "It can arouse people's thinking and show that my road has not been in vain." As Miss Liu of Shanghai thinks: "In any case, Zhang's approach is reasonable. His website shows people a truth and brings them closer. "