The World Doesn't Owe you, You Owe the World

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

04 May 2013, 1:05 pm

The World Doesn't Owe you, You Owe the World

I do not understand what this means. Can anyone explain what it means? This is where I am becoming tripped up. Let's say two people exist in the world named Jack and Jill and we have two items, a piece of candy and a ruler.

By what this says this is how I interpret it. Jack owes Jill a piece of candy. Jill is not owed a piece of candy by Jack. Jill owes a ruler to Jack. Jack is not owed a ruler by Jill.

When I generalize the world's population and all of the world's objects people own this what I conclude. Everyone owes everyone everything they own. Nobody owes anything to anyone that they own.

How do both of these conclusions hold up at the exact same time?



alpineglow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,002

04 May 2013, 1:24 pm

I don't know. I've wondered about it myself, in that it relates to personal responsibility and values and yet conflicts with the competitive materialistic ethos in which we live. :?:
How does one know when to to stop giving? Is this being a 'doormat'?



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

04 May 2013, 2:22 pm

What it means is that nobody is just entitled to things, we have to work for them. How we work for them can vary but it basically means that we all are obligated to contribute to society in some way or other so that when we receive whatever benefits we get, we deserve them.

It's like somebody saying that the government should provide a house for them and they do nothing in return for it. Or food, or medical care, etc. Nobody is owed anything just because they are born, to be owed things you have to do something to cause that debt first. It's said that you owe the world because society provides you with opportunities for survival and happiness, and that you can't ethically just take things without giving back.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

04 May 2013, 3:24 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
What it means is that nobody is just entitled to things, we have to work for them. How we work for them can vary but it basically means that we all are obligated to contribute to society in some way or other so that when we receive whatever benefits we get, we deserve them.

It's like somebody saying that the government should provide a house for them and they do nothing in return for it. Or food, or medical care, etc. Nobody is owed anything just because they are born, to be owed things you have to do something to cause that debt first. It's said that you owe the world because society provides you with opportunities for survival and happiness, and that you can't ethically just take things without giving back.


ohhhhhhhhhh I see. I didn't know this. Thanks for telling me this OliveOilMom. I really love your analysis on this. This is very interesting, indeed.

I do have some questions

1. Is the term work constrained to a job career. Let's say one is on social security disability. Let's say this person volunteers at his church to do certain things like clean and/or handle the technical aspects of the church service like making sure computers are working, TVs are working, etc, etc. Would this be considered a valid form of doing work and contributing back?

2. Based upon what you say if I want x from someone else then what I need to do is find a way to give them y that is of equal or greater value. Am I correct so far in my analysis of what you are conveying to me?



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 04 May 2013, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

04 May 2013, 3:38 pm

Yeah... It means the person saying it believes that people should not be angling for what they can get out of people/society but should spend their time trying to help others and society.

It is not a factual statement. It is representative of a philosophical position. It does not mean you even have to agree with it. It also does not mean that the person saying it might not believe in exceptions. It is a very general statement of a philosophical position.

Context would help. if you could tell us the context of how it was said, we might be able to tell you a more specific interpretation of what was meant in context.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

04 May 2013, 3:47 pm

ASDMommyASDKid wrote:
Yeah... It means the person saying it believes that people should not be angling for what they can get out of people/society but should spend their time trying to help others and society.

It is not a factual statement. It is representative of a philosophical position. It does not mean you even have to agree with it. It also does not mean that the person saying it might not believe in exceptions. It is a very general statement of a philosophical position.

Context would help. if you could tell us the context of how it was said, we might be able to tell you a more specific interpretation of what was meant in context.


This is one article. A poster stated it.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-no ... -container

It was stated at church as well when the pastor was preaching about responsibility.


These are the definitions of the word entitle.
1.Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
2.Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.

I went by definition 1. If none of us are not entitled to anything then according to definition 1 how are we entitled to refusing to commit murder if refusing is a form of doing?



ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

04 May 2013, 3:57 pm

Based on the context, the judge is complaining about what he views as an "entitled" attitude of youth. By entitled he means that in his mind he believes that the young are selfish and that they feel like society and parents should provide for their needs, wants and whims but that they don't have to do anything for anyone. This person seems to believe that the young should give back more than they take.

This is an opinion.

I don't think that youth are any more selfish than they have ever been. This is something complained about for generations. A certain type of person tends to believe that each successive generation is more selfish and less responsible than the last.

I don't believe that. I see young people involved with charities and environmental issues, and all manner of things that benefit others. Of course he is a judge and maybe does not see the best that is out there.

I don't think he is making a statement that applies to everyone. Not everyone can give more than they get. He just thinks most kids today can, but aren't and that they should.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

04 May 2013, 4:52 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
What it means is that nobody is just entitled to things, we have to work for them. How we work for them can vary but it basically means that we all are obligated to contribute to society in some way or other so that when we receive whatever benefits we get, we deserve them.

It's like somebody saying that the government should provide a house for them and they do nothing in return for it. Or food, or medical care, etc. Nobody is owed anything just because they are born, to be owed things you have to do something to cause that debt first. It's said that you owe the world because society provides you with opportunities for survival and happiness, and that you can't ethically just take things without giving back.


ohhhhhhhhhh I see. I didn't know this. Thanks for telling me this OliveOilMom. I really love your analysis on this. This is very interesting, indeed.

I do have some questions

1. Is the term work constrained to a job career. Let's say one is on social security disability. Let's say this person volunteers at his church to do certain things like clean and/or handle the technical aspects of the church service like making sure computers are working, TVs are working, etc, etc. Would this be considered a valid form of doing work and contributing back?

It doesn't have to be a career and it also doesn't have to be contributing to society in general, but it should be something. Take my situation for example. I'm a housewife. I don't work outside the home nor do I volunteer anywhere. I spend my time taking care of my family and my home and I do things for them. My contribution is toward specific people, but it is a contribution. It's how I basically "earn my keep" or "pull my own weight". If I did nothing but sit around, no housework, no cooking, not doing anything to even take care of my own needs, then I wouldn't be earning my keep or pulling my weight. Because I contribute then I am owed something back, whether it's simply food and shelter that my husband earns the money for, or respect, etc. My husband goes out to work and brings the money home to pay for things so I don't feel that it's his responsibility to do the housework since I stay home for that reason. He earns the money to live on, but he also earns the right to sit around and relax while I wash his clothes and cook his food.

When kids are small they can't really do all that much to contribute so their parents owe it to them to take care of them. As they get older they owe their parents help around the house and then later on to go out and work and earn their own keep. It's assumed that a kid will grow up to be a contributing member of society so they are owed care while they are too young to care for themselves.

Those on disability are using the program set up by the government to take care of them when they can't care for themselves. If they have ever taken care of themselves without government assistance then they have earned this already and are owed it because the program is in place for that. If there was no program in place for that, then they would be the responsibility of their family members. People who have never been nor will ever be able to work aren't owed care such as food and shelter but its the right thing to do to see that they get it.

The whole concept is like this. Imagine that society is a bank and you have an account there. When you are born your account was opened and money was loaned to you by the bank and placed in that account. For the first 18 or so years of your life you use the money in that account to pay for your survival. As you grow up and learn to do things for yourself and for others that is deposited into your account as money. The more you do for yourself, and for others, the more "money" is deposited into your account. The first money goes to pay back the loan and then after that the rest is in your account for you to take out and spend on your own survival and food, shelter, etc. That is the concept right there.

Those who cannot ever learn to take care of themselves are given a life long loan by the bank which they use for their own care. They never put money into their account, they only take out what the bank has put in there. The bank does not owe them this money, rather it gives it out of a common agreement of all the customers of the bank. The money that goes into their account comes from other customers. It's a gift, not something they earned.

Those who can take care of themselves but don't do it for whatever reason are sometimes given accounts if the bank wants to, but they have limited funds and unless they start to pay them back they stop getting money in their accounts and the way they pay for their survival is by stealing money from those who either earned it or that are unable to care for themselves and been given a gift of the money by the bank.

Does that make any sense? I tried to explain it fairly well using an analogy.


2. Based upon what you say if I want x from someone else then what I need to do is find a way to give them y that is of equal or greater value. Am I correct so far in my analysis of what you are conveying to me?


You don't have to give the person you want x from anything, you just need to either give y to someone, or have given it to someone or will eventually give it to someone. You can give it to the person you want something from, or you can give it to someone else who needs it more, or you may have given it in the past or are assumed to do so in the future.

An example is this. Say the person you want something from is a store and the item you want is a hamburger. You need to either pay the store owner money that you have gone to work and earned yourself in exchange for the burger, or use money that someone like a spouse or parent has given you in exchange for what you contribute to the family now or in anticipation of what you will one day contribute. You could also pay the store owner with food stamps, which are given to you by the government because at the moment you are unable to earn money, or with money from a disability check because you will never be able to earn money, or with your retirement check which is money in exchange for what you have done in the past.

However, say you want to buy a car. You need to get the money to get that car so you need to either go get a job in the workforce, or have an agreement with a spouse or parent for them to give you the money in exchange for contribution to the family, or you can buy it with money that is given to you from a disability check or welfare if you have either. If you don't have the money to buy the car you don't get one, even though you may need transportation. You are not owed the car.

Of course the fact that life isn't fair means that there will be people who contribute a lot without ever getting what they are owed, and there will be people who contribute nothing but manage to get things they don't earn, and then there will be people who just make a living by stealing what others have earned.

It's basically like a military obligation. Used to be (and it may still be, I don't know) every male born in the US had an obligation to serve four years in the US military. His service would pay for the protection that the DOD gives to him and his children as citizens. His service of four years was of less value than a lifetime of protection against attack, but with every able man eventually serving, it balanced out. This is why a lot of boys would just go directly in the service when they were old enough, to get it over with. Now, some of them were not able to serve for whatever reason. Their military obligation was waived and they were of course given the protection by the military that all citizens get.

So basically, you contribute in some way to either society as a whole, or to an individual or family and because of that you receive. If things didn't work that way then society would collapse. Very few people would go to work if they didn't have to work to live. And because people weren't going to work, things wouldn't be manufactured, or built, services wouldn't be performed, etc. Nobody would have anything at all because everything we do and have and ever will, depends on whether or not someone else did something to cause it to be.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

04 May 2013, 7:32 pm

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt230139.html

Alpineglow posted this about her home situation with her daughter and her SO. OliveOilMom, is this a good example of what we're talking about and what not to do? Is Alpine's daughter's mindset a good example of the mindset to avoid? Is what happening is Alpine's daughter thinks her mother owes her something. Is this a good example of what they're trying to get at and the lesson and intent behind the phrase?



MiahClone
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 287

04 May 2013, 8:32 pm

I'd say that based on only what Alpine has told us, that yes, that is a very good example. Her daughter seems, again based on what's in the posts, to be expecting her mother to pay for everything and put up with very bad behavior without giving her mother anything in return. No help with chores, no help with money issues, not even letting her mother get sleep or feel safe in her own home. When she is capable of doing so much more. See the imbalance in that situation?


Different people have different levels that they are looking for to balance things. I've read blogs of people who have children that are permanently stuck at the level of a 3 month old in physical and emotional development. They consider things balanced with their children simply because the child smiles sometimes when they walk in the room. The particular situation has to be considered. This isn't really something you can get one set answer for and generalize.



ASDMommyASDKid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,666

04 May 2013, 8:34 pm

I agree, but there are "users" in every age group. The hope of course is that the young ones will mature out of that mindset. I still don't necessarily like the slams on young people in particular.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

04 May 2013, 11:06 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt230139.html

Alpineglow posted this about her home situation with her daughter and her SO. OliveOilMom, is this a good example of what we're talking about and what not to do? Is Alpine's daughter's mindset a good example of the mindset to avoid? Is what happening is Alpine's daughter thinks her mother owes her something. Is this a good example of what they're trying to get at and the lesson and intent behind the phrase?


Her daughter is being very entitled, yes. That could be because she was raised by being given everything she wanted and spoiled, or it could be because it's just her personality, or it could be other influences like the boyfriend etc. I don't know. But the fact that they are just living there and not doing anything is taking without giving back and yes, somewhat what you mean.

My 19yo daughter and her fiancé live here, but they both go to college. Nobody minds supporting them now because it's helping them get a good start on their lives. We are happy to do that, plus they do odd jobs and she babysits, etc so they get their own money a lot of the time.

My youngest son who is 18 and who has quit school this year is working. While we do support him, he works for pocket money, etc. He depends on us for things like a roof over his head, utilities, food, etc but he buys his own clothes, snacks, etc. He makes about 30-60 a day working where he does. He also contributes money when needed, although we try not to ask.

One day our kids may be needed to help take care of us, so that is how they pay us back for this. Or they simply take care of their own kids or themselves later on. Most parents don't want or expect to be paid back. We just want our kids to do well in their own lives.

I think the original saying that is the title of this thread has more to do with those who feel entitled to get whatever they want or need without doing anything than it does most people. You see it sometimes on WP as well. While many of us manage to find our own way in the world, some think that because they have AS and have trouble working, etc that they shouldn't have to. Most don't though. most who don't work, don't work because they actually can't, but from time to time you will see someone with that entitlement mentality. They will say that they don't want to or don't like it so they shouldn't have to. That same mentality is found in many people outside WP as well, ven plenty of those without disabilities.

That doesn't make them bad people though. It makes them have character faults, but not bad people. I have a friend who had a back injury but he's over it now and he still gets disability, his live in gf and him both get food stamps, she gets welfare for her and the kids and he gets SSI. They don't work but get whatever they need to live. However, they both do work. He does yard work for people and scraps metal and all kinds of things and she's got a game going on up in there. So, they aren't exactly legal but while they are doing these illegal things, and feeling entitled to mooch off the government while they could easily support themselves, it doesn't mean they don't care about friends, it doesn't mean they wouldn't do whatever they could or needed to for their friends, etc. They are nice people, they are good people, but what they aren't is honest people nor people who feel like they should be responsible for themselves. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Basically, it means "pull your weight".


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

04 May 2013, 11:14 pm

MiahClone wrote:
I'd say that based on only what Alpine has told us, that yes, that is a very good example. Her daughter seems, again based on what's in the posts, to be expecting her mother to pay for everything and put up with very bad behavior without giving her mother anything in return. No help with chores, no help with money issues, not even letting her mother get sleep or feel safe in her own home. When she is capable of doing so much more. See the imbalance in that situation?


Different people have different levels that they are looking for to balance things. I've read blogs of people who have children that are permanently stuck at the level of a 3 month old in physical and emotional development. They consider things balanced with their children simply because the child smiles sometimes when they walk in the room. The particular situation has to be considered. This isn't really something you can get one set answer for and generalize.


Right, and what a person gives back may not be actual helpful contributions. There are people who are so disabled that they can't do anything for themselves or others but they give happiness to others, either by the fact that others love them and take care of them and get a good feeling from the fact that they are simply alive, or some from the fact that they are sweet and interact with others and try to make others happy or share their happiness. Of course it's not all roses. Many are bedridden or have to have constant care 24/7 - people of all ages that is. From children and babies to elderly. Not every disabled person is a big ball of happiness. Many are a hand full and difficult to manage and live with but those who support them love them so they get a good feeling for taking care of them. That is what some people contribute when they can't contribute anything else, and iit's not a conscious contribution on their part.

There is one lady whose YouTube videos I've seen. I think her name is CFOakley or something like that. She has a grown, very low functioning son with autism, and she spends her life taking care of him. He does not contribute to society in any of the traditional ways, but he contributes to his mothers happiness by being alive, because she loves him. Also, because of the fact that she films things and puts them on YouTube, he is indirectly contributing to education about how life with a low functioning adult can be. So, while he isn't deliberately contributing, he is contributing. Is he owed anything by anyone other than his parents? I would say strictly speaking no he isn't. A parent who brings you into the world should be responsible for you and owes to you the care you need until you are able to care for yourself, of forever in the case that you aren't. However, we live in a society that does not let those who can't do for themselves just starve or die, so because of our societies standards and rules we have by common consent decided that we owe them basic care for survival. That is a good and compassionate thing.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

06 May 2013, 10:04 am

I think I understand the statement, but find it to be ruthless capitalistic rubbish nonetheless.
The starving child in Ethiopia owes the world something?
A government that collects trillions in taxes from its people does not owe them anything in return?
Basically, I believe the statement is an excuse to trample on the poor and the weak and still call yourself a "moral" person.

(You'd probably get a lively discussion out of this if you posted in PPR)



Wreck-Gar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,037
Location: USA

06 May 2013, 10:13 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
It's basically like a military obligation. Used to be (and it may still be, I don't know) every male born in the US had an obligation to serve four years in the US military. His service would pay for the protection that the DOD gives to him and his children as citizens. His service of four years was of less value than a lifetime of protection against attack, but with every able man eventually serving, it balanced out. This is why a lot of boys would just go directly in the service when they were old enough, to get it over with. Now, some of them were not able to serve for whatever reason. Their military obligation was waived and they were of course given the protection by the military that all citizens get.


I don't mean to derail this thread but there is no current requirement for anyone to serve in the military.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

06 May 2013, 10:44 am

YippySkippy wrote:
I think I understand the statement, but find it to be ruthless capitalistic rubbish nonetheless.
The starving child in Ethiopia owes the world something?
A government that collects trillions in taxes from its people does not owe them anything in return?
Basically, I believe the statement is an excuse to trample on the poor and the weak and still call yourself a "moral" person.

(You'd probably get a lively discussion out of this if you posted in PPR)


Here is the thing with that. I'm more likely to obtain an answer from an NT here than I would in PPR. Momsparky and ASDMommy has been giving me lively discussions as well. I wish more NTs were here to answer though.