The following quote (from Sim) on the Navra thread ( http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7776&page=7 ) raised some general thoughts about character that I think are worth teasing out outside that thread or the individual mentioned.
Ruminate on that thought for a moment.
I'll now list some views that I suspect are widely held on this forum and implied in numerous posts.
All of these views come anavoidably bundled with some sort of moral or character judgement. There are older concepts of honour (or the modern term 'accountability'). Plus western values of free-will, agency and reward for effort. Yes, even right and wrong, which brings us back to judgement.
Now go back to Sim's quote about bankrupcy not telling us much about a person. This view asks us to suspend the judgement that we may often be impulsively rushed to make.
We are instead invited to see bankrupcy as something that 'just happens'. As if it was random and beyond your control - a bit like receiving a deposit from a flying bird overhead - although even here a hat may have helped.
According to the definition given, bankrupcy comes about when one makes a promise (to repay borrowed money) that one cannot keep.
Judgement is difficult to repress. In this case there may be thoughts about the bankrupt's greed, lack of character or lack of judgement. If reported in the popular press there may be cynicism about 'hidden millions' stashed away from creditors (another invitation to make moral judgement).
Though maybe the bankrupcy really was just bad luck.
The problem is that if you accept 'accidental bad luck' explanations for many bankrupcies, does not this also make it easier to accept 'accidental good luck' explanations for success?
Which is contrary to the common views listed above that you may have just agreed to (which stressed agency, hard work, effort etc)?
If you do accept 'accidental good luck' more than 'hard work' explanation of most success, then this lowers the legitimacy of your gains. For the nexus between effort and reward has been weakened. Ditto for honour, accountability and the power of agency.
High taxes no longer seem so unfair if the gains were windfall, and not through effort. And fatalism rather than agency becomes a more common explanation for why we are where we are. Will this cause us to lose the will to achieve and lead to a sort of stagnant socialism?
To finish with the thread's title - what does a person's financies (or more accurately their history) say about them? Is it linked with character? If not, what are the implications for incentives to work and the legitimacy of private property?
Sim said:Being personally bankrupted doesn't say terribly much about a person other than they ended up owing more than they could possibly repay, which can happen for any number of reasons.
Ruminate on that thought for a moment.
I'll now list some views that I suspect are widely held on this forum and implied in numerous posts.
It is better to support yourself by working than draw unemployment benefits.
Success is rarely accidental or inherited. It more commonly comes through personal sacrifice, discipline and hard work.
Even people on average incomes can educate themselves, save and invest to build above-average wealth.
People should not make promises they cannot keep. Those wronged are at liberty redress through the legal system. 'Promises' includes loans that cannot be repaid.
All of these views come anavoidably bundled with some sort of moral or character judgement. There are older concepts of honour (or the modern term 'accountability'). Plus western values of free-will, agency and reward for effort. Yes, even right and wrong, which brings us back to judgement.
Now go back to Sim's quote about bankrupcy not telling us much about a person. This view asks us to suspend the judgement that we may often be impulsively rushed to make.
We are instead invited to see bankrupcy as something that 'just happens'. As if it was random and beyond your control - a bit like receiving a deposit from a flying bird overhead - although even here a hat may have helped.
According to the definition given, bankrupcy comes about when one makes a promise (to repay borrowed money) that one cannot keep.
Judgement is difficult to repress. In this case there may be thoughts about the bankrupt's greed, lack of character or lack of judgement. If reported in the popular press there may be cynicism about 'hidden millions' stashed away from creditors (another invitation to make moral judgement).
Though maybe the bankrupcy really was just bad luck.
The problem is that if you accept 'accidental bad luck' explanations for many bankrupcies, does not this also make it easier to accept 'accidental good luck' explanations for success?
Which is contrary to the common views listed above that you may have just agreed to (which stressed agency, hard work, effort etc)?
If you do accept 'accidental good luck' more than 'hard work' explanation of most success, then this lowers the legitimacy of your gains. For the nexus between effort and reward has been weakened. Ditto for honour, accountability and the power of agency.
High taxes no longer seem so unfair if the gains were windfall, and not through effort. And fatalism rather than agency becomes a more common explanation for why we are where we are. Will this cause us to lose the will to achieve and lead to a sort of stagnant socialism?
To finish with the thread's title - what does a person's financies (or more accurately their history) say about them? Is it linked with character? If not, what are the implications for incentives to work and the legitimacy of private property?