The argument typically has one side saying the other doesn't care about the less-fortunate. The accused says the accuser is just sympathetic to a bunch of freeloaders. And the argument goes downhill from there. The truth is both sides care about the less-fortunate.
The error in the argument is that "less-fortunate" is a subjective term and therefore, the definition changes from person to person. Is a person capable of working, but unwilling to take some jobs "less-fortunate?" My opinion of "less-fortunate" was always someone incapable of doing at least as well as me for reasons outside of their control, usually a mental or physical disability or sudden tragedy. Whether or not this is an accurate statement of "less-fortunate" is debatable.
Today many people consider anyone out of work to be "less-fortunate." Part of the reason I don't like that definition is that I don't have much more to offer this world but my labor and love. If I choose not to work and others suddenly consider me "less-fortunate" I may allow myself to fall into a lazy attitude and then all I have to offer the world is love. If I become a burden on society and continue to take without giving back, I fear that my love for the world would soon wane. In such a case, I would no longer have anything to offer this world. How sad that would be.
So, the next time someone wants to get into a political argument, maybe definitions should be clarified before the debate begins. This allows both sides to focus on the issues and eliminate the ugly name-calling.
No comments:
Post a Comment