It is better to share than to hoard
agree
Side Score: 7
|
 |
disagree
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
that way one doesn't stay in conflict with oneself whether his possessions may get stolen or lost or taken. sharing helps us lose that pressure. and finding pleasure in materials isn't exactly helpful in the longer run. sharing sadness halves it, and sharing happiness doubles it. Side: agree
|
1
point
Hoarding is better than sharing, because sharing cannot generally be sustained without hoarding. It's certainly noble to share when you have little, but generally when one does this they exacerbate the problem, by creating two people who don't have enough when previously one did. When you have more than you need, and can share without overburdening yourself, you've already done some hoarding. Look at money- those who hoard money and spend it more selectively tend to be more successful financially- and while not all do, the biggest contributions to charity come from those who already have an abundance of resources. A middle class family donating all of their excess to charity isn't likely to contribute more over their lifespan than a single affluent individual who regularly parts with what amounts to a pittance compared to his or her holdings. Side: disagree
1
point
Well, I suppose it depends on local usage really; thats not the way I interpret it. If it's any use, dictionary.com defines this usage as "to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc." A farmer storing food for the winter to feed his family could be said to be hoarding in that usage. And like I said, in order to be able to share a meaningful amount, some degree of excess must be stored. Side: disagree
|
