skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Trading Places
The protagonist in the movie 'Trading Places', Winthorp, comes from a background of priveledge and wealth. His downfall comes swiftly, and he struggles to get a handle on his life. His new reality, his new clothes, the way he is treated are all a shock to him.
Should he be treated differently because he comes from wealth? Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? Look at the story of the man who sprays old wine- what is the Talmud's take on this? Blog it.
#8 (Bonus #2)
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud's take on this sort of situation is that the community should pitch in to help the person who has lost wealth. The Talmud takes this opinion because it is good for people to help others in need, in general, no matter what their background is. If you give charity to someone who has lost all of their riches, then you can help them get back on their feet. I do believe that the person who loses all of their wealth is equally entitled to charity as someone who started out being in poverty, because they are both in need. I also want to pose a question about the movie: If someone is framed, and therefore loses their money and life, basically, is it okay for that person to gain revenge on the person who did that to them? I believe it is only okay if you are teaching them a lesson, not just for personal vengeance. If you are teaching them a lesson, then you are bringing them forward in life and making them become a better person, which is always a good thing.
^^In addition to my last comment, I also want to point out, that Winthorp was not irresponsible with his money, he was tricked out of his money by two evil men. Because of this, I believe that he should be entitled to charity as much as any ordinary needy person. However, if the person who lost their riches loses it because of their irresponsibility, then I believe they should be helped, but not to be treated luxuriously because they got themselves into that situation.
ReplyDeleteI think that Winthrop should be treated just like all the other people who are needy. Just because he had a great big fall from wealth doesn’t mean he is entitled to the special treatment. Of course him coming from that life and picking up knowledge increases his worth so someone can take a chance on him, like we saw the girl do. The community is tasked with giving the person a decent life, not putting him in a mansion with a butler, just having food and shelter is the extent to which the community needs to support him. I agree with Gabe, that because he was thrown from wealth by the Dukes he does need some support, but I don’t believe that people must do extra. Taking pity on him and giving them benefit of the doubt, he deserves , but nobody knows that since the Dukes cut him off.
ReplyDelete^^^^
ReplyDeletepost 6
Jeffrey #4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabe that he shouldn’t be treated differently because he had a fall from wealth. The dukes put him out of his wealth and good life; he wasn’t irresponsible with his money. I agree with Gabe where he says that since he wasn’t irresponsible with his money; and he didn’t bring up his own downfall that he should be helped with charity, even if he was wealthy before. You should help him get back up on his feet by giving him charity or giving him shelter just like the woman did in the movie. It is not too much to ask the community to help him recuperate to being in a mansion with a butler, but people should help get his own apartment where he could become self sufficient and maybe work his way up to his riches again. To answer Gabe’s question I think that it ok to teach the person a lesson so that they wouldn’t bet on people’s lives and misfortunes. He shouldn’t go out with a gun a try to frame or shoot the person like he did in the movie.
post #6 like gabe, i think that he should be treated like a regular person. he should not be treated like a king just because he had a lot of money at one point. i think that homeless people should be treated like that too. even though he did treat that homeless man poorly i believe that he should still be treated as a person because he sees how bad life is as a homeless person and probably would of helped that person instead of put him to jail for doing nothing. just because he had money some point in time does not mean he should be treated better. every person has to account for any situation including homelessness. a lot of homeless people started their life like a normal person living in a house with a loving family and later decided to run away and live on the streets. does that mean that we should treat all of them better than homeless people that were forced to live on the streets. the talmud's take on it is like gabe's answer which is that everyone should pitch in and help him but just like every homeless person, no better, no worse.
ReplyDeleteDanny Robinow Post #7 (Bonus #1)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the views Gabe and David brought up, and I would like to expand on a point that Gabe made briefly dealing with teaching someone a lesson and furthering them in life. While the Dukes were obviously in the wrong for pulling the rug out from under Winthorp’s feet, when we look at the outcome we might be surprised by what we see. Winthorp was grounded and brought back into the realm of regular society, and with a little help from his “friend” that he met at the police station, he eventually learns the value of a dollar and how having it all isn’t always necessary for happiness. As far as this situation goes, maybe taking away everything Winthorp had wasn’t the worst thing for him, or the worst thing for those around him. As the Dukes said, “Money isn’t everything,” and because of them Winthorp had the chance to learn that.
As far as charity goes, it is absolutely proper to help out someone who has fallen from good fortune. As the story of the man who sprayed wine suggests, people who experience a sudden shift in economic status seldom understand how to cope with the new surroundings they are in, and charity becomes necessary, be it in the form of money or teaching, to get this person back on their feet. We also have to take into consideration the reality of this situation. If a millionaire went broke and lost ever cent to his name and was living in rags on the street and begged for a dollar for pizza, there is no way we could differentiate him from those who have never owned more than twenty bucks in their life. In this way, no matter how they get there, less fortunate people need aid and it is the duty of us as Jews to help out in some form or another.
Natasha 6
ReplyDeleteWinthorp or any other previously rich people should not be treated differently. I believe the point of charity is to make people help themselves. With a life identical to their past life provided to them, a person has no incentive or reason to raise themselves that extra step to the life they lead before.
Also, I think it is very important (and the Talmud agrees) that everyone give charity to the needy, even a little. It is inappropriate and nonsensical to give charity from donors who struggle themselves to support the decadent lives of others.
#4
ReplyDeleteHe should not be treated differently if he came from wealth and luxury because that happens to many people with the same financial situation. Although he lost more than other beggars did, he still lost it. I am not saying that you should treat him the same, because no one treats beggars right in the first place, they were normal people at one time (most of them) in their life and one decision whether big such as robbing a bank, or small such as being framed for stealing 150 dollars, such as in the movie. That one mistake completely changed their life for the worse, and if you really think about it, you realize it can happen to anyone (some are more subject to it than others) so if you really take that to heart it would make sense to treat the less-fortunate better, because you never know what they’ve been though.
Post #6
ReplyDeleteI think Winthrop deserves the right to be treated like every other person alive. I don’t think it matters that he was rich, all we need to know if he needs support, and since he does all we need to do is help him out. Some people like Winthrop learn through their mistakes. Winthrop didn’t appreciate the homeless through out his life, but as soon as he became one himself he learned the lesson the hard way. We even saw that his girlfriend was taking an advantage of him. As soon as she realized that he’s poor and not popular anymore she broke up with him. People should help anyone in need to a certain extend. Giving the poor too much is bad too, we don’t want them getting use to easy good life. We should help out the poor with shelter and food only. We shouldn’t take it to the extreme.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#6
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Anna, because I do not think people should help anyone in need to a certain extent with shelter and food only. There are many more ways to help out someone in need(money,clothes, toys for kids, re-building destroyed homes). If someone who was once rich and greedy loses everything they have, it is probable that in their current situation, they understand what it is like to be in poverty. If you help them regain the life they once had, I think they most likely will take many lessons learned from their previous situation, and will probably be a better person. for example, later in the movie when Winthorp's horrid situation gets a lot better, we see him change into a better person and be able to communicate positively and understand and appreciate the people around him. Furthermore, the Talmud says(in the situation with the man who sprays wine) that you should help out someone so that they can live the life they once had before they became very poor. This is very reasonable because some people who once were very rich and needy cannot always survive in poverty situations, so it might be best for them to regain their needy lives(hopefully with some better attitudes towards others with less money).
#6 Daniella Kesel
ReplyDeleteI think the Talmud’s take on the situation would be to help out the person despite there background. I don't think Winthorp should be treated differently. If Obama suddenly became homeless I would not treat him any better then any other homeless person. If anything he should be more put together and be able to handle the situation... Winthorp obviously was not put together at all, but I think in reality somebody would not act as... insane as him. So I think if you're rich and suddenly become poor, it's a big deal and obviously a big transformation in your way of life, but realistically, nobody is going to react like Winthorp who pushed away all his friends and starting going insane, but like Havneh said, in the end you could tell the experience made him a better and kinder human being. Therefore even though rich people are not accustomed to lower standards of life, it might open their eyes if they are opened up to the experience so I don’t think rich people should be treated any differently in the situation.
Samara post #6:
ReplyDeleteSomeone who delves into poverty after losing riches, deserves charity just as much as someone who was born into an unfortunate situation. And although, like Gab said, Winthorp was conned out of his money by the Duke brothers and wasn't irresponsible with it, he still acted completely crazy. As if, if one is anything lower than high class, they are allowed to completely give up all their pride and dignity and sneak fish around in their beard. Let's face it, when you are walking down the street and their is a homeless person I speak for myself when I say I am more likely to give charity to someone who isn't acting like a maniac and is completely incompetent, like Winthorp acts. Jeffrey said that when if one gave money to Winthorp it would be to help him get back on his feet. But when Winthorp snuck into the party dressed as Santa, did he really have the intention of getting back on his feet or just to frame Valentine and avenge himself? Eventually he does set out to get back his estate after he's learned how he was tricked but at this point, where Winthorp is still confused with what happened, he is making no effort, he's even free loading off Ophelia. And should you still give charity to the homeless if they don't have intentions of getting back on their feet? (ie: getting hired, finding a home etc.)
Should he be treated differently because he comes from wealth? Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? Look at the story of the man who sprays old wine- what is the Talmud's take on this? Blog it.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone is wealthy or not does not mean that they should be treated differently. A wealthy person can be a bad person, so should they be treated better than a good, poor person? I don't think so. we are all human, and when one falls we should help them get back up because if we were in the same situation we would want help. But if this person wants to live the same life as they did before with support from the community, this would begin to cross the line from being needy to being selfish. If the community has begun to help you, you need to help them by not asking for too much because there's always someone out there who is doing worse than you. In this situation, Valentine and Winthorp were used as an experiment by people who decided to control their lives and this was different than someone becoming poor by their mistake, this was a controlled chaos. Winthorp deserves to have his life back without thrwoing Valentine out on the street. SO I belive the way to solve this whole issue is by restoring the wealth to Windthorp and the two old men, support Valentine because they brought him into this new life so they shouldn't just take it away.
Well first of all I wanted to also add that the message of rouges in society who beg for money and do not actually need it is a similar to what we have talked about in previous blog posts and classes. The example was when Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) was on the street pretending he was paralyzed and in the war asking for money when he was not either of those things. Another blog post this reminds me of is, what to do when a homeless man asks for money. When Duke and Duke (heads of the company) walk outside their Rolls Royce, Billy Ray Valentine ass them for money. The older looking man I think Mortimer Duke (Don Ameche) ignores Billy but, Randolph Duke (Ralph Bellamy) screams at the Billy Ray, "I HAVE NO MONEY TO GIVE YOU!" As he exits a car worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which one was more morally right?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, back to the topic at hand. I agree with Danny Robinow when she say, "f a millionaire went broke and lost ever cent to his name and was living in rags on the street and begged for a dollar for pizza, there is no way we could differentiate him from those who have never owned more than twenty bucks in their life." I think that Danny raises a good point because unless we really see a clear example, we can never no if someone used to have money or not and to judge someone before even knowing their situation is wrong. Natasha as well says, "I think it is very important (and the Talmud agrees) that everyone give charity to the needy, even a little." I agree with this because not only by the Talmud it is correct but morally it is as well.
I would like to close with this final quote...
"It aint' cool to be such a jive turkey this close to thanksgiving...YEAH."
That was Comment 8
ReplyDeleteExtra Credit 2
Lara Prosterman
ReplyDeletePost #6
Comment #6
I agree with Alex and Danny, "if a millionaire went broke and lost ever cent to his name and was living in rags on the street and begged for a dollar for pizza, there is no way we could differentiate him from those who have never owned more than twenty bucks in their life." This is true and it is just as important to help this person, as it is to help a person who has been poor all of their life. Going back on what we learned the best thing we can do is gave them a job, but to me makes no difference who gets the job, but something some people might take into account is that one guy was rich at one point so doesn’t he have a better handle with money than the guy who has been poor all of his life.
If either one of them was to become rich in the future I’m sure that hopefully they remember how hard it is to be poor and they would give to charity.
One thing that would be nice to know though was how the person lost all of their money because that shows if they might be able to use what you give them to support themselves or what you give them. Like if they gambled away all of their money then you wouldn’t give them money.
(Levin-#4) I agree with Danny, Gabe and David among others. Winthorp should not be treated different because he came from money. In this situation it is not his fault he lost his money, it was the dukes. However, like Lara said, if it was his fault he lost his money, because of gambling or stuff along the lines of that i think he should be treated a little different because he had money and its his fault it got lost. But because nobody knows for sure you should treat everyone equally.
ReplyDeletei'd like to agree with Danny Rabinow in a sense that, charity is very important to be a part of, and without others help in the world, where would anyone be? but like Natasha said " a person has no incentive or reason to raise themselves that extra step to the life they lead before." so in a way, it is good that Winthorp got to experience the life that he never lived, the doors that he opened for himself, and the cash he never had to earn. it was the only way to help him recognize the others in need, and to help him notice the REAL problems in the world, (unlike the struggle of which caviar to eat for dinner). Winthorp's main problem in the movie was not seeing things outside the world of wealthiness, and although i think that it is only humane to give money to anyone, (no matter how wealthy they were before), they need to learn a lesson, in order to take the right track later on in life.
ReplyDelete