Discussion Board.. Compare and contrast McFague’s argument in chapter 6 of Subverting Greed

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING McFague’s argument chapter 6 of Subverting Greed with Solomon’s argument in Chapter 5 of Subverting Greed. It does not have to be a page long for each answer.
This is a discussion post like the previous one in which was completed and I have attached. A page is not need a paragraph or two will suffice for each answer.

First you will need to give your view on the similarities and differences of the arguments then respond to two other post. No plagiarism. Plagiarism will result in non payment. I can check the percentages of via turn it in.

Please use Quotation marks on everything that is copied from the text. Please do not copy everything from the text give your own ideas

Post A:

Mcfague’s View:

Religion attempts to keep economics separate. But Economics is all about human well being. Not just about money, but about sharing resources. “McFarger also said that people’s attention to happiness has surpassed humanity and spread to the entire planet.” She argued all of Creation is included in God’s “Household”. If the household is to flourish, the earth’s resources must be distributed justly among its inhabitants. McFague provides a reasonable solution to ecological economics where everybody on one account forgets their self-interest and understands that everyone is dependent upon each other. In the end, no solution will work unless both categories of economic countries understand their position and begin to work together.

Solomon’s, View:

Wealthy technological countries have a single way of thinking about developing the earth’s to keep the dark state of mind of the third world countries, On the other side, these third world countries are not focusing on trying to move in the direction of producing an efficient economic system. Both the technological-based economies and the third world economies are working against the goals of Solomon because they are not under one account.

Solomon presented a well-developed argument that provided two key issues of overexploitation of resources and the unequal distribution of wealth. The three issues raised in his argument have a wonderful discussion of his two main solutions. The implementation of Jewish law raises the question of feasibility worldwide. There are numerous religions around the world with different degrees of beliefs and focusing solely on Jewish law will make it difficult transition because not everyone will agree and be on the same account. Implementing a focus on education will provide a better economy for these third world countries, but the only drawback is that it will not be a short-term effect.

Post B:
Mcfague thinks that there are a set of principles that must be shared for society to grow and flourish. These principles are that individuals must participate together for the benefit of each other, and society parts must be linked together with its human and non-human. He also made it clear that all individuals share in the house of God. Therefore, all resources must be distributed equitably between them. The importance of the economy is the reason for it being a religious and environmental issue and that the economy is not a matter of money but a matter of growth and prosperity.
Mcfague also said that there are two other values that society should not lose sight of, namely the equitable distribution of Earth’s resources and the planet’s ability to use its resources. He noted that when moving from the classical system to the ecosystem, economic countries must understand that they could not survive without cooperating. Likewise, the environmental economy likened to a group of colleagues who live together according to three criteria: take your share only, cleaning after yourselves, and finally keeping the house in good condition, so the house will remain in good condition even for those who will come after you. The most specific task that humankind currently lives is to create a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable society.
Mcfague made it clear that Christianity supported the neoclassical economic model and said that Judaism in the first centuries based on the law of purity, unlike Christianity in the same centuries. He pointed out that for there to be a Christian response to the environmental crisis, this must be done in three steps: to become aware of the new classical economy as a model and not a description. The second step is to propose new consumer-dominated visions of life, a fair and sustainable vision, and finally, to rethink what a different world view means.
Solomon and Mcfague agree to the necessity of justice, mercy, the reduction of inequality, and the equitable distribution of Earth’s resources and the planet’s ability to exploit these resources. Solomon pointed out that the Bible has nothing to do with economic planning. Still, it made clear that the Jewish law is capable of reform and reducing inequality and that education is one of the causes of economic growth, especially for third world countries.