Either you have missed my point that the purpose of society is to transcend natural restrictions and improve ourselves in an ethical fashion, or you deny that this is the purpose of society. Which is it?
I deny that the purpose of society is to transcend our natural restrictions. I find humans working in groups to be a completely natural thing. And although working with other humans improves the quality of my life it does not allow to me to transcend or improve myself beyond any "natural" restrictions. In short society exist because it is good for individual humans. If it wasn't good for the individual then nobody would have formed societies to begin with.
But I'm an oddball. I don't find that charity is of the highest virtue when it comes to individuals or groups. After all if someone wants to give he must first produce more then he can consume by himself. Therefore being charitable is secondary to being productive.
I have no respect for those who will no produce enough to survive. It is one thing if they are mentally or physically incapable of doing so. I can't describe my level of contempt for those who would willingly starve to death because they're to good to work.
Marc
Whether you have contempt for them or not is not the issue. The question is, are you willing to let them die because of your contempt? I have contempt for Fred Phelps, but if he were drowning, I’d jump in and save him if I could.
In my opinion, no. There is no “right” to eat. Eating is simply something we do, just like breathing and defecating and copulating. Like it or not, at some point you have to agree that at a certain level we are what we are, and our biology imposes restrictions.
People do have a right to try to survive, but nobody has a “right” to survive. And, most emphatically, you do not have the “right” to help yourself to things I produce, without offering back something of value. Or vice-versa, for that matter–I do not have the right to simply steal your artworks.
It’s more like making your dwelling in the middle of traffic and putting the onus on everybody else to make sure you don’t get hit.
“Unjustifiable harm” is certainly a matter of perception.
TANSTAAFL, matt. You cannot both regulate the market with high taxes and artificially depressed prices and have the means to do what you propose. It has to get paid for by somebody, somewhere.
Some may, yes, although arguably nothing has value above what some individual is willing to pay for it. If someone is willing to pay $1.2 million for a pile of my dung sculpted into the image of Brendan Fraser, then that is its value.
Perhaps. OTOH, we have images of “Irises” which can be viewed in other sources, and probably forgeries out there somewhere. Is its value tied up in its physical existence, or in its representation somewhere in our “cultural encyclopedia,” for lack of a better word? If we have a million copies of “Irises,” does it matter if the original exists, or is what it represents in terms of artistic achievement, aesthetic concerns, and cultural values more important?
Yes, but just as relevant, there are probably educated and artistic people on this very board who hate Van Gogh; and for every Van Gogh there are a dozen Thomas Kinkades. You seem to be on the cusp of arguing that we should, as a society, pay for artists to be artists, on the presumption that their art could be culturally important sometime down the road. I don’t even know how to respond to an argument like that. Most art, like most anything, is pretty mundane and pretty bad.
Your idea is not the only example of an ethical relationship. It’s just as ethical to expect that members of society will at least attempt to contribute to society in proportion to their taking. I’m not sure what you have against honest work–you really seem to be aghast at the idea of earning a living instead of having it given to you.
How far would society have developed if everyone had spent their time making cave paintings instead of hunting or gathering, even if their cave paintings were really, really good?
I don’t believe so. Society is a method of transmitting shared values and enabling people to share efficiencies in order to propagate the species.
matt, if you want to live in a grotto by the seaside and paint pictures of the members of 'N Sync on pieces of sandstone, I can be reasonably sure nobody will stop you. But please, don’t be so arrogant and dramatic as to blame “society” if you starve to death doing so. I believe it’s rather infantile, ethically, to believe that you can simply have everything you want, and that this is a desirable goal for society.
I’m reminded of (Chicago economist) Frank Knight’s line about market rewards: whilst for some, it is a reward for effort, for others it is like “the bearded lady not shaving”.
picmr
It seems to me that you are saying that Mr. Phelps, by being in the position of a drowning victim, has a moral claim on your actions. If Mr. Phelps were drowning while refusing the helping hand of a homosexual, would your urge to assist him be as strong? That is, would his claim on your action be as strong? Sure sure sure of course you would still save him. But if he consciously rejected the means to actively help himself relying (demanding, if you will) that you are the one to help him, does he still have a moral claim to your assistance? What if you knew that if you refused to help him he would not necessarily die, but would be forced to accept the hand of the homosexual?
That is why I (and others, of course. But I can’t speak for them) reject your claim that someone has a moral claim on me to provide them sustenance. The able-bodied person who consciously chooses not to work to support themselves has no claim on my labor. By turning my back on him I am not causing his death. He is the one who is refusing work, refusing to support himself. Does he not have a moral obligation to himself to provide sustenance? If he is willing to shirk that claim, why should I be less willing to do so?
In addition, what moral claim does that person have on the truck driver who delivered the goods to the store? Does he (the Teamster) not have the same right to devote his life to painting as the artist? What about the person who stocks the shelves? I don’t know too many people whose life-long ambition is to be a stock-clerk. According to you, don’t they have a moral claim on society to be provided with sustenance without the need to be a ‘wage slave’? What about the people who provide the electricity to power the lights in the store? The linemen, the mechanics, the purchase requisition clerks? According to you, don’t they have the right to throw off the shackles of everyday mundane work and demand the freedom to live as they want? Can you honestly conceive of a society where the only work that was done, was done by people who did it out of self-gratification? If society had to pay wages to the clerks high enough to entice them back to work, what would happen to the prices of goods? What happens to a society that suffers from artificially high, unrealistic inflation?
It is a noble and laudable goal to free everyone from the bonds of labor. There is another thread on this board (I am too afraid of the new code to try and link to it here) that asks what would happen to society if resources were unlimited. However, as it has only been realized in author’s dreams, the ethics of the situation must exist in the realityj of limited resources. You are proficient in quoting authors, but it appears you are not very well versed in the philosophy of, nor the basic workings of economic theory. If you wish to put forth a new economic model based on ethical principles, you must apply said principles to your model and see how it changes. If the model (as I claim) does not function, than the initial principles are lacking.
PS
(As you wish to debate the morality of this issue, lets not get into nitpicking. That is to say, yes, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the temporarily disabled or out of place worker, etc., have a moral claim on my labor. But that is because in general, they can not help themselves. And no, classic libertarian tenets do not apply… OSHA, etc., are not in the same category of sustenance provision for those unwilling to work.)
PPS
Do these skip well? If so, put me down for a couple.
Um, I AM a homosexual, so I’m confused by your example.
matt_mcl:
Please allow me to assist: Replace every instance of the term “homosexual” with the term “heterosexual” in Rhythmdvl’s post, and that should clear it up for you.
Also, I’ve been thinking about your suggestions, and the fact that you are an artist, while not all of the rest of us are. In fact, I enjoy art a great deal. Unfortunately, original art works of quality tend to be quite expensive, so the only art I own is in the nature of reproduced prints. After reading your posts, I realized that I am being deprived of my right to have quality artwork and enjoy it.
Here is what I propose: All people that are declared as artists must create quality original art in sufficient quantity that each citizen may have one quality original piece of art per year in his/her home. After these works are produced, the artists may sell any other works they produce and do with the proceeds what they will.
What do you think?
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. At risk of appearing to lack a sense of humor (an insulting your intelligence along the way) I’ll explain it a bit.
Pretend for the moment that you are not gay. Independent of your sexual persuasion, you still find the man repugnant. There is Floating Fred Phelps sinking quickly. He calls out to you for help. Your immediate reaction is to save him. When you stated that you would do this, putting forth the notion that this was the right action, you were in effect asserting a law of beneficence - essentially that one should come to the aid of another individual if it causes you no dire harm. You would save Phelps out of a duty to obey the law of beneficence. He is a drowning man, you have the capacity to save him, though at some cost to yourself (i.e. you are not that good of a swimmer, the water is freezing, there is a slight risk to you of shark attack…).
That, is a very good law / ethical maxim. No argument from me about it at all. The law also applies to a starving person. I have the capacity to prevent the starvation of a fellow individual. Many of the posters have said that they would not begrudge the supply of food, etc. to those incapable of work. The cost to us (taxes, essentially) is not enough to release us from our obligation to the law of beneficence. Nor, for that matter, is personal opinion of an individual enough to release us from our duty to our fellow man. You and I both regard Phelps with disgust. But were he in dire need, no matter how great our disgust for him was, it would not be enough to free us from our duty to him as a fellow human being / member of society. It is, as I said, a very good ethical maxim.
However, Mgibson et al were not saying that one is released from this law solely because one holds someone in contempt. He is asserting that he is released from the law because the individual in need of assistance is himself breaking this law. And this is where my post came in.
Though I am not released from the law of beneficence because I hold someone in contempt, I am released from the law when the person in need has broken the law to himself. That is, if we are agreed that one has a duty to help another member of society despite a cost to oneself, then and individual also has that same duty to himself.
There is Phelps rejecting assistance because he finds said assistance repulsive. Phelps requires me to provide succor at a cost to me despite adequate means of aid available at a cost to him. Where does Phelps get the right to place such a burden on me? As he is choosing not help himself, why does his burden then shift to me?
There is a person turning down work because they would rather do something else. Does that person not have an obligation to himself under the same law? Should he not find work to provide for himself despite the cost to his free time / creative output? If that person is unwilling (thought capable) of doing that, if that person does not wish to follow that law, then what ethical basis does he have to ask me to follow that law for him?
I asked
In other words, if by not helping him you were not causing his death, do you still have a duty to help him? If by not helping him, you are forcing him to take on the cost that he wanted to place on you, are you doing him wrong? The same can be said for the individual who does not wish to work. By not helping him, you are shifting the burden he places on society back to him. Is this wrong?
If it is, than how is it that the truck driver et al do not all have equal claim to sustenance, and have equal claim to other’s labor?
Can you take the logical implications of what you are proposing and describe a society that conformed to said principles? I do not think it is possible to realistically do so either for philosophical or economical reasons. I am, however, often wrong. I look forward to your response and again apologize if you were being sarcastic.
Whether you have contempt for them or not is not the issue. The question is, are you willing to let them die because of your contempt? I have contempt for Fred Phelps, but if he were drowning, I’d jump in and save him if I could.
**
[/QUOTE]
Matt,
Why do you ask me if I'd let him die? That question should be directed at the person who decides that producing enough to survive isn't important. If a total stranger chooses death I'm not going to stand in their way.
Marc
Whether you have contempt for them or not is not the issue. The question is, are you willing to let them die because of your contempt? I have contempt for Fred Phelps, but if he were drowning, I’d jump in and save him if I could.
**
[/QUOTE]
Matt,
Why do you ask me if I'd let him die? That question should be directed at the person who decides that producing enough to survive isn't important. If a total stranger chooses death I'm not going to stand in their way.
Marc
I can’t believe you’re sitting there telling me that you wouldn’t save a drowning man, regardless of what he’s done in the past.
Oh, and Smartass: Clever attempt at coming up with a reversed example. Except that a lack of works of art in your home will not cause you to die.
Oh, and I’m not an artist, either. I am a linguistics major/Hispanic Studies minor, I’m trying to find a job as a receptionist, and I am going to go into social work.
We’ve mentioned drowning people and people walking into traffic. I think there might be a general agreement that if we are standing on the beach, or on the sidewalk, and we see this happen, we would feel an ethical obligation to save the person. But there seems to be two slightly different objections to the OP. In one, there is agreement with the obligation, but that the obligation vanishes when an able person refuses to contribute to his own saving. In the other, there may be agreement to the obligation to help anyone, even an able person who refuses to help himself. But the objection is to forcing the obligation on others. When someone is drowning, of course the ethical thing for me to do is to swim out and help him. But it would be unethical to drag you out into the water with me.
[QUOTE]
**
I can’t believe you’re sitting there telling me that you wouldn’t save a drowning man, regardless of what he’s done in the past<<
Now you understand how I feel about the whole thing. I can't believe someone would strap lead weights to his legs, jump into the pool, and expect me to come to the rescue. That's exactly what someone does when they refuse to work for a living.
Marc
No, but by your logic, I’m being forced to spend my money on food, instead of on artworks. This “ultimatum” is preventing me from exploring my existential self. If you would provide me with artworks (or socialworks, if you prefer), then I would have more money available to spend on extras like food and housing. You know, those things that I don’t really want to work for, but am forced to because people are evil and don’t care if I drown?
You still don’t understand the issue here. You seem convinced that everyone is refusing to save a drowning man, given the choice. That’s not the issue. The issue is your desire to take away the choice.
I’m more sympathetic than some other posters here with your ethical argument, Matt, but I think there are some insurmountable problems with your plan. For one thing, as has been suggested elsewhere, there are certain jobs that are very necessary that almost no one would choose to do–cleaning, working an assembly line, collecting trash, that kind of thing. They aren’t fun, but without them industrial society would collapse. That’s why sci-fi fantasies that resemble yours, like Star Trek, have robots doing all that stuff.
But the other problem is one that, in its fixation on economics, this thread hasn’t gone into much. Work isn’t just about money, it’s about social reward. We’ve been using this hypothetical artist who so burns with passion for art that he doesn’t care if his stuff is ever seen, but I think he’s a rare bird. Suppose, for instance, there are a lot of guys who want to be pro baseball players, as I’m sure there are. They don’t just need money; they need teams, a stadium, and fans. Otherwise, they’re just playing in the park with their friends, which may be amusing but isn’t exactly career fulfilment. The same problem would apply to aspiring performers, journalists, managers, stockbrokers, you name it. If nobody wants what you do, what good is that? You end up like the guys in The Full Monty, not starving or homeless but feeling aimless and useless.
Granted, that’s better than starving, but I can hardly see how that fulfills your requirement of existential freedom and choice. What limits our freedom isn’t money, it’s what money represents: other people’s desires and needs. We’ve had to compromise our own wants for other people since humanity began, and I don’t think that will ever change.
It seems that the ethical consensus here is congealing more or less around the following position:
Society can reasonably be expected to support (or help support) those who can’t support themselves, but no help should be required for those who can but won’t support themselves. This latter category includes artists and other creative types whose work finds no market. The issue is not just whether or how hard you work: it is whether your efforts are directed toward something that will earn you a living in the present state of society. Society can justifiably refuse to support those who are capable of commercially rewarding effort but refuse to perform it, whatever their reason. This position is not only more fair to those who do earn their livings, but more satisfying for everyone on the whole; after all, the enjoyment of one’s work is closely tied to the approval and appreciation it inspires in others, and in our society, financial rewards are the usual symbols of such approval and appreciation.
Well, this does seem like a reasonably humane and equitable position, and I agree that the health of society depends on having most of us act as though it applies to us. Here are my questions: do you believe that however just and rewarding our society might become, there will always be some able people who would starve rather than do any work? (I do.) Do you believe that there will always be some people who are so devoted to their unique creative goals that they would starve rather than abandon their unprofitable choice of work? (I do.) Do you believe that these people will be so numerous and/or destructive to the health of society that it would be better and cheaper literally to let them starve than to allow them the bare-minimum support to sustain life? If so, what’s your basis for thinking that way? I think defending that assertion will require something more than just saying “well, it’s human nature not to work if you don’t need it to survive.” After all, our “Basic Social Contract” summarized above from many posters’ arguments seems to assume that most humans will voluntarily work to attain something more than minimal survival. What do you think?
Kimstu
Most humans are interested in more than mere survival, yes. That's probably one of the biggest things that contributed to civilzation to begin with. There are also many humans who believe that their need for certain things entitles them to it.
I hate to come off as a hard ass but even the *needs* of someone unable to survive on their own does not entitle them to the product of my labor.
Marc
When is the last time someone starved in the U.S. because they couldn’t find sustenance? There may have been mentally ill people who starved, either through inability to understand the support available to them or because of other mental problems (anorexia, psychosis, whatever). But I think we’re long past the point where ANYONE will starve in the U.S as long as they take advantage of the programs freely available.
Welfare recipients in the U.S. currently receive benefits higher than the world average income. They are only ‘poor’ in relation to the immense wealth the rest of the people in the U.S. have. Compared to the rest of the world, there is NO poverty in the U.S., other than voluntary poverty (i.e. people living in Appalachia because they would rather be dirt-poor there than accept charity in a big city).
<<
Depending on what part of country you're in poverty can mean having a roof over your head, food on the table, and a television in the living room.
Marc