# Is entitlement illogical? Unethical? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917 "2011-11-14T17:53:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/41 "2011-11-20T10:57:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s silly to expect people to slink off and die quietly in a corner out of some suicidal dedication to the system. If nothing else, people are owned a bare living as a payment for for adhering to the social contract and not simply saying to hell with the system, arming themselves and grabbing what they want. I’ll be sending you shipping instructions so you can send me your computer, based on the reason I’m NOT putting a gun to your head and making you do it. I’m still entitled to the results of robbery anyway. While your at it, send any gold jewelry and your TV too. Got anything else I’d want? I mean, I figure, I could get more by robbing than the government passes out, so I’m not motivated to give up my “right to rob” in favor of lesser goodies. There isn’t any right to rob, and your argument is dependent upon a “right” to rob. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/42 "2011-11-20T11:38:32Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’ll be sending you shipping instructions so you can send me your computer, based on the reason I’m NOT putting a gun to your head and making you do it. I’m still entitled to the results of robbery anyway. > > While your at it, send any gold jewelry and your TV too. Got anything else I’d want? > > I mean, I figure, I could get more by robbing than the government passes out, so I’m not motivated to give up my “right to rob” in favor of lesser goodies. > > There isn’t any right to rob, and your argument is dependent upon a “right” to rob. A silly argument. First, you won’t die if you don’t have my computer. And second, _I’m_ not one of the people arguing that compassion and the needs & desires of other people don’t matter. I’m not one of the people trying to pretend that self interest is all that matters and that the weak should perish. However, if society holds that the less fortunate should simply die, then it has for all practical purposes declared war on them. So, yes there’s a “right to rob” if the only alternative is death. For that matter, there’s a right to kill if the only alternative is death. When society starts condemning people to death out of greed and indifference then it’s in no position to start collectively whining about what its victims do to stay alive. Even if that means they need to steal, or if it means they need to form themselves into an army and topple the regime that is killing them. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/43 "2011-11-20T11:55:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A silly argument. First, you won’t die if you don’t have my computer. And second, _I’m_ not one of the people arguing that compassion and the needs & desires of other people don’t matter. I’m not one of the people trying to pretend that self interest is all that matters and that the weak should perish. > > However, if society holds that the less fortunate should simply die, then it has for all practical purposes declared war on them. So, yes there’s a “right to rob” if the only alternative is death. For that matter, there’s a right to kill if the only alternative is death. When society starts condemning people to death out of greed and indifference then it’s in no position to start collectively whining about what its victims do to stay alive. Even if that means they need to steal, or if it means they need to form themselves into an army and topple the regime that is killing them. I don’t disagree with you that the unfortunate should be helped out. But your reasoning that I owe it to them because they didn’t rob me is where I take issue. Ok, let us suppose a general right to kill. Which of us has the superior right to kill the other? The one who faces death if he does not kill, you say? Now say I face death if I do not kill you because you’re coming at me with a deadly weapon. Let’s say you face death from starvation, and extrapolate that into a threat that is sourced in me. Now, since you seem to support this right universally, I suppose you’d include lazy people as having the right too. Now, if the reason you’re starving is you spent your seed money smoking crack, or gambled it away, or you prefered watching TV to doing the planting, or something equally irresponsible, and you didn’t harvest any crops, how is that fair? I’m a hard worker but you’re not, therefore you have a right to kill me? Now, if the situation is like Guatemala around 1910-30 you have a case where I’d say it’s ok to kill over starvation. But there United Fruit pretty much owned the whole country, left most fields lay fallow, then put too small a portion of a starving populace to work for miniscule wages. If you say that’s substantially the condition of America today, are you arguing for revolution? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/44 "2011-11-20T13:04:42Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But your reasoning that I owe it to them because they didn’t rob me is where I take issue. If you have no obligation to them, then they have no obligation to you. “It’s OK to let people starve, but not to steal to avoid starvation” is a one sided position, one designed to benefit the prosperous at the cost of the less prosperous. So yes, you owe it to them because they are playing by the rules of civilized behavior; if continuing to play by those rules will get them killed then they are under no obligation to follow a one sided arrangement that is protecting you and killing them. If society decides it has no obligation towards the less fortunate, then they no longer have any obligations towards it. Symmetry. If society wants the less fortunate to be civilized, it should be civilized towards them; if it wants to play by dog-eat-dog rules it shouldn’t be surprised when they act by the same ruthless rules. > [@David42](#): > > Ok, let us suppose a general right to kill. Which of us has the superior right to kill the other? The one who faces death if he does not kill, you say? Now say I face death if I do not kill you because you’re coming at me with a deadly weapon. You do realize you are attempting to argue away the right to self defense? > [@David42](#): > > Now, since you seem to support this right universally, I suppose you’d include lazy people as having the right too. Nonsense; I clearly and repeatedly said people who have no alternative to theft than death. Working is an alternative. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/45 "2011-11-20T13:39:56Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > No, Der Trihs believes in a social contract as a moral obligation. > > Let me flip it. There is no “real,” morally absolute, social obligation to provide for one’s fellow man. The Social Darwinist and the Classical Liberal may justifiably say that such a policy is unnatural & possibly unsustainable. But at the same time, there is no “real,” morally absolute, obligation for natural man to follow any law of property or propriety. > > 1. Der Trihs is right: Without any commitment of society to their well-being, men are not to be expected to feel a vested interest in society. > > 2. Rev. Malthus was probably also right: There are hard limits to the number of human beings we can support on this earth at any one time. > > _Ergo:_ > > A1. So long as the dispossessed are few enough that they can be disposed of quietly, the rulers of society can imprison or kill them while enjoying broad popular support, and this is pragmatic. > A2. Meanwhile, it is utterly moral and right from the point of view of those dispossessed persons to fight for their own existence against other humans who are, after all, dispossessing them for the sake of _their_ own existence; even to the point of mass murder. > > B1. But should the population grow too quickly and the natural resource base become degraded, we may find a significant portion of the population is unsupportable. The authorities will find it more difficult to dispose of 25%+ of the population. > B2. And that 25%+ are just as much human beings as the traditional authorities, and have as much right to steal and kill for their existence as the authorities do to concoct theories of property to shut them out of the commons or to imprison them as “troublemakers.” > > We face an era of profound population crisis. Logic dictates that I should support the side that is bloodthirsty enough to take the future. Political considerations suggest I should be more oblique about it in normal discourse, but in a Great Debate I may as well be blunt. The side that successfully articulates why it should eliminate and supplant its enemies is the likely victor and the probable best possible outcome. > > So, no, Der Trihs is probably, sadly, wrong. The young generation probably can’t afford to seek entitlement in a peaceable redistribution, they should instead be usurping the position of those in power now, with murderous methods. > > The entitlement is natural, the method of the beggar is less sustainable than the method of the conqueror. And right now the conqueror is the present ruling class, the prison-industrial complex, and the hoarders of intellectual property. If Strength is the first necessary virtue, then I must concede they are winning. But they are insecure in their present restraint. > > One day it will come to bloody revolution, it can do no other. > > But I’d like to live in Der Trihs’s world. I think this post is beautiful, and largely correct. (I’d need detailed argument for “it will come to bloody revolution, it can do no other.”) ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/46 "2011-11-20T15:23:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You do realize you are attempting to argue away the right to self defense? No, my attempt is to get you to understand that its the guy getting attacked who has a right to kill, if less than killing won’t protect his safety; the guy who attacks him doesn’t. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense; I clearly and repeatedly said people who have no alternative to theft than death. Working is an alternative. Sounds like you’re now in favor of a right to earn your living. Good Deal. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/47 "2011-11-20T17:57:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, the point of the story is that, if you have Faith, it will all work out. Truth isn’t even considered. The entire story exists to say good things about Abraham, in that he would do something that none of us would be willing to do. Thus he is a man of great faith and therefore a great leader of the religious movement. > > To argue that God intended Abraham to make the sacrifice contradicts the plain text of the story. As it says, God was testing Abraham to see if his faith was strong enough to receive his blessing. Remember, he has already failed once by having a son with his handmaiden. > > You could make the argument with Moses and his constant pleadings for his people not to be punished. There, the text does seem to say that he literally changed God’s mind. But not here. Let me expand a little bit. First, let’s realize that hyperventilating about ‘entitlement’, while long a pastime of Republicans, is even more of a focus for the Tea Partiers. Now let’s ask ourselves who the Tea Partiers are. From [here](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/18/tea-party-is-it-the-christian-right-in-disguise.html): > [@](#): > > The extent of the rebranding was confirmed this week by a new survey by David Campbell and Robert Putnam, the authors of last year’s monumental American Grace. Polling 3,000 people before and after the rise of the Tea Party, Campbell and Putnam identified the two characteristics most likely to turn someone into a Tea Partier: being strongly active in Republican politics and identifying with the religious right. A similar Pew study in February found that 69 percent of white evangelicals agree with the Tea Party. It doesn’t really matter how ingenious or clear of an argument you make about why we don’t just throw our vulnerable people to the dogs, the Evangelicals will.not.listen.to.you. They can’t be reached with reasoning. If this question was posed by someone with a name other that **heathen earthling** , I’d suspect it was simply a case of right wing JAQing off. Still, considering the audience whose opinion needs to be swayed on this issue, probably the best hope of having any effect at all is to point out 1. One of the themes of the Bible itself is that faith can make you do the very dumbest things and 2. Libertarianism is a faith. It is what evangelicals hide behind these days. That article I cited thinks so anyway: > [@](#): > > The Tea Party was just a new name coined by clever activists and the media—a rebranding that has made it much easier for Christian-right candidates to run for office without having to air their views on social issues, which are increasingly viewed in a negative light by the general public. The focus needs to be on forcing an explanation of their policies in which libertarianism is a logically-arrived-at conclusion or a clear solution to common problems. It’s neither, it is a faith, and the Bible itself casts Abraham in a story with the theme, “Acting on faith can lead you to ruin everything if nobody who knows better is available to step in and stop you.” ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/48 "2011-11-20T20:06:05Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Let me expand a little bit. First, let’s realize that hyperventilating about ‘entitlement’, while long a pastime of Republicans, is even more of a focus for the Tea Partiers. Now let’s ask ourselves who the Tea Partiers are. From [here](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/18/tea-party-is-it-the-christian-right-in-disguise.html): > > It doesn’t really matter how ingenious or clear of an argument you make about why we don’t just throw our vulnerable people to the dogs, the Evangelicals will.not.listen.to.you. They can’t be reached with reasoning. > > If this question was posed by someone with a name other that **heathen earthling** , I’d suspect it was simply a case of right wing JAQing off. Still, considering the audience whose opinion needs to be swayed on this issue, probably the best hope of having any effect at all is to point out 1. One of the themes of the Bible itself is that faith can make you do the very dumbest things and 2. Libertarianism is a faith. It is what evangelicals hide behind these days. That article I cited thinks so anyway: > The focus needs to be on forcing an explanation of their policies in which libertarianism is a logically-arrived-at conclusion or a clear solution to common problems. It’s neither, it is a faith, and the Bible itself casts Abraham in a story with the theme, “Acting on faith can lead you to ruin everything if nobody who knows better is available to step in and stop you.” You should not conflate the tea party/religious right with libertarianism. It’s true, they ahve something in common–both want small government. But libertarianism also embraces concepts the left likes too, like protecting personal freedoms. libertarianism is a combination of the best of the right and the best of the left. Please learn what it is before you miseducate people. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/49 "2011-11-20T21:14:32Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But libertarianism also embraces concepts the left likes too, like protecting personal freedoms. > > libertarianism is a combination of the best of the right and the best of the left. These statements are so vague as to be meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/50 "2011-11-20T21:52:47Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But libertarianism also embraces concepts the left likes too, like protecting personal freedoms. > > libertarianism is a combination of the best of the right and the best of the left. Nonsense. Libertarianism has zero respect for personal freedoms; if you aren’t the government, libertarians are fine with you oppressing and exploiting people. Libertarianism is “the anarchy of the Right”, the “anarchy of the strong”; it is about a system where the wealthy and powerful can do as they like, and the main function of the government is to protect them from their victims. It is the ideology of the hopelessly naive and the ruthlessly predatory. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/51 "2011-11-20T23:04:26Z")
> [@David42](#): > > IA case of a really bad sense of entitlement: A rich kid who is accustomed to all the finer things in life disobeys his father to the point that his luxurious lifestyle and access to the family fortune is cut off. So he goes and gets a minimum wage job, but still thinks that he should be able to eat caviar and ride in limos etc., and wants to increase the minimum wage because he feels he has a right to limos and caviar beyond his means to provide them. Where did you hear about this case? I’d like to see a cite that most people advocating to raise the minimum wage are lime-and-caviar rich kids. What about the spoiled rich kid who inherits a fortune but doesn’t want to pay any taxes on it vs. people who are working really hard? > [@](#): > > A sense of entitlement that we should care for those cannot care for themselves is justified. When I think of entitlements I think mainly of Social Security and Medicare–programs for old people, or the disabled. To what extent are “entitlements” geared toward giving able-bodied young people a perpetual free ride–as opposed to a temporary helping hand in periods of crisis? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/52 "2011-11-20T23:57:32Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Where did you hear about this case? I’d like to see a cite that most people advocating to raise the minimum wage are lime-and-caviar rich kids. > > What about the spoiled rich kid who inherits a fortune but doesn’t want to pay any taxes on it vs. people who are working really hard? > When I think of entitlements I think mainly of Social Security and Medicare–programs for old people, or the disabled. > > To what extent are “entitlements” geared toward giving able-bodied young people a perpetual free ride–as opposed to a temporary helping hand in periods of crisis? I never claimed that “most people seeking to raise the minimum wage are lime-and-caviar rich kids.” Why don’t you reread my post very, very carefully. I am doing nothing more than modeling one type of “sense of entitlement.” There are all kinds of able bodied young people out there, diagnosed ADD or Bi-polar, getting SSDI checks every month. In my view they are playing up their illness. Most would go get jobs if they weren’t getting the check. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/53 "2011-11-21T00:13:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Wealth does not come from the world, it is created by people’s hard work. In order to give it to you, it has to be taken from the people who worked hard to earn it. To suggest that your are entitled to live off of the hard work of other’s is to imply that people should be your slaves. Actually, a lot of the wealth of the world is now extracted by relatively few people using machines (various forms of technology, in short) that vastly amplify their ability to do work. Now, while the operators of those machines should not be our slaves, why should not the machines be our slaves? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/54 "2011-11-21T00:37:36Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > When I think of entitlements I think mainly of Social Security and Medicare–programs for old people, or the disabled. Social Security is only an entitlement in the sense that those who have paid into it are entitled to get their money back when they reach retirement. And … they are. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/55 "2011-11-21T01:26:51Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Wealth does not come from the world, it is created by people’s hard work. In order to give it to you, it has to be taken from the people who worked hard to earn it. To suggest that your are entitled to live off of the hard work of other’s is to imply that people should be your slaves. Please; most wealth is in the hands of people who don’t do much if anything to produce it. Hard work and how much wealth you _produce_ has virtually nothing to do with how much wealth you _get_. If anything there’s a negative correlation; the more you are responsible for producing the wealth of society, the harder you work the less reward you earn and the more likely you are in the end to be left unemployed and in poverty while the people who profited from your labor relax in luxury, pat themselves on the back over their own God-given superiority and sneer at your misery as proof of it. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/56 "2011-11-21T03:31:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Hard work and how much wealth you _produce_ has virtually nothing to do with how much wealth you _get_. Perhaps that is more of a statement demonstrating that it may be unwise to work for others, or someone who will not treat you fairly according to the wealth you produce. At any rate the problem you identify is solved by working for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/57 "2011-11-21T03:37:56Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Wealth does not come from the world, it is created by people’s hard work. In order to give it to you, it has to be taken from the people who worked hard to earn it. To suggest that your are entitled to live off of the hard work of other’s is to imply that people should be your slaves. Does that apply to the financial leaders who ruined the global economy and felt entitled to not only keep their jobs, but get massive bonuses as well? BTW, they were entitled, through the relaxing of regulations, to gamble recklessly with the savings of hard working people. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917/58 "2011-11-21T04:22:40Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Perhaps that is more of a statement demonstrating that it may be unwise to work for others, or someone who will not treat you fairly according to the wealth you produce. > > At any rate the problem you identify is solved by working for yourself. Which is impractical at best for most people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-entitlement-illogical-unethical/602917.md?page=2)