As a human being, does one have have a natural born right to live the final years of his life not working?
This question has been bothering me for a while. All around me I’m seeing hard working people in many fields facing no chance of retirement. They will work until they die. I’m having trouble digesting this morally.
As I see it there are two options to secure one’s retirement that are also answers to the initial question.
Invest in private markets
–No. One does not have the natural born right to retire and should be responsible for his own future.
Government programs
–Yes. A man has the right to retire and his country will provide.
My objection to the private market is probably obvious to anyone looking at the market this week. It is unpredictable. It seems unfair that someone who wants to plan for his future should have to do what is essentially gambling.
On the other hand, I’m seeing Social Security crumble and have little confidence that it will be there to provide for those who need it.
To put this another way: is there anything morally wrong with a population that will most likely have to work until they die?
Why, precisely, should people be morally entitled to mooch of their hard-working fellow-citizens for the last decade or two of their lives? Sure, if you’re too ill or infirm to work, then society should make some provision for you - anything less is cruel. But if you’re still mentally and physically capable of working, then damnit, you should either be working or financing your retirement entirely on your own dime, even if you are greatly aged. Why should I work my ass off to keep a healthy, active octagenarian on a beach in Florida?
People don’t have a moral right to retire. They also don’t have a moral right to avoid being beaten by a stick.
On the other hand, we do have a moral responsibility not to beat people with a stick, and we similarly do have a responsibility not to force somebody to work until they die.
Compassion indicates to some that they should not only not force the elderly to be labor unto death, but that they should also give them a gentle reprieve at the end of their lives. However, that’s an personal opinion - elevating that opinion to the level of objective morality is specious. Some people’s morality only requires that they not hinder the elderly, not that they aid them - which is a valid position too.
Retirement can happen in more ways than mere mooching. For example, investment in private markets.
This solution is a gamble, and some will lose. When one’s only option for retirement is a gamble, is there any moral wrong when the losers suffer while we watch?
If you think it is morally wrong then you can do everything in your power to make sure old people don’t work. However, if I don’t think that it is morally wrong for old people to work, then I have a hard time seeing how forcing me to give money to old people is morally right.
Your attitude is one that I find frustrating – something is morally wrong so therefore the government must fix it. For one, it’s usually quite debatable if the subject under discussion is morally wrong. To some people it may be, to others it may not. But, two, even if it is morally wrong it does not logically follow that government must deal with it. There are a lot of things that are bad. But government is neither the proper nor the most efficient way of dealing with these issues. Just because you think something is wrong you should not leap to the conclusion that government is the answer.
I agree that morality is subjective so we can’t reasonably argue that everyone (as a class) should support the elderly (as a class); however, if we decided to do that, what other method would we possibly use to carry out that goal besides the government? It’s entire purpuse is to handle things that “everyone (as a class)” decides to do.
No, government’s purpose is not to do whatever “everyone” decides to do. For one, I think it would be difficult to find a government policy that garners support from every single U.S. citizen. Two, often the government does things that only a small minority wants, but since the benefits are concentrated with them no one really objects so they get their way. Three, the U.S. government was never intended to be Santa Claus, giving goodies away because Congress or the President thinks they are a good idea. The Constitution set our stricly enumerated powers for the federal government. “Handling things that everyone decides to do” was not on that list. Four, even if you think the Constitution’s enumerated powers are outdated, there is reason to fear a government that’s purpose is to do whatever the majority decides. Consider what happens to minority groups like Tutsis when a majority like the Hutus are in charge.
However, if people really think that taking care of the elderly is important you don’t need government to do it. You work to make that happen voluntarily. You take care of your elderly parents. You give money to groups that provide funds for the indigent elderly. Things like that. If that is not happening it’s a sure sign that people don’t really think the goal is worth accomplishing. Yes, they may pay lip service to it. “Sure, the elderly shouldn’t work. Oh, my mom who is living in grinding poverty in a house with no plumbing or electricity? Er, I was too buy paying for my vacation to the Poconos to help her out. But it sure would be nice if the government taxed other people to take care of her. By God, there ought to be a law!”
Assuming for a moment that we do have moral obligations to our elders that obligation doesn’t necessarily mean that having to work until death is immoral.
The existence of the road and highway system, the existence of public police forces, the very existence of a judicial system all rebut all this. They are subject to all the same criticisms (excepting that the justice system is in the constitution) and are still functions of the government.
(And who said it had to specifically be the Federal government? Let’s keep the goalposts stationary.)
Correct - there doesn’t appear to be enough popular support to enact such a policy with 100% coverage based on individual action. If there was, there would already be a government policy in place. 'Cause that’s how we encode societal issues that are truly desired by the majority (much less by enough people to enact it 100%).
What about retired people who had no children and then did not use the money they would have spent on children to properly fund their own retirement? They didn’t produce replacement workers and they didn’t work to take care of themselves in retirement so they failed to invest in the future of society. Why do we have a moral obligation to such people?
Why should it be any more of a natural right to not have to work at age 75, then to not have to work at age 25? Heck, I don’t even think that there is a societal obligation to provide a living without work at any age.
Now, if you ask me if society should provide a safety net for those UNABLE to support themselved, from age related factors, or injury or other reasons, then I would agree. It’s the inability to support themselves that is a factor, not the age. Even in cases of an inability to support oneself, society shouldn’t be required to provide for a lush life. Safe and with at least a minimal level of comfort (food, clothing, medical care, lodging) but no one owes me a 50" TV or an annual trip to Tampa, Florida.
No, in fact, they are not subject to the same criticism. However, if you’d like, I’d be happy to restrict government to only those actions and get rid of the rest of the things government does. Deal?
True. If local units of government were putting in place some form of subsidized retirement system I’d have much less problem than a federal system. I’d still think it was bad but I probably wouldn’t bitch as much.
But I assume that given the nature of the OP he/she envisions national government action to resolve the moral issue.
No, that’s how we enact policy that is desired by a certain subset of the population that has influence with legislators. If you really think that every policy enacted in law by Congress has the support of the majority then you must be dreaming.
But the fact is that if people really desire something there is no need for government. It is only when the desires of some do not match up with the desires of others that the first group wants to use government to force the others to conform to their will.
I’m exploring a concept that I feel is more complicated than “Free Market Vs. Socialism.” On one hand I feel I have a personal responsibility to other human beings and their well being. On the other hand I don’t like large government institutions.
Any “attitude” is purely your own reading.
I am looking around me and seeing the two best ways to plan for retirement failing. Initially I wondered how to correct this problem, and than I came to what I thought were deeper and more interesting questions.
You appear to lean more towards the free market approach, and normally I’d be right there with you. However, in the past few years I have seen too many people lose their retirement plannings through no fault of their own. To me this doesn’t feel right. When right and wrong start popping into my discussion it is usually indicative of a moral dilemma.
You seem to be saying that it is morally wrong for people to suffer because they invested in the stock market. Therefore the only moral thing to do is guarantee them a retirement income through the government.
During the dot.com bust I lost money in the stock market. Was that morally wrong or right? I see it as neither. It was bad planning on my part, essentially. It doesn’t have a moral dimension. Although I was in my early 20s it wouldn’t have mattered if I was in my late 70s. It’s not a matter of morality. It sucks, sure, if you were counting on that money, but I fail to see how morality plays into it.
OK, look at my situation today – I’m self-employed with a baby on the way. I just lost a huge contract that really threatens my family’s security. I lost it through no fault of my own. Does that feel right to you? It doesn’t feel all that great to me but I fail to see a moral issue here. It’s not immoral for me to lose a source of income. It sucks ass, but it’s not immoral.
So…you want to change the types of things that the government does, to support your argument that Universal Elderly Care isn’t the type of thing that the government does? Didn’t I just say something about goalposts?
And for the record - no, I’m in no hurry to privatize the highway system, the police, or the legal system.
You’re citing government corruption as a complete refutation of democracy? :dubious: That’s…interesting. It’s suddenly more clear why you want to privatize the hell out of everything. (Despite the fact that that would explicitly bias everything to aid only the wealthy.)
Right. It’s only when there fails to be 100% hive-mind agreement that we need government to accomplish the things that the majority of members of society want. (Of course, nothing - literally, nothing, up to and including whether we should be able to rob and slaughter people with impunity, meets that level of agreement.)
You sound like a hard working responsible citizen looking at losing the security of his family. If I live in a society that cannot guarantee stability for hard working responsible citizens than what exactly am I participating in? I do feel it is a moral tragedy and an epic failure of our social contract.
There is no such thing as a sure thing, but when people like you are worried about putting food in the mouths of his family I stop for a moment and wonder why. I’m sincerely sorry you are experiencing that.