3 ms·

I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter

by hugh_ 17y ago

I've read that this is how NYC has "taken care of their homeless problem": they simply let the homeless die, which is quite easy to do in NYC during the winter by forcing the homeless to sleep outdoors, where the weather is much more deadly than it ever gets in San Francisco. What is wrong with letting the homeless die, though? We don't have any problem with letting rats die, or pigeons, if they can't manage to support themselves. Why do I have an obligation to help another animal just cuz it happens to be the same species as me?

gnosis 17y ago
Thank you for being honest. I only wish more advocates of cutting off aid to homeless people were even half as honest as you.
indrax 17y ago
I also appreciate your honesty, and I'll try to address your points. Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it. One issue is how we measure progress. We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better. So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it. A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k. I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net. The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently. Your Species is Irrelevant. Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)
earl 17y ago
I must say, congrats on outing yourself as an utter asshole. I do hope that you never require help from another person.

by hugh_ 17y ago

gnosis 17y ago

Thank you for being honest. I only wish more advocates of cutting off aid to homeless people were even half as honest as you.

indrax 17y ago

I also appreciate your honesty, and I'll try to address your points. Many people would save the life of a pigeon. They're just not very consistent about it. One issue is how we measure progress. We would generally think that a school program that increases the average performance of a school is a good thing. If it does this by expelling the low scoring students, then it is not an educational program. It does not make the school better, it just makes it look better. So having no homeless in a city doesn't necessarily make that city a nicer place to be. It can still have the same weak economy and bad infrastructure. It's the difference between rebuilding a wall and repainting it. A hypothetical city that achieves zero homeless with a great job market, low cost housing, and easy access to perfect psychological treatment is clearly better than a city that eats everyone making under 50k. I think a more realistic city that reduces some of the impact of homelessness by having adequate shelters is better than a city without that net. The first city solves the problems of the people in the city, while the second city does not. In the end, we have cities because they are tools. Better tools work more consistently. Your Species is Irrelevant. Personhood matters though, I think a person dying is a tragedy. I'm not sure 'obligation' is the right term, but I think if you were actually faced with the death of a person, you would value their life more. I'm not trying to make an 'I know better than you' argument here, just saying that a lot of our values are context sensitive and inconsistent. (as with pigeons)

earl 17y ago

I must say, congrats on outing yourself as an utter asshole. I do hope that you never require help from another person.