4 ms·

This is one argument: Every human deserves to live in dignity. If someone is unable to earn enough money to live a dignified live, society has to provide the m

by ugh 16y ago

This is one argument: Every human deserves to live in dignity. If someone is unable to earn enough money to live a dignified live, society has to provide the means, wealth has to be redistributed. What exactly living in dignity means and how exactly wealth should be redistributed is certainly always up for debate but this is the basic outline of a pretty standard argument. I would, for example, be very surprised if less than a large majority of people in my native Germany agreed with the basic argument. Those who agree with the argument have compared the immorality of taking away someone’s money with the immorality of not enabling someone to live a dignified life and concluded that the second violation of rights weighs heavier.

JonnieCache 16y ago
>Those who agree with the argument have compared the immorality of taking away someone’s money with the immorality of not enabling someone to live a dignified life and concluded that the second violation of rights weighs heavier." This is the crux of the issue right here. Another key point is that the usefulness (to the holder) of a given unit of wealth is inversely proportional to how much total wealth they have. $100 is worth a lot more to someone who has $3 than it is to someone who has $3,000,000. Therefore there is a certain utilitarian argument in favor of putting the wealth where it will have the most benefit. And yes, I know utilitarianism is horribly flawed when you force it to its logical conclusion, that isn't the point here. Think of it a bit like spreading fertilizer on a field. If you want a good harvest, it doesn't really make any sense to distribute it in any way except according to its need. As the parent said: this is just one argument. I'm not saying that it is conclusive, nor do I expect you to agree with it.
mseebach 16y ago
Problem is, that argument doesn't apply to inequality. You can be perfecty dignified on the bottom of a highly inequal society (and most poor americans are), and those that aren't very often have a non-financial reason (such as drugs).

by ugh 16y ago

JonnieCache 16y ago

>Those who agree with the argument have compared the immorality of taking away someone’s money with the immorality of not enabling someone to live a dignified life and concluded that the second violation of rights weighs heavier." This is the crux of the issue right here. Another key point is that the usefulness (to the holder) of a given unit of wealth is inversely proportional to how much total wealth they have. $100 is worth a lot more to someone who has $3 than it is to someone who has $3,000,000. Therefore there is a certain utilitarian argument in favor of putting the wealth where it will have the most benefit. And yes, I know utilitarianism is horribly flawed when you force it to its logical conclusion, that isn't the point here. Think of it a bit like spreading fertilizer on a field. If you want a good harvest, it doesn't really make any sense to distribute it in any way except according to its need. As the parent said: this is just one argument. I'm not saying that it is conclusive, nor do I expect you to agree with it.

mseebach 16y ago

Problem is, that argument doesn't apply to inequality. You can be perfecty dignified on the bottom of a highly inequal society (and most poor americans are), and those that aren't very often have a non-financial reason (such as drugs).