4 ms·

> Surely if a rapist deserves to be fed, so does an innocent person who can't find a job? The State actively deprived the rapist of their ability to act autono

> Surely if a rapist deserves to be fed, so does an innocent person who can't find a job? The State actively deprived the rapist of their ability to act autonomously to care for themselves, so they are obligated to do so on their behalf. The State (typically) does not actively deprive an innocent person who can't find a job of their autonomy. (There are some arguable scenarios in which they do, however, such as excessive fines, but obligation to pay those are dependent on ability, and feeding ones-self supercedes that in most jurisdictions.) > some people are disorganised, not very clever, etc. You can only claim laziness if we had like a right to a job no matter what. It is ethical to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. It's not as clearly ethical to force someone else to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does not. Calling the unemployed lazy is a lie untill you offered them a job and they refused.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does not. And you would be okay with that? You're advocating for actual slavery of inmates?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Not at all, I am just pointing out that the previous ethics argument does not seem to make sence
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      And my point is that you are making a false equivalence. The prisoner is not in the same position as a free person. If the government deprives a person of all of their freedom, and then tells them "work or die", that's slavery. A free has has to eat, because of the nature of the universe, but he is free. He can choose his job, has recourses with his employers, etc. Your statement implies that it's the government which gives everyone the deal "work or starve", but that's simply not the case. The free man is simply existing in the world, surviving as he sees fit. By taking away his capability to survive on his own, you have the ethical responsibility to feed him.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        It sounds like you are not aware of all the 'innovation' UK has explored in 16-18th century, where people had to pay for being in jail, were charged for being judged, we had debt prisons and people ran their business from them! Also we gave cocaine to kids when their teeth hurt. These ideas are preposterous by modern standards, but people can and have come up with arrangements where a person works from jail without becoming a slave. Can a 'free man' survive 'however he sees fit'? You can't even walk around 'freely', some guy in Uk was trying to cross the country naked and spent 2 years in prison. Build a house in the woods, plow the land, hunt without a license, and someone will show up to deal with you. Sing a song in the street? You are breaking copyright and some public nuisance or antisocial behaviour laws. You built something with your own hands and sold it? Might have broken some patents. About the only thing a free man may do is work for a man freer than him. I appreciate we have a civilised society, but compared to free day of olde, it's a total straigh jacket. So no, these situations are not equivalent but they are comparable enough that I don't buy the categorical moral judgement you are casting.
        dahfizz 6y ago
        Either the government allows the prisoner to go free 8 hours a day to make a living he sees fit, or the government dictates how the prisoner labors. In the first case, the prisoner is not a prisoner but becomes a free man. The second case is slavery.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        So you just straight up ignore my point about prisons in british empire and keep repeating the same thing over an over again?
- greedo 6y ago
  Many states in the US force work. It's legal under the Constitution.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does not. Calling the unemployed lazy is a lie untill you offered them a job and they refused.

dahfizz 6y ago
> The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does not. And you would be okay with that? You're advocating for actual slavery of inmates?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Not at all, I am just pointing out that the previous ethics argument does not seem to make sence
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    And my point is that you are making a false equivalence. The prisoner is not in the same position as a free person. If the government deprives a person of all of their freedom, and then tells them "work or die", that's slavery. A free has has to eat, because of the nature of the universe, but he is free. He can choose his job, has recourses with his employers, etc. Your statement implies that it's the government which gives everyone the deal "work or starve", but that's simply not the case. The free man is simply existing in the world, surviving as he sees fit. By taking away his capability to survive on his own, you have the ethical responsibility to feed him.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      It sounds like you are not aware of all the 'innovation' UK has explored in 16-18th century, where people had to pay for being in jail, were charged for being judged, we had debt prisons and people ran their business from them! Also we gave cocaine to kids when their teeth hurt. These ideas are preposterous by modern standards, but people can and have come up with arrangements where a person works from jail without becoming a slave. Can a 'free man' survive 'however he sees fit'? You can't even walk around 'freely', some guy in Uk was trying to cross the country naked and spent 2 years in prison. Build a house in the woods, plow the land, hunt without a license, and someone will show up to deal with you. Sing a song in the street? You are breaking copyright and some public nuisance or antisocial behaviour laws. You built something with your own hands and sold it? Might have broken some patents. About the only thing a free man may do is work for a man freer than him. I appreciate we have a civilised society, but compared to free day of olde, it's a total straigh jacket. So no, these situations are not equivalent but they are comparable enough that I don't buy the categorical moral judgement you are casting.
      - dahfizz 6y ago
        Either the government allows the prisoner to go free 8 hours a day to make a living he sees fit, or the government dictates how the prisoner labors. In the first case, the prisoner is not a prisoner but becomes a free man. The second case is slavery.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        So you just straight up ignore my point about prisons in british empire and keep repeating the same thing over an over again?
greedo 6y ago
Many states in the US force work. It's legal under the Constitution.