3 ms·

The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those. > 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully mos

by mLuby 4y ago

The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those. > 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change). > 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves. Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. > what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.

gruez 4y ago
>Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out "physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad". >I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general. >Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do. >A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense. Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.

by mLuby 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out "physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad". >I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general. >Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do. >A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense. Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.