3 ms·

This debate, like so many other economic debates (welfare, health insurance, what to do about homelessness, taxation policy, school funding, etc.) seems to real

This debate, like so many other economic debates (welfare, health insurance, what to do about homelessness, taxation policy, school funding, etc.) seems to really be venues for proxy debates between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The two major positions inevitably end up being specific formulations of, "We think that this might be best for everyone on average," and, "We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." Both are legitimate ways of thinking about it, and centuries of moral philosophy have failed to adequately reconcile these two ways of approaching social issues. So I can't imagine this will ever be definitively settled. (Maybe it shouldn't be. Ursula K. LeGuin gets my respect for being author of both The Dispossessed and The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas.) But I think that failing to recognize that that's the core of the issue dooms people to endlessly, uselessly accomplish little more than talking past each other.

jampekka 2y ago
The moral philosophy is not about trying to solve problems. It's about justifying the state of affairs. When a new state of affairs arises, a moral philosophy justifying it will get adopted. E.g. Lockean ethics making property a fundamental right (later implemented as a "self evident god given thruth") is just a semi-theological justification for priviliged classes holding their privileges. A bit like divine rights of kings, or superiority of certain ethnic groups, or intellecual and moral superiority of the noblesse.
bux93 2y ago
"We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." often translates to "you know, untrustworthy people from the out-group" and is a bit of a dog whistle. I don't think anyone in the "We think that this might be best for everyone on average" camp is unaware of or unconcerned with potential abuses. I for one am not unconcerned, but I feel that these can be dealt with pragmatically - allowing some slippage. On the other side of that debate are people calling for absolutist, heavy handed punishments. (Some, if not most, on the understanding that "honest mistakes" by "good people" will of course be dealt with leniently. Why's my dog barking? Did you hear anything?)

jampekka 2y ago

The moral philosophy is not about trying to solve problems. It's about justifying the state of affairs. When a new state of affairs arises, a moral philosophy justifying it will get adopted. E.g. Lockean ethics making property a fundamental right (later implemented as a "self evident god given thruth") is just a semi-theological justification for priviliged classes holding their privileges. A bit like divine rights of kings, or superiority of certain ethnic groups, or intellecual and moral superiority of the noblesse.

bux93 2y ago

"We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." often translates to "you know, untrustworthy people from the out-group" and is a bit of a dog whistle. I don't think anyone in the "We think that this might be best for everyone on average" camp is unaware of or unconcerned with potential abuses. I for one am not unconcerned, but I feel that these can be dealt with pragmatically - allowing some slippage. On the other side of that debate are people calling for absolutist, heavy handed punishments. (Some, if not most, on the understanding that "honest mistakes" by "good people" will of course be dealt with leniently. Why's my dog barking? Did you hear anything?)