Who's in debt to whom?

[Lorizael]

Err, I'm the poster who thinks the Borg were on to something. My argument is not that the social compact is bad, but that it's illusory. Humans have no rights. We are meat in a dying universe. Moral and political philosophy have come a long way since Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and philosophers today take the social contract to be at best a good normative model but not a fundamental description of political reality.

[ricketyclik]

It's no more illusory than any other form of social organisation. Just because it's a bit old doesn't make it passe. The Enlightenment produced the best thinking on What is Best in human history.

Are shirt collars bad because they were invented centuries ago?

Of course there's no fundamental description of political reality, but we can argue for what is best for the most. I've always had a level of contempt for nihilism.

The Borg are ****ed. The social compact is about the balance between the individual and the collective, not just about the collective.

[Lorizael]

The Enlightenment produced the best thinking on What is Best in human history.

That seems unlikely. Today, we regard political/moral philosophers such as John Rawls, Peter Singer, and Hannah Arendt to be extremely influential and insightful.

A popular modern strand of political thought is a pragmatic/utilitarian approach, where theories of justice/rights/duties are much less important than what can be shown to work empirically. If granting everyone a seemingly essential right leaves us all worse off, maybe that's a stupid right? We also have logical theorems, such as Arrow's paradox, demonstrating that there are fundamental, unsolvable flaws in basically all voting systems, which puts a crimp on democracy. These are just examples.

WRT the OP and your argument, I think there are flaws in looking at this from a rights/obligations perspective. The capacity to fulfill obligations varies across individuals and is ultimately diminishing relative to what can be accomplished via technology. When looking at rights, we usually say that people forfeit some measure of their rights once they start hurting society (murder, theft, etc.). But if you are only a burden on society, how is that effectively different from hurting it through criminal activity? And so why should you retain your rights? You might argue that criminals choose to harm society whereas the mentally ill can't help themselves, but ultimately it all comes down to brain chemistry (we are meat). Why differentiate morally between particular patterns of neuronal firing?

[Lorizael]

Are shirt collars bad because they were invented centuries ago?

Shirt collars are the worst. Leave my neck the **** alone.

[ricketyclik]

Shirt collars are the worst. Leave my neck the **** alone.

I'll ignore the obvious ignorance displayed by that statement (unless you happen to live in a warm, low UV environment) and try for a different analogy...

Shoes. Shoes were invented centuries ago. Were they a bad idea?

[ricketyclik]

That seems unlikely. Today, we regard political/moral philosophers such as John Rawls, Peter Singer, and Hannah Arendt to be extremely influential and insightful.

A popular modern strand of political thought is a pragmatic/utilitarian approach, where theories of justice/rights/duties are much less important than what can be shown to work empirically. If granting everyone a seemingly essential right leaves us all worse off, maybe that's a stupid right? We also have logical theorems, such as Arrow's paradox, demonstrating that there are fundamental, unsolvable flaws in basically all voting systems, which puts a crimp on democracy. These are just examples.

WRT the OP and your argument, I think there are flaws in looking at this from a rights/obligations perspective. The capacity to fulfill obligations varies across individuals and is ultimately diminishing relative to what can be accomplished via technology. When looking at rights, we usually say that people forfeit some measure of their rights once they start hurting society (murder, theft, etc.). But if you are only a burden on society, how is that effectively different from hurting it through criminal activity? And so why should you retain your rights? You might argue that criminals choose to harm society whereas the mentally ill can't help themselves, but ultimately it all comes down to brain chemistry (we are meat). Why differentiate morally between particular patterns of neuronal firing?

Soooo American.

[Lorizael]

Cool.

[ricketyclik]

And you guys are doing great, right?

[Lorizael]

America is a ****ty country with a stupid culture. If you think me praising an Australian philosopher who thinks it's just as morally indefensible to not donate money to starving children in foreign countries as it is to not help rescue a drowning child in front of you is just soooo American, then you have fun with that conversation you're having.

[ricketyclik]

WRT the OP and your argument, I think there are flaws in looking at this from a rights/obligations perspective. The capacity to fulfill obligations varies across individuals and is ultimately diminishing relative to what can be accomplished via technology.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. If all needs are being met by tech - which I don't think is possible, what about the needs of loving, being loved, feeling useful, general social interaction - then one's obligations are simply to get along with the rest of the group, as best one can.

When looking at rights, we usually say that people forfeit some measure of their rights once they start hurting society (murder, theft, etc.). But if you are only a burden on society, how is that effectively different from hurting it through criminal activity? And so why should you retain your rights? You might argue that criminals choose to harm society whereas the mentally ill can't help themselves, but ultimately it all comes down to brain chemistry (we are meat). Why differentiate morally between particular patterns of neuronal firing?

This is the particularly American part. It's so utilitarian, and ultimately self-interested. Human rights are intrinsic, not based on the relative merit of the individual. They aren't earnt. Fought for, yes, but not earnt.

Also the polar view of criminality. One is not either good or bad, but multi-faceted. Almost all crime has its beginnings in some form of environmental influence, even if it's having ****ty parents, but even they would have had external factors leading them there. If society valued all individuals and focussed on meeting everyone's needs, instead of focussing on punishment and reward, crime rates would plummet. As evidence, compare crime rates in countries with strong social safety nets and high levels of universal health and education with dog eat dog - oh sorry, I mean free market - countries.

[Aeson]

Lori’s system would work really well so long as the ultimate authority was omniscient and unbiased. So, it would always fail miserably in reality.

The murderer’s harm to society is already known. The implication of allowing people to kill others for amy reason is rather obviously horrendously negative ... if difficult to quantify exactly just how much. Judging the value of a child’s future contribution/detriment to society based on something like mental illness or economic status of the parents is absurd.

[ricketyclik]

Lori’s system would work really well so long as the ultimate authority was omniscient and unbiased. So, it would always fail miserably in reality.

The murderer’s harm to society is already known. The implication of allowing people to kill others for amy reason is rather obviously horrendously negative ... if difficult to quantify exactly just how much. Judging the value of a child’s future contribution/detriment to society based on something like mental illness or economic status of the parents is absurd.

I'm not suggesting doing so. I'm saying that if society valued its citizens equally and ensured that all were adequately provided for the circumstances that lead to murder or similar arising would fall in frequency.

[Aeson]

I was addressing Lori’s question about why to treat mental illness (or otherwise assumed burden) differently than a murderer.

[ricketyclik]

Oh, I see.

[Lorizael]

Uh, I'm clearly not advocating such a system. I'm pointing out that looking at this situation from a rights/duties perspective can be problematic.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

And what about lazy people?

This is the particularly American part. It's so utilitarian...

Yeah, America, the country that holds the second amendment sacrosanct in the face of dead children, is sooo utilitarian.

Human rights are intrinsic, not based on the relative merit of the individual. They aren't earnt. Fought for, yes, but not earnt.

But we already agreed that there's nothing politically fundamental and that we're just making it up to try to get the best results...

Also the polar view of criminality. One is not either good or bad, but multi-faceted. Almost all crime has its beginnings in some form of environmental influence, even if it's having ****ty parents, but even they would have had external factors leading them there. If society valued all individuals and focussed on meeting everyone's needs, instead of focussing on punishment and reward, crime rates would plummet. As evidence, compare crime rates in countries with strong social safety nets and high levels of universal health and education with dog eat dog - oh sorry, I mean free market - countries.

Sure. But none of that is necessarily grounded in a rights/duties framework. Utilitarians can absolutely argue that keeping people locked up provides no value to society or the individual.