Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[-TheLastAmerican]

This is a matter of perspective. You seem to consider the homeless to be a lesser species, and helping them out to be an imposition on ordinary, decent, people. Homelessness is closer to all of us than we think. The world we have built is based on profit, not care, so those who become homeless (and other unfortunates) pay the price. It could be you or me, one day. Perhaps that, if nothing else, makes it worth considering others in a more caring way?

P.S. I have "mental health problems", as many do, but I am not "insane", as you describe it. [Almost] no-one is. Your reasoning just looks like a precursor to rejection; an excuse. We have a choice. We can care for ourselves and each other, or we can just care for ourselves, and f**k everyone else. In political terms, this is a simple choice between socialism and libertarianism/fascism/capitalism. In social terms, it's a choice between caring and selfishness. What do we choose?

In my opinion it is absurd to suggest that mental health problems, in all but the most severe cases, are an excuse, in any first world country, to be homeless. A person can get free healthcare at the taxpayer's expense, free money at the taxpayer's expense and free food at the taxpayer's expense, with almost no effort.

If a person is so completely disabled by their mental health problems that they cannot make a small effort to apply for said benefits, I would argue that they are incapable of caring for themselves and should therefore be remanded to a facility that can care for them - at the taxpayer's expense.

As for folks that just do not want to contribute to the society they are demanding accommodate and care for them - they can go jump in quicksand as far as I am concerned. I care nothing for their predicament.

[chewybrian]

I think there are problems with projection and conceit about the way most folks see the issue. They are apt to project their own experience onto others, as if the homeless person had all the same abilities and opportunities they had to get a job and a home. They are apt to be conceited in the fact that they don't see homelessness as a problem that could be theirs one day, as if the misfortune or physical or mental health problems of the homeless man could never be their problems.

For example...

In my opinion it is absurd to suggest that mental health problems, in all but the most severe cases, are an excuse, in any first world country, to be homeless. A person can get free healthcare at the taxpayer's expense, free money at the taxpayer's expense and free food at the taxpayer's expense, with almost no effort.

If a person is so completely disabled by their mental health problems that they cannot make a small effort to apply for said benefits, I would argue that they are incapable of caring for themselves and should therefore be remanded to a facility that can care for them - at the taxpayer's expense.

As for folks that just do not want to contribute to the society they are demanding accommodate and care for them - they can go jump in quicksand as far as I am concerned. I care nothing for their predicament.

[GE Morton]

Shouldn't be a crime to be homeless, but it should be a "crime" for someone to be homeless when they don't want to be. In other words, no one should be homeless if they'd like to have a home. As a society, we should guarantee that anyone who wants a home has one. It should be a basic human right, along with having food, clothing, absolutely any health care you need, education as far as you'd like to take it, transportation, at least basic entertainment options, etc.

Oh, my. That answer reveals a startling ignorance of what a "right" is.

First, there is no "should be" with respect to (real) rights; they are intrinsic, universal, and self-evident. They can't be conjured into existence by the decrees of popes, potentates or legislatures. Legal rights may be so created, but they have no moral significance.

To say that someone has a (real) right to something is simply to say that he is rightfully in possession of it, that he acquired righteously, which means he acquired it without inflicting loss or injury on any other person. No person can have a "right" to the services of other persons or to the products of others' labor; others are not your slaves or chattel. All of the phony "rights" you list violate that moral constraint.

[Terrapin Station]

Oh, my. That answer reveals a startling ignorance of what a "right" is.

First, there is no "should be" with respect to (real) rights; they are intrinsic, universal, and self-evident. They can't be conjured into existence by the decrees of popes, potentates or legislatures. Legal rights may be so created, but they have no moral significance.

How ironic, though of course completely expected from you. Your comment rather reveals a startling ignorance of what a "right" is.

Rights are solely a way that individuals think--namely they're ethical stances that the individual feels should be inviolable, regardless of local laws, customs, etc.

[GE Morton]

Rights are solely a way that individuals think--namely they're ethical stances that the individual feels should be inviolable, regardless of local laws, customs, etc.

Sorry, TS, but the words of a natural language have specific meanings, and must if they are to be useful for communication. What someone may think a "right" is, or what rights they have, or how they "feel" about rights, is irrelevant to that established meaning. No one has any "right" to the services of other persons (absent some sort of promise made or contract between them), no matter what they think or feel. Whether P has a right to X is an empirical question with an objective answer. Namely,

P has a right to X IFF
1. P is the first possessor of X, or
2. P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor.

If one of those conditions is not satisfied then P's claim is false.

[Terrapin Station]

Rights are solely a way that individuals think--namely they're ethical stances that the individual feels should be inviolable, regardless of local laws, customs, etc.

Sorry, TS, but the words of a natural language have specific meanings, and must if they are to be useful for communication. What someone may think a "right" is, or what rights they have, or how they "feel" about rights, is irrelevant to that established meaning. No one has any "right" to the services of other persons (absent some sort of promise made or contract between them), no matter what they think or feel. Whether P has a right to X is an empirical question with an objective answer. Namely,

P has a right to X IFF
1. P is the first possessor of X, or
2. P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor.

If one of those conditions is not satisfied then P's claim is false.

Common beliefs about what something is, as they may be reflected in common definitions, do not determine ontological facts, and those ontological misconceptions can be corrected while still retaining the term in question.

[chewybrian]

Rights are solely a way that individuals think--namely they're ethical stances that the individual feels should be inviolable, regardless of local laws, customs, etc.

Sorry, TS, but the words of a natural language have specific meanings, and must if they are to be useful for communication. What someone may think a "right" is, or what rights they have, or how they "feel" about rights, is irrelevant to that established meaning. No one has any "right" to the services of other persons (absent some sort of promise made or contract between them), no matter what they think or feel. Whether P has a right to X is an empirical question with an objective answer. Namely,

P has a right to X IFF
1. P is the first possessor of X, or
2. P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor.

If one of those conditions is not satisfied then P's claim is false.

This is much too simplistic, and does not carry the weight of certainty you want to attach to it. You have to first declare whether you are talking
about legal rights or moral rights.

Legal rights are given and supported by the legislature and the courts and the power of the military or police to enforce them. They didn't come down from the mountain on a stone tablet. They are enacted and enforced by people, and subject to change as the opinions of those people change.

Moral rights are purely subjective and decided by the individual. I may disagree with any or all of the moral rights which you think should apply, and you have no objective basis to declare that you are right and I am wrong.

There are many exceptions to your rules about rights. There are taxes and fees that could cause you to lose your right to keep your house if you don't pay them. There are building codes and divorce court rulings or even things like adverse possession that could cost you your home. On the legal side, you don't get to keep what you have unless you pay your share for the common good and play by the rest of the rules. The rules vary over time.

On the moral side, all societies are mutual pacts of cooperation to some extent. We use public funds for the public good in every society. You don't get to hold 100% of the value of your property. Rather, you give back a percentage of it to pay for roads and fire and police protection and such. Where do we draw the line? Wherever the blazes we decide to draw it. There is nothing immoral about taking some of your wealth to pay for guaranteed health care for everyone. Most societies do so. In fact, I would say this is the moral choice. There is also nothing immoral about deciding that a minimum standard of housing or education should be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it. Many societies also do this.

[Terrapin Station]

Rights are solely a way that individuals think--namely they're ethical stances that the individual feels should be inviolable, regardless of local laws, customs, etc.

Sorry, TS, but the words of a natural language have specific meanings, and must if they are to be useful for communication. What someone may think a "right" is, or what rights they have, or how they "feel" about rights, is irrelevant to that established meaning. No one has any "right" to the services of other persons (absent some sort of promise made or contract between them), no matter what they think or feel. Whether P has a right to X is an empirical question with an objective answer. Namely,

P has a right to X IFF
1. P is the first possessor of X, or
2. P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor.

If one of those conditions is not satisfied then P's claim is false.

Also, you're still persisting in the error of not realizing that meaning is subjective.

Re the latter part of your post, that's simply something that you feel should be inviolable, and it's perhaps the only thing you feel should be inviolable. Different people feel different ways.

[Pattern-chaser]

In my opinion it is absurd to suggest that mental health problems, in all but the most severe cases, are an excuse, in any first world country, to be homeless. A person can get free healthcare at the taxpayer's expense, free money at the taxpayer's expense and free food at the taxpayer's expense, with almost no effort.

Real-world experience does not accord with your suppositions.

Vulnerable patients with mental health conditions are being badly let down by the NHS, causing them and their families needless suffering and distress, according to a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report published today. - Link to original article, from 2018

Other Western countries are similar.

[-TheLastAmerican]

Gentlemen, and ladies,

Never forget that Stalin was, in fact, a Socialist. Furthermore, Stalin believed is socialism so strongly that he was willing to imprison / exterminate 18-million people that he thought MIGHT disagree with him, in order to force his pathological belief on them.

So, when does the gulag construction begin?

Obviously, taxpayer's footing the bill for other people's claimed mental health problems, just isn't good enough for certain people with mental health problems. Its an enigma inside a paradox!

[chewybrian]

In my opinion it is absurd to suggest that mental health problems, in all but the most severe cases, are an excuse, in any first world country, to be homeless. A person can get free healthcare at the taxpayer's expense, free money at the taxpayer's expense and free food at the taxpayer's expense, with almost no effort.

Real-world experience does not accord with your suppositions.

Vulnerable patients with mental health conditions are being badly let down by the NHS, causing them and their families needless suffering and distress, according to a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report published today. - Link to original article, from 2018

Other Western countries are similar.

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessnes ... ness-2021/

You can see that in the U.S., there are generally beds available for women and children, who get priority treatment. However, there are not enough available for single folks, mostly men, which includes a lot of veterans and people with mental health issues. Further, I don't think we can minimize the difficulty for people of asking for help. Their mental health issues or simple pride might get in the way. Some of them have addictions to feed that can not be satisfied within the confines of the shelter. Also, some of the places where you get the help are noisy and dangerous, and it is not unreasonable that some people feel safer or more comfortable on the streets in some cases. But, that does not mean that we are off the hook by offering them a solution that does not appeal to them and declaring that they "had their chance".

That opinion to which you responded is a great example of the attitude problems I brought up earlier. If we project our own experience on to the homeless man, we can't understand why he just doesn't check into the shelter, or why he doesn't just quit using drugs or drinking. But, a choice that is easy for me might be very difficult for you, or vice versa. As you also noted, it is a mark of conceit to assume that the homeless man simply made poor choices that we would never make, and that therefore we are magically immune from falling into the same predicament.

[Pattern-chaser]

Never forget that Stalin was, in fact, a Socialist. Furthermore, Stalin believed i[n] socialism so strongly that he was willing to imprison / exterminate 18-million people that he thought MIGHT disagree with him, in order to force his pathological belief on them.

Stalin was just a dictator, nothing more. Like most dictators, he used whatever he wanted/needed to support his own position. In this example, Stalin claimed to be a socialist, but your second sentence describes him better. He was no better than Hitler, his contemporary. Both of them killed millions to achieve and maintain their dominance. That is not socialism.

Stalin's commitment to Marxism and even to socialism only served to camouflage the establishment of a new oriental despotism.

The rise of Stalinism ruined the vision of socialism. Socialism is a classless, cooperative, emancipated society that can be achieved only through the collective and democratic struggle of the working class. By the middle of the 1930s, Stalin proclaimed: “Our Soviet society is socialist society… Our society consists exclusively of free toilers of town and country”. That was an absurdity: socialism was impossible in a single country isolated in the capitalist world system. At that very moment, the Stalinist system of slave labour and political repression reached a peak in the madness of the “Great Terror”, in which hundreds of thousands of dissidents were executed, disappeared or imprisoned in labour camps, while workers were brutalised by Stalinist factory bosses.

And so on...

[chewybrian]

Gentlemen, and ladies,

Never forget that Stalin was, in fact, a Socialist. Furthermore, Stalin believed is socialism so strongly that he was willing to imprison / exterminate 18-million people that he thought MIGHT disagree with him, in order to force his pathological belief on them.

No, Stalin presided over a corrupted version of communism with a caste system and dictatorial powers added. Real socialists are found in the countries where people report that they are the happiest in the world. These reports are not due to censorship, as when Stalin or Putin gets 98% of the vote in a 'free and fair' election.

Why are they relatively happier than the rest of us? It is because they have the best of both worlds. They are free to speak their minds and pursue happiness in their own way. Yet, they are also free of the worry that a mistake or misfortune might take everything from them. They don't face bankruptcy (or even preventable death!) if they get sick. They have opportunities for education, health care and housing that are not always available to all of us here in the U.S.

Tax and spend is not a virtual gulag for them. Rather it is the best possible combination of freedom and security.

[chewybrian]

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world

^Forgot the link, but the happiest countries are Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway... I don't think the skiing is the common thread, though. They are a bunch of REAL socialists!

[Ecurb]

Sorry, TS, but the words of a natural language have specific meanings, and must if they are to be useful for communication. What someone may think a "right" is, or what rights they have, or how they "feel" about rights, is irrelevant to that established meaning. No one has any "right" to the services of other persons (absent some sort of promise made or contract between them), no matter what they think or feel. Whether P has a right to X is an empirical question with an objective answer. Namely,

P has a right to X IFF
1. P is the first possessor of X, or
2. P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor.

If one of those conditions is not satisfied then P's claim is false.

If "natural language(s)" have specific meanings", is it reasonable to define "rights' in a manner inconsistant with the standard meaning of the word?

Let's look at one "right" -- widely established both legally and morally. It's the "right-of-way". We all know that a pedestrian in a crosswalk has the right of way. What does this mean? It means that drivers are morally and legally obliged to stop when he is in the crosswalk, instead of running him down.

Is P (the pedestrian) the "first possessor" of the crosswalk? Has he acquired it through a chain of consent? Of course not. His right of way is established by law, more, and tradition.

Based on his post above, GE Morton must either claim that the right of way is not a real right (a claim which will fly in the face of his claim that words have specific meanings) or claim Joe Tourist, the millionth tourist to cross Broadway and 42nd, is the "first possessor" of the intersection. Neither claim is credible. The right of way, like other rights, is culturally and legally constiuted. It was not handed down by God.