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

[chewybrian]

Now you’re introducing a number of other considerations, including exploitation, war, ecological impact, and a critique of capitalism itself. I am not going to try to engage of all these diffuse topics, but I will say that just because there is a problem does not mean that the solution you have identified is the correct one.

That is true and right to the point. I am not offering FACTS, but rather opinions about the right way to proceed.

These are quite complex problems and simple solutions will probably turn out to be inadequate.

That is exactly MY point. Morton is offering simple solutions and you are embracing them without examining them fully.

Churchill’s quip about democracy may well also apply to capitalism: it is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.

But it is not a dichotomy. I don't disagree that we need capitalism to provide the best incentive to get people to produce the most they can. I never said scrap capitalism. I say we should sprinkle in a few socialist principles and practices to undo some of the inherent unfairness and injustice of capitalism. We should have health care, public transportation, and free higher education for the poor. Further, there should be taxes on investment earnings and higher inheritance taxes such that wealth was not so simple to maintain and grow indefinitely. These are opinions, and if I claimed they were facts I would be guilty of the same mistake that Morton is making and that you seem to be giving your stamp of approval.

I think Morton’s posts are excellent, but even if you disagree with him you have to admit that he is very clear and he has laid out a comprehensive groundwork for his theory. I think his detractors have failed in both of these areas, especially the second. They have only attempted to give counterarguments to his theory without putting forth any alternative of their own. This is inevitably because a system focused on the common good rather than individual rights, or one based on charity rather than justice, would be very hard to explain and defend. Such theories begin to break down with the slightest attempt at elucidation or probing.

Of course one can make a tidy house of logic on top of a foundation of opinion taken as fact. This is the same as saying: "It's in the bible; checkmate, atheists!" See Ecurb's response to Morton for a good explanation:

Both my claim about property and your claim about taxation are "dissembling" -- which is a form of prevarication. That's because lots of things resemble slavery, but we cannot assume that they are wicked because of the resemblance. Slaves (for example) ate with wooden spoons. But who would say, "Eating with wooden spoons is like being a slave."? Or, if someone did say it, could we assume that making people eat with wooden spoons is somehow evil because it resembles slavery?

In addition, your criticism of my use of "should" is ridiculous given your arbitrary and slanted "definitions". One's "natural possessions" are neither "natural" nor "possessions" except in that ownership is culturally defined and constituted. Although you claim that this is a mere "definition", it is not. Instead it is an argument, hidden as a "definition". Once again, this contitutes dissembling. You mean (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) that certain things SHOULD be considered "natural possessions". This would be a reasonable position, however much others might disagree. When you say that certain things ARE natural possessions, by definition, you are using the word "natural" to give moral credence to a position which can be reasonably held only through argument, not through assertion and "definition". That's why I 've accused you of prevarication (in case you haven't figured it out).

So, Morton's ideas seem appealingly simple because he has taken opinion to be fact, and then needs only to lay out the implications of his "facts". Is it a fact, though, that property rights are natural rights, that it is morally correct that we own property and enforce our ownership upon others at the point of a gun? Are all current claims of property ownership legitimate? Was every step on the path to that claim an arms lengths transaction between people who all had the same chance to come out on top? Are we never our brother's keeper? Are the poor lazy rather than unfortunate, or (no false dichotomy) is the answer complicated?

Others' answers will seem a bit unsatisfying by comparison when they acknowledge that they don't get to claim their beliefs are certainties. But, you should not take points off for honesty.

[Belindi]

But who other than the state will look after needy people?

Whoever is concerned with with that matter and judges that at least some of those needy deserve help.

The churches can no longer do it, and private charity is unfair to donors and inadequate for recipients.

Whether it is inadequate to meet the needs of those deserving of help is an open question. Why is it unfair to donors?

We force would-be criminals to be civilised, and sometimes force is needed to make apathetic people to be civilised.

We don't force anyone to be civilized; we (justifiably) apply force to those who are not. If all people have equal moral status, i.e., none is a priori the slave of another, then force may be exerted by one moral agent against another only:

1. To prevent an agent from inflicting loss or injury on another, or
2. To defend against an attempt by one agent to inflict loss or injury upon another, or
3. To secure restitution from a person who has inflicted loss or injury upon another.

Democratic states represent the people. All civilised persons take care of others who need care: taking care of others who need care defines civilisation because uncaring persons are less civilised than many other species of animals that care for needy individuals in their communities.

[LuckyR]

Unemployment insurance doesn't require quotation marks since everyone knows it's insurance. Welfare is more similar to than different from unemployment insurance (everyone pays taxes over a long time and a few receive benefits when an unfortunate event occurs), and it is nothing like a charity (since everyone including those who receive benefits doesn't pay into a charity).

Unemployment "insurance" is not really insurance either; it is another charity. "Insurance" is a risk pool wherein each covered person pays a premium to cover losses from a certain type of risk. With unemployment "insurance," the premiums are paid, not by the persons covered, but by their employers (although in 3 US states employees also pay a small portion of the premium). Hence it is another forced charity.

As to the thread, whether a condition is a crime or not is a legal, not a moral issue.

The title of the thread is, "Is being homeless a crime / should it be?" The "should it be" part is a moral question.

Ha ha, you must be quite limber to try to contort your arguments to fit your proclamations. So insurance isn't insurance if employers pay the premiums? Nice try. You do understand that is the case for many folk's health insurance, right?

I noticed you didn't (couldn't?) try to define charity to try to fit your view of unemployment insurance.

As to whether this or that should be a crime or not being a legal question, let's just say that I disagree with your opinion.

[GE Morton]

Your formulation "Develop principles and devise rules governing interactions between moral agents ( a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions) in a social setting which allow all agents to maximize their welfare.".

Your position is basically let people capable of making moral choices do what they want, without thought for the welfare of others, barring actively harming them. It is Freedom.

You're ignoring the very wording of the axiom you just quoted, Gertie. " . . . which allow ALL AGENTS to maximize their welfare." Hence it clearly does encompass the welfare of others. I.e., it does not read, " . . .which allow me to maximize my welfare."

And the moraity involved in dealing with others is transactional. Doing anything which doesn't promote your own personal well-being isn't a moral obligation. Your moral obligations to promoting the wellbeing of people begins and ends at You.

The statement you quoted is an axiom; it declares the goal, the aim of the theory which follows: to develop principles and rules which allow all agents to maximize their welfare. It doesn't assert or entail any obligation to advance anyone's well-being, even one's own. The only "obligation" which can be derived from it is the obligation to develop rules which ALLOW people to maximize their well-being, and that is a logical, not a moral obligation --- it is entailed by the declared purpose of the theory.

You can't build moral obligations into the axioms of a moral theory, Gertie. That would be egregious question-begging. You have to DERIVE moral obligations and constraints from the axioms and postulates of the theory, which should be uncontroversial, if not self-evident.

It's your choice to be charitable if makes you feel good, or an immoral imposition if you have to chip in to help others. If a blind person is about to step into traffic, there is no moral reason to warn them, no moral reason to call an ambulance after. That would be imposing an immoral burden on your Freedom. You're just not allowed to push them.

It is only an immoral imposition if I am forced by another moral agent to "chip in and help others" --- the others he has decided are deserving of help, and by the means and to the extent he dictates. Since that is a flagrant violation of the Equal Agency postulate it is indeed an "immoral imposition."

The moral theory I've outlined does, however, generate a conditional Duty to Aid --- it does indeed obligate me to prevent the blind man from stepping into traffic, or (per Peter Singer's well-known example), save a child from drowning in a shallow pond, "even if it will muddy my shoes."

So moral oughts only apply to your own personal welfare, everyone else has to fend for themselves.

I'm utterly mystified how you can draw that conclusion from an axiom which is expressly universal, i.e., which embraces "all agents." No one "has to" fend for themselves, but the theory allows them to fend for themselves, and also to aid anyone else they wish. The theory does not entail egoism; it assumes that others have interests which have the same moral status as my own, and that they must be allowed to pursue them without interference from me. I may not conscript them into serving my interests.

But property however, is a different matter! Unlike other people, property is of moral value and must be protected by its own special rule. There is somehow a Right to Property which is 'natural' and 'objective', unlike every other Right everybody made up. Which is that great moral maxim - ''finders keepers, losers weepers''. What a magnificent moral vision.

Well, those (rather intemperate) statements reveal a number of confusions. First, property has no "moral value." Indeed, the term "moral value" is incoherent. Morality concerns the rules governing interactions between moral agents, not what agents value. The only value any property has is its instrumental value to some valuer, some moral agent. Property does have moral significance, however --- because it is useful, and sometimes necessary, for improving an agent's welfare; it contributes to his happiness and well-being, which is, after all, the goal of the theory. To take another's property is usually to reduce his welfare, which violates the axiom of the theory. But there is no "special rule" concerning it. What is this "special rule" of which you speak?

Nor is the right to (most) property natural. Like others in this discussion you're attaching nonsensical connotations to the term "natural rights." The term just denotes one's natural possessions, the things you brought with you into the world --- your life, your body, etc. That is the only property to which you have a "natural right." Rights you may have to any other property are "common rights."

Also, all real rights are objective, not only property rights. The other large class of (real) rights are liberty rights --- rights to act. You have a right to some item of property IFF your acquisition of it and use of it inflicts no loss or injury on anyone else, and a right to act in a certain way IFF that act inflicts no loss or injury on anyone else. Whether those constraints are satisfied in any given case is usually an objective matter.

You can't construct a moral theory upon moral dogmas you've learned in school or church, or upon moral intuitions absorbed from the surrounding culture. At least, not a rational and philosophically respectable moral theory. That is idle question-begging, circuitous arguments leading to pre-conceived conclusions. You have to begin from morally neutral premises and a morally relevant goal, and let logic take you where it will.

[GE Morton]

Ha ha, you must be quite limber to try to contort your arguments to fit your proclamations. So insurance isn't insurance if employers pay the premiums? Nice try. You do understand that is the case for many folk's health insurance, right?

Oh, I won't quibble with calling it insurance. But forcing Alfie to pay the premiums for Bruno's insurance is clearly forced charity.

As to whether this or that should be a crime or not being a legal question, let's just say that I disagree with your opinion.

Well, I think most people count "shoulds" with regard to possible laws to be moral prescriptions.

[Leontiskos]

Gertie,

OK fair enough, this is your personal moral foundation. So lets look at why it leads to such different rights and general outcomes to mine ''promote the welfare of conscious creatures'' and what looks like Chewy's de facto foundation of '' do the best we can for the most people possible''

As I said if you treat the foundation as the goal, you can be flexible and compromise on how you try to get there, and you're able to use it as a touchstone for how your rules and rights and other specific Oughts are meeting the goal.


Your formulation "Develop principles and devise rules governing interactions between moral agents ( a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions) in a social setting which allow all agents to maximize their welfare.".


Your position is basically let people capable of making moral choices do what they want, without thought for the welfare of others, barring actively harming them. It is Freedom.

And the moraity involved in dealing with others is transactional. Doing anything which doesn't promote your own personal well-being isn't a moral obligation. Your moral obligations to promoting the wellbeing of people begins and ends at You. It's the ideology of psychopathy. It's your choice to be charitable if makes you feel good, or an immoral imposition if you have to chip in to help others. If a blind person is about to step into traffic, there is no moral reason to warn them, no moral reason to call an ambulance after. That would be imposing an immoral burden on your Freedom. You're just not allowed to push them.

There are two important distinctions that need to be made: positive precepts vs. negative precepts, and law vs. morality. A positive precept is something that must be done (e.g. “Help blind persons cross streets”). A negative precept is something that cannot be done (e.g. “Do not steal”). One of the major differences between law and morality is that law is concerned with negative precepts whereas morality is concerned with both positive and negative precepts. This is because law binds under pain of penalty or punishment, and it is much easier to determine whether a negative precept has been violated than it is to determine whether a positive precept has been violated.

One of the wonderful things about law is that it is impartial. Once a law is enacted and promulgated it is fairly easy to interpret. If it weren’t it couldn’t apply to ordinary individuals (for they wouldn’t be able to understand it and abide by it). Sure, in some cases we need judges and lawyers, but for the most part laws are easy to apply and enforce. This is because laws are negative precepts.

Your shift to a more moral foundation, “promote the welfare of conscious creatures,” is apparently a shift to the inclusion of positive precepts in law. This is a recipe for disaster, for it makes positive precepts civilly obligatory under pain of penalty. This means that if someone hasn’t carried out the positive precepts to the government’s satisfaction they will be penalized or punished. Tyranny always arises in such governmental schemes because the impartiality and transparency of the law have been done away with. In that case citizens are no longer subject to impartial law, but are instead subject to a partial sovereign (whether that be a king, a legislature, or a judicial system).

Positive precepts introduce all sorts of ambiguities, and this is because they command people to positively do certain things, things which will no doubt conflict with other activities and obligations that citizens are committed to. Whether someone has failed to help a blind person across the street in New York city will therefore have little to do with the law and everything to do with the whims and opinions of those enforcing the law. If you think that a system of classical law (negative precepts) is inundated with court appeals, just imagine how that would be multiplied in a system which adds positive precepts to the mix. The absurdity of such ambiguities would destroy a democratic society and could only be upheld in a tyrannical autocracy.

Even if you only have in mind law-based taxation and indirect positive precepts, all of these issues are still lurking beneath the surface. As soon as you start enforcing a particular moral vision through positive coercion you have gone far beyond the classical approach of negative-precept law. You have also set a precedent for using coercion to change the world according to your liking. That is a dangerous proposition for someone who claims to not believe in objective morality.

The advantage of a foundation like ''The wellbeing of conscious creatures'' is it not only gives you a basis for considering what Rights are appropriate, it allows you to check that in practice any particular Right is meeting your overall foundational moral goal. If it isn't, then you can re-think, because the Right isn't an end in itself, your foundation is.

And this is the problem. Law respects the autonomy of persons by respecting their freedom, providing them with transparent negative precepts, and allowing them to live as they see fit within those wide boundaries. What you have in mind is two classes: the rulers and the ruled. The rulers will decide how the ruled should act, and the law becomes a tool to micromanage and manipulate the ruled’s positive behavior. If the rulers find that the ruled aren't spending their free time in a way that is to their satisfaction, they will just change the laws, because the laws don’t matter anyway, it’s the positive behavior that really matters. This is another form of slavery implemented by way of good intentions.

Firstly, it's not objective it's just something somebody made up, like any other right…

Yes, that's the difference between an Objective Is, and a Moral Ought.

I think many in this thread need to come to terms with the contradiction they are holding. They want to say that there is no objective morality while at the same time holding that there is objectivity in law (i.e. better and worse laws). You can’t have both. In these quotes you are making the dangerous move of claiming there is no objective morality and then inferring from that that rulers can impose whatever they want on the ruled. Any limits on the rulers—such as GE Morton’s rights—must be arbitrary and can therefore be safely ignored. You are theoretically justifying the denial of basic rights on the basis of something that you personally believe trumps them. This is bad stuff. This is the same way that genocide and atom bombs are justified, and since you assert that there is no objective morality, there can be no fundamental difference between your “good” goal and the eugenicist’s “bad” goal.

An emphasis on freedom is important because coercion is an ever-present danger. Those who denigrate a theory which emphasizes freedom are always attempting to implement widespread coercive measures, which always amounts to the subordination of one class of people to another. The classical theory of rights and freedom is not called Libertarianism. It’s called Western Civilization. The goal of improving the moral state of a society is not achieved through conversion by the sword. It is achieved by persuasion, not coercion. A better society can only come about by respecting the autonomy and integrity of human beings. If your ideal society is achieved by widespread coercive measures then you're running after a sham.

[LuckyR]

Ha ha, you must be quite limber to try to contort your arguments to fit your proclamations. So insurance isn't insurance if employers pay the premiums? Nice try. You do understand that is the case for many folk's health insurance, right?

Oh, I won't quibble with calling it insurance. But forcing Alfie to pay the premiums for Bruno's insurance is clearly forced charity.

As to whether this or that should be a crime or not being a legal question, let's just say that I disagree with your opinion.

Well, I think most people count "shoulds" with regard to possible laws to be moral prescriptions.

True, except that isn't the situation here. Everyone who gets a paycheck pays towards unemployment insurance (or to use your vernacular, Alfie pays for Alfie and Bruno pays for Bruno). Welfare is similar in that everyone pays into the tax pot from which welfare benefits come, even the unemployed.

[Gertie]

GE

You're ignoring the very wording of the axiom you just quoted, Gertie. " . . . which allow ALL AGENTS to maximize their welfare." Hence it clearly does encompass the welfare of others. I.e., it does not read, " . . .which allow me to maximize my welfare."

This is how I read it - Each person capable of making moral decisions (moral agents) is allowed to maximise their own welfare, right? I am allowed to maximise mine, you yours?

How about the wellbeing of children, peeps with learning disabilities, other species btw? They aren't ''moral agents'' as the term is usually used.

The moral theory I've outlined does, however, generate a conditional Duty to Aid --- it does indeed obligate me to prevent the blind man from stepping into traffic, or (per Peter Singer's well-known example), save a child from drowning in a shallow pond, "even if it will muddy my shoes."

OK, explain what the ought Duty to Aid is? And how is it generated, what is it conditional on?

Well, those (rather intemperate) statements reveal a number of confusions.

I'm not confused. Yes I do get ''intemperate'' about this, because I believe Libertarianism has real, harmful consequences, usually for the most vulnerable.

You have to begin from morally neutral premises and a morally relevant goal, and let logic take you where it will.

No I don't. I can make a case for a justified moral foundation, which as it happens is similar to yours - ''promote the wellbeing of conscious creatures''. Then identify rule of thumb oughts which will hopefully achieve the foundational goal. By having a consequentialist foundation, I can revise my approach to oughts in the light of their observed consequences in practice. I can compromise and balance competing goods in terms of the overall foundation. I don't have to pretend they are somehow objective, or that the foundation, or morality itself is somehow logical or objective - rather that it is justified.

This is the bind contemporary morality is in. In the absence of God, philosophy feels it has to find some other ''objective'', ''logical'' or ''reasoned'' route to justify the concept of oughts. As if morality is a fact ''out there'' to be discovered. But morality isn't like that.

Morality and oughts are all about what it means to be an experiencing subject with interests, a quality of life, well-being. That's what makes value, meaning, purpose, harm, flourishing, needs, desires, etc the appropriate qualiative language of morality. That's why it's at the heart of your own theory too. It's about mattering. It matters how we treat each other, because you have a quality of life, like me.

[GE Morton]

True, except that isn't the situation here. Everyone who gets a paycheck pays towards unemployment insurance (or to use your vernacular, Alfie pays for Alfie and Bruno pays for Bruno). Welfare is similar in that everyone pays into the tax pot from which welfare benefits come, even the unemployed.

That is not so, in 47 of the 50 US states. In those states employers, not the employees who are beneficiaries, pay for employees' unemployment insurance. The beneficiaries pay nothing. In the other 3 states the employees pay a portion of the cost of the premiums.

"UI is structured as a partnership between the federal government and states and territories. States and territories set the parameters of their unemployment programs within federal guidelines, including payroll tax rates and wage bases for covered workers. State unemployment insurance taxes are paid by employers and remitted to the federal UI trust fund, where each state has a separate account for covering normal unemployment insurance benefits.

"In addition, a 6 percent federal payroll tax, known as the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax, is levied on the first $7,000 of covered workers’ earnings. Employers remit the tax but can claim credits against 5.4 percentage points of FUTA taxes paid in states with unemployment programs that meet federal standards (currently all states) The effective FUTA tax rate thus shrinks to 0.6 percent, or a maximum of $42 per worker."

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin ... t-financed

[Leontiskos]

Others' answers will seem a bit unsatisfying by comparison when they acknowledge that they don't get to claim their beliefs are certainties. But, you should not take points off for honesty.

Not for honesty, but for consistency. Morton lays out his principles and then stands by them. Many of the inferences you draw from those principles are false, such as the notion that "all current claims of property ownership are legitimate." If we stuck to valid inferences I would not be wary of honesty, too.

The alternative was laid out by Gertie with honesty: aim for a non-objective goal that is imposed on the population, principles be damned. The great thing about classical rights approaches is that they are accountable to their principles. Gertie's approach is accountable to nothing, "because the Right isn't an end in itself, your foundation is." I'll take the principled approach any day of the week. Historically those who have ignored principles and rights in their sociological approach are precisely those who have killed millions of people in pursuit of what they believed to be a good idea.

These are opinions, and if I claimed they were facts I would be guilty of the same mistake that Morton is making and that you seem to be giving your stamp of approval.

Something like "free public transportation" can't be a fact unless you have guaranteed labor to establish it. This is one of the basic difficulties of your approach, as already noted.

But my approach is based more on coercion as a principle. If a democratic state can achieve a very strong majority in favor of socialistic policies then I don't have a problem with it at this fundamental level of coercion. At the same time, a private initiative would be preferred since the government is coercive by its very nature, as it is based on mandatory taxes. The reason people eager to change the world become socialists is simple: the government is the greatest source of power in the modern world. Whether you want to exterminate Jews or fight global warming, seizing the coercive government infrastructure is the most straightforward way to do it.

Classical liberalism conceives of government in a very different way than contemporary progressivism does. It seems that you and Gertie want to achieve certain goals, such as access to healthcare for all. The government is just a tool you find useful to achieve your goal. There is nothing intrinsically political about the goals themselves. Why not take a step back and ask yourself whether government is the right tool for the job; whether a coercive instrument is the right one?

There is a historical pattern that runs itself out ad infinitum. Someone comes up with a "good idea" that everyone else needs to be forced to follow, they seize the means of power, they enforce their idea, and bad things follow. It seems to me that you and Gertie are inheritors of this approach. Instead of coercively imposing Christianity, or Islam, or Marxism for "free," you now want to coercively impose health care, transportation, housing, or "education" for "free." Everyone claims that the coercion is justified because their idea is good, but in reality it's the same recycled problem.

If you admit that your conception is just an opinion, then why coercively enforce it? Does it even make sense to coercively enforce opinions? Why not argue for it and persuade others to sign on voluntarily? Why not look to a Co-op rather than a government?

[GE Morton]

I don't disagree that we need capitalism to provide the best incentive to get people to produce the most they can. I never said scrap capitalism. I say we should sprinkle in a few socialist principles and practices to undo some of the inherent unfairness and injustice of capitalism.

I assume you're using "unfair" and "unjust" here with the Newspeak meaning of "unequal," as proponents of leftist ideology routinely do. "Capitalism" (i.e., a free economy) is not, however, "unfair" or "unjust" per the dictionary definitions of those words:

"Justice (noun): 1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

"Fair (adjective): 1a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
b(1): conforming with the established rules : ALLOWED
(2): consonant with merit or importance : DUE

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair#h1

Neither definition mentions equality. Both, however, mention merit. Perhaps the most concise definition of "justice" is this, from Webster's 1828 dictionary:

"1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/justice

What each person is due, or merits, or deserves, is what he has earned, through application of his talents and efforts, or more generally, through his actions. E.g., the athlete who wins his event deserves the gold medal; the 3rd grader who aces her spelling test deserves a gold star; the worker who puts in his 40 hours deserves his paycheck. Material inequalities are only unjust or unfair if all claimants demonstrate equal merit.

But perhaps you're not using those terms to mean "unequal." If not, please explain in what respect free markets are "unfair" or "unjust" --- and please stick with the dictionary, not Newspeak, definitions.

So, Morton's ideas seem appealingly simple because he has taken opinion to be fact, and then needs only to lay out the implications of his "facts".

Please list which which statements of mine you see as "opinions."

Is it a fact, though, that property rights are natural rights . . .

No, that is not a fact. Nor have I ever claimed they were. Property rights, other than one's rights to one's natural possessions, are "common rights."

. . .that it is morally correct that we own property and enforce our ownership upon others at the point of a gun?

Whether it is morally correct depends upon the moral theory you hold and can rationally defend. But when pondering that question be sure to ask also whether it is morally correct to seize someone's property --- property he has acquired without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else --- at the point of a gun.

[Steve3007]

How about the wellbeing of children, peeps with learning disabilities, other species btw? They aren't ''moral agents'' as the term is usually used.

I believe they're often referred to as "moral subjects". A moral agent is afforded rights and held to obligations. A moral subject is just afforded rights.

[Pattern-chaser]

One of the wonderful things about law is that it is impartial.

Only in theory. In practice, in many countries, law favours the rich; it is not impartial.

[chewybrian]

Please list which which statements of mine you see as "opinions."

Fire protection, police services, national defense, and a few others are "public goods." Housing, health care, etc., are private goods.

Health care is a public good in many countries, and sometimes housing is as well.

Government provided or financed health care does NOT result in "better health care at a fraction of the cost." At least, not compared to health care provided via a true free market. The current outrageous costs of health care in the US are due entirely to mandates and constraints imposed upon that industry by government. And, no, laws which force taxpayers to pay the costs of others' health care cannot possibly benefit those taxpayers. That is an economic absurdity.

So, I could not possibly benefit by being protected from bankruptcy or preventable death by having the option of government health care? The only reason America spends twice what Great Britain spends on healthcare is because of mandates, not greedy providers or insurance companies?

It's all opinion; there is no objective morality. Rights are what we collectively decide they will be, and they are subject to change as opinion changes. You can't appeal to a dictionary or a book of statutes to say what is right or wrong. You are only pointing to someone else's opinion.

-----

Say a dozen of us from the forum crash onto a small island. There is only a thin beach against a huge volcano. I decide to try to swim around to the other side. Meanwhile, you have a broken leg. Some members help you out, some look after their children, and Lucky, who is 95 years old. After a few days, everyone wonders what happened to me. Pattern Chaser decides to swim around and see if I am OK. He finds that I have discovered many acres of flat, fertile land, full of fruit trees. I have claimed it as my own, since I discovered it. Since PC is a former linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys, I can see that he will be able to do a lot of tough work for me, and defend me if the others want to take "my" land. I offer him an arms length transaction: help me build my farm and protect it and and you can have a place to sleep and all you want to eat. He accepts.

A few days later, Ecurb climbs over the volcano, since he can't swim. He wants to share in our luxury, and since he is a former pro wrestler, we offer to house and feed him if he will guard our homestead. He agrees.

Steve eventually builds a boat and rows around the volcano to see if we are alive on the other side. He tries to gather some dates and coconuts for the others, but Ecurb threatens him. I explain that we have all the crew we need to run our farm, but we can trade goods or services if the folks on the other side have anything to trade. Steve uses his boat to catch fish to trade. A few of the older children come to plow the fields and we trade some figs and such for their time. Belindi cleans our huts for coconuts. Your leg never healed right, so you are reduced to making necklaces of sea shells and getting some charitable gifts from the others who are able to do more productive work.

Now, wasn't I the first possessor of the fertile lands? Wasn't every transaction 'fair' within your rules of the game? Didn't everyone give their time or goods freely for something they wanted or needed?

But, was this a fair and just society that we built? Is the "finders keepers" rule a moral certainty? Is it right for me to withhold food from the others with my little army unless they give me something I want? Shouldn't we take care of you, since some other accident might happen to any of us, and we would want help if we needed it?

[Ecurb]

I assume you're using "unfair" and "unjust" here with the Newspeak meaning of "unequal," as proponents of leftist ideology routinely do. "Capitalism" (i.e., a free economy) is not, however, "unfair" or "unjust" per the dictionary definitions of those words:

"Justice (noun): 1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

What constitutes "merited"? Isn't it reasonable to claim that by virtue of being a human being in a rich society a person merits food, housing and health care? You may disagree -- but surely some people might think that all people merit (i.e. deserve) food, housing and health care.

To those people an "unjust" society might be one in which food, housing and health care are not guaranteed. This has nothing to do with "equality". Poor people would still be poorer than rich people. But at least they would receive that level of care their humanity deserves.