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

[GE Morton]

The story of man's past may be viewed as a necessary process of development from tribal to universal ethics. For instance the Fertile Crescent (and settled farming generally) was not only physical geography it was also an economic unit in the sense that it led to surplus production of goods by men . Surplus production leads to trade which would be impossible but for the basic ethic that underwrites mutual trust.

Oh, I agree that civilized societies require certain rules of interaction, widely if not universally understood and followed, in order to function. I also agree that while those rules vary somewhat from society to society, there is a considerable amount of overlap among them. But their origins are pragmatic, not "spiritual," and though I don't know what this "Axial Age ethic" prescribes, I doubt it correlates well with pragmatic, rationally defensible and empirically testable rules.

[Belindi]

The story of man's past may be viewed as a necessary process of development from tribal to universal ethics. For instance the Fertile Crescent (and settled farming generally) was not only physical geography it was also an economic unit in the sense that it led to surplus production of goods by men . Surplus production leads to trade which would be impossible but for the basic ethic that underwrites mutual trust.

Oh, I agree that civilized societies require certain rules of interaction, widely if not universally understood and followed, in order to function. I also agree that while those rules vary somewhat from society to society, there is a considerable amount of overlap among them. But their origins are pragmatic, not "spiritual," and though I don't know what this "Axial Age ethic" prescribes, I doubt it correlates well with pragmatic, rationally defensible and empirically testable rules.

An emotive myth is connoted with the ethic. Mandela is already a myth, i.e. an iconic figure who stands for equality and freedom among all men.

The Axial Age is statistically true as to datelines for significant ethical change. The AA correlation with economic change such as settled farming is hypothetical. I fancy that e.g. the OT Prophets' dates correlated with the founding of the stone and mortar Temple instead of the portable Arc of the Covenant. But that is my own uninformed hypothesis. Maybe I will Google it.

Wikipedia has it there is a correlation between Axial Age thinking and the rise of markets and coinage.

David Christian notes that the first "universal religions" appeared in the age of the first universal empires and of the first all-encompassing trading networks.[26]

Anthropologist David Graeber has pointed out that "the core period of Jasper's Axial age ... corresponds almost exactly to the period in which coinage was invented. What's more, the three parts of the world where coins were first invented were also the very parts of the world where those sages lived; in fact, they became the epicenters of Axial Age religious and philosophical creativity."[27] Drawing on the work of classicist Richard Seaford and literary theorist Marc Shell on the relation between coinage and early Greek thought, Graeber argues that an understanding of the rise of markets is necessary to grasp the context in which the religious and philosophical insights of the Axial age arose. The ultimate effect of the introduction of coinage was, he argues, an "ideal division of spheres of human activity that endures to this day: on the one hand the market, on the other, religion".[28]

[Gertie]

Looking back I don't see how my arguments can move you as long as you're welded to the package of postulates you've arrived at, and I don't agree that they have to follow from the foundation which we do agree on. And while individual idiosyncrasies should be allowed for, there are morally significant differences between some needs/desires than others, even if they aren't objectively quantifiable. And imo it's better to imperfectly wrestle with the messiness, than create tidy theoretical lines.

Only the Equal Agency postulate follows from the the foundation ("Fundamental Principle"), because the latter aims to advance the welfare of all agents. The others are free-standing and independently verifiable, logically or empirically. Which one(s) would you reject or question? Here are the ones I mentioned:

* Equal Agency postulate: All agents in the moral field have equal moral standing, which means that all are equally subject to whatever duties and constraints the theory generates, and the well-being of each has equal weight. There are no preferred classes or agents.

* Neutrality Postulate (corrollary of Equal Agency Postulate): The theory is neutral with respect to agent interests, and the interests of all agents have equal weight (since the well-being of an agent consists in satisfaction of his interests).

* Relativity postulate: What counts as a "good" or an "evil," and the values (positive or negative) thereof, are subjective and relative to agents.

* Postulate of Individuality: What are counted as "goods" and "evils" differs from agent to agent.

Again, which would you challenge or question? Note that if you accept the Equal Agency, Relativity, and Individuality postulates, you're logically forced to accept the Neutrality postulate (which is why it's a corrollary).

So if we take homelessness, nearly everybody would feel that having a home is more important to their welfare and ability to flourish, than being able to have their favourite flavour of ice cream, as an obvious comparison.

That is probably true for most people, but is it necessarily true for everyone? Anyone who has actually worked with the homeless would tell you that some of them live on the streets by choice, refuse shelter accomodations, and if offered a choice between an apartment and an ice cream cone --- or a dose of their drug of choice --- would take the drug, and even the ice cream.

But how important a given good is to a given agent doesn't help us with the moral question, which is, May Alfie be forced to sacrifice something he deems a good, and is thus a contributor to his welfare, in order to provide Bruno with something Bruno deems a good? Given that there is no objective measure of value per which goods defined by different people can be compared, how is that forcing to be justified?

Nobody feels a moral obligation to ensure everybody is able to have their fave ice cream based on welfare and flourishing, and nearly everybody feels there is a moral obligation to to sacrifice their shoes to save a drowning child.

That is probably true too. But remember the issue is not how people feel, or even whether there is some (rationally defensible) moral obligation to save the drowning child (as I think there is), but whether one agent may force another agent to do so.

Being homeless will likely affect your physical and mental health, your ability to find and maintain a decent income, may lead to crime, addiction, sex work, and being preyed upon by criminals. Having your kids taken into care, and/or your kids' life chances being harmed. This seems like an obvious case for moral obligation to me.

And if we're serious about it, leaving it to ad hoc acts of charity/generosity is insufficient, we know that.

Why do you suppose it is insufficient? Can we assume that it is because, for many people, the well-being of their own kids outweighs, in their own value hierarchies, the welfare of strangers? That it may be more important to them to continue their kid's piano lessons than to donate that amount to a charity which will provide a meal and a cot for a homeless addict? And possibly also because they do not consider many of the homeless to be innocent victims, but victims of their own poor choices and bad habits? If that is the case, does it not have a bearing on one's moral obligations to them?

So the only objection I see to using taxes, is some in principle objection to ever being forcibly obliged to sacrifice to help another. But if our foundation is welfare based, my sacrifice of a bit more in taxes has a minimal effect on my welfare, and a radical effect on homeless people.

Not everyone forced to pay that tax would consider its impact "minimal." The trouble with imposing taxes to "solve" these problems is that they are indiscriminate, taking no account either of the highly variable and individualized burdens they impose on different taxpayers, or on the personal circumstances and culpabilities of the designated beneficiaries. And, of course, because they force the decisions of a few upon the many, thereby denying the latter the prerogative of making those evaluations and reaching those judgments for themselves, egregiously violate the Equal Agency postulate.

GE can you remind me what your definition of ''an agent within the moral field'' is in your theory?

[chewybrian]

Homelessness is on the verge of being outlawed here in Florida. The Florida house is nearly certain to pass a bill making it illegal to sleep in any public place. As I stated a while back to begin this discussion, this stance seems unethical unless or until you provide reasonable accommodation for them. It's fair enough to say that public sleeping is only allowed in designated places, but unfair to say that it is always illegal everywhere.

Laws like this effectively criminalize homelessness. Fining or jailing the homeless doesn't solve their problem or make society better off. This law will compound rather than solving the problem of homelessness. These tactics may result in the loss of employment for the homeless or increased difficulty in finding a job if they have a criminal record (for sleeping!).

What these folks need is a safe place to sleep along with treatment for substance abuse or mental health problems and educational and job training opportunities. The answer instead from the Florida legislature amounts to "Let them eat cake".

[Lagayascienza]

It's hard to imagine a more pointless and cruel law. Do they imagine people sleep rough because they want to? This sort of legislation is rabid right wing lunacy. The homeless don't have money to pay fines. If they did, they'd rent a room. And putting them in jail will cause them more harm and cost society much more than it would to leave them on the streets. Throwing them in jail might get them out of sight but it will be expensive and won't solve the problem. It's crazy.

[LuckyR]

It has recently come to my attention that the cause of homelessness isn't poverty, rather elevated housing prices. Thus the solution isn't distributing tents nor funding shelter beds. It's loosening building regulations and streamlining permitting.

[Sy Borg]

It has recently come to my attention that the cause of homelessness isn't poverty, rather elevated housing prices. Thus the solution isn't distributing tents nor funding shelter beds. It's loosening building regulations and streamlining permitting.

And slowing immigration until stocks are up. You can loosen regulations all you like but, with high levels of immigration, homelessness can only increase.

Also, beware of loosening regulations too much. Previously people have been allowed to build on known flood plains and bushfire hotspots. Also, we don't want to end up with tofu-dreg construction, at risk of falling at any time (as seen in newer high-rise residential buildings failing in Sydney).

And of course homelessness is not a crime, it's a personal catastrophe.

[Belindi]

It may be pragmatically worth using the public purse to pay for safe and pleasant public housing . Safe and pleasant housing is one of the basic needs for children to be educated as good citizens. In this regard, house ownership is an added incentive to maintain a property in good condition, so it may ne a good idea to give financial help when needed to get a mortgage, repayable by earnings or unpaid work when it becomes possible.

[Samana Johann]

There are homeless who have abond desires for sensuality and use the homeless state to go beyond any kind of home/house (identification with/relay on objects of the six senses) in this world. Of course they are beyond citizens of any common kind.

[Samana Johann]

A detail teaching on the fruits of the holy homeless life could be read here, explained toward a King.

[chewybrian]

It has recently come to my attention that the cause of homelessness isn't poverty, rather elevated housing prices. Thus the solution isn't distributing tents nor funding shelter beds. It's loosening building regulations and streamlining permitting.

I think this goes back to racism, which still haunts us in many ways. Here is a famous quote from Lee Atwater, a key member of the Reagan white house:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”

They convinced overt and closet racists that theirs was the party of the white man, so that they could get elected to pursue the interests of the rich man. The line they could not cross has moved over time. Now, they can't have open segregation or redlining, but they can have zoning laws that tend to achieve the same ends. Requiring that houses be over a certain square footage is wasteful and not really in the best interest of society. However, it keeps out the poor and thus often keeps out the blacks.

Housing is really only built these days in the interests of the wealthy. We build Mcmansions and mid to high end apartments, which are dwellings or rentals for the wealthy. However, it is very rare that we build new "starter" homes for the working poor to break out of the rent cycle. Some people fall through the cracks and end up in public housing or on the streets. We have the menas to build affordable housing, but not the will, since this would go against the interests of the wealthy who are pulling the strings.

[Pattern-chaser]

Previously people have been allowed to build on known flood plains...

Some years ago, our UK government permitted building on flood plains. Now — surprise! (not) — the owners of those houses can't get insurance, because the risk of flooding is very high. What did we expect, when we allowed building on flood plains?

As you say, this is government idiocy at its 'finest'.

[LuckyR]

It has recently come to my attention that the cause of homelessness isn't poverty, rather elevated housing prices. Thus the solution isn't distributing tents nor funding shelter beds. It's loosening building regulations and streamlining permitting.

And slowing immigration until stocks are up. You can loosen regulations all you like but, with high levels of immigration, homelessness can only increase.

Also, beware of loosening regulations too much. Previously people have been allowed to build on known flood plains and bushfire hotspots. Also, we don't want to end up with tofu-dreg construction, at risk of falling at any time (as seen in newer high-rise residential buildings failing in Sydney).

And of course homelessness is not a crime, it's a personal catastrophe.

Alas homelessness is quite variable city to city (due to the aforementioned variability of housing costs) yet immigration policies are national.

Where I live, building permitting is well known for being extremely costly, slow and labyrinthian. Just reducing those to "normal" levels would be greeted by developers and builders as a miracle.

[LuckyR]

It has recently come to my attention that the cause of homelessness isn't poverty, rather elevated housing prices. Thus the solution isn't distributing tents nor funding shelter beds. It's loosening building regulations and streamlining permitting.

I think this goes back to racism, which still haunts us in many ways. Here is a famous quote from Lee Atwater, a key member of the Reagan white house:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”

They convinced overt and closet racists that theirs was the party of the white man, so that they could get elected to pursue the interests of the rich man. The line they could not cross has moved over time. Now, they can't have open segregation or redlining, but they can have zoning laws that tend to achieve the same ends. Requiring that houses be over a certain square footage is wasteful and not really in the best interest of society. However, it keeps out the poor and thus often keeps out the blacks.

Housing is really only built these days in the interests of the wealthy. We build Mcmansions and mid to high end apartments, which are dwellings or rentals for the wealthy. However, it is very rare that we build new "starter" homes for the working poor to break out of the rent cycle. Some people fall through the cracks and end up in public housing or on the streets. We have the menas to build affordable housing, but not the will, since this would go against the interests of the wealthy who are pulling the strings.

In cities with not enough housing, it is not required to build only at the lowest end to relieve housing costs. The reason is that every large urban area already contains housing units all along the housing continuum. The problem is that what most would describe as "low end" housing commands medium rent (due to the shortage) thus the lost cost renters are forced out of the market, by those who can afford medium rent occupying what should be low end housing. Building at the medium or even the high end, increases the total inventory such that medium cost renters can be housed in the medium range, freeing up low end units for those at the low end.

[chewybrian]

In cities with not enough housing, it is not required to build only at the lowest end to relieve housing costs. The reason is that every large urban area already contains housing units all along the housing continuum. The problem is that what most would describe as "low end" housing commands medium rent (due to the shortage) thus the lost cost renters are forced out of the market, by those who can afford medium rent occupying what should be low end housing. Building at the medium or even the high end, increases the total inventory such that medium cost renters can be housed in the medium range, freeing up low end units for those at the low end.

Although I am focused on houses for purchase, your point is valid in terms of rentals. I want to see practical homes available and affordable for purchase by the working poor. If they only get hand me down homes to buy, they have to try to work with 3,000 square foot homes in the suburbs, away from public transportation, unaffordable for them to heat and maintain. The free market does many good things for us, but it clearly can't or won't build the homes these people need. We need some relaxed zoning laws and perhaps some loan guarantees or tax breaks from the government to make the prospect appealing to the builders and bankers.