The White Ghetto

[Kshartle]

K,

Why should charities, friends and family help take care of people if it breeds dependence and actually expands poverty?  I get it that they are free to do as they choose, and this is what makes this morally acceptable in the first place (rather than theft from producers), but if free people are deciding where they should allocate their resources, shouldn't they just let those people fend for themselves?

Would you give money or help to a friend or family member, or a person in your community that came down with an unexpected tragedy or illness and was unable to help themselves? What about a widow with children? Would you support a charity that did this?

Would you give money or help to a friend or family member, or a person in your community that was just lazy and refused to help themselves? Would you support a charity that did this?

I suspect your answer, like mine, is yes to the former and no to the latter. I suspect it is the same with virtually everyone else.

A bonus of stopping handouts to the lazy and undeserving means there is so much more for those who are truly in need.



Regarding the morality of "helping" family members with handouts and crippling their work ethic....I've seen this firsthand. My Mother and Grandmother have done this to my sister. It is pure selfishness on thier part, but I haven't been able to get them to stop.

I have no problem with selfishness. In general I think your property is fully yours to dispose of. We've discussed the puppy masacre and the burning of good crops and other wasteful immoral dispositions of property not consistent with being a steward and instead destroying value. I don't want to turn this into a property rights discussion.

When someone supports a deadbeat relative, to me it's no different than supplying heroin to an addict. It's selfish on the part of the enabler....which in principle I am not against one bit. The problem is it's destructive to the other party. So it's selfishness that harms rather than helps. I am not advocating this....and have no control over whether or not people are going to engage in this behavior. However it's much more difficult to rely on a family member to enable your sloth and whatnot than it is to fill out some forms, possibly online, and lie to doctors.

[Kshartle]

I get it that there is something better about family caring for you, but as someone from a charity who might provide care, I don't see why I should or would help someone if the help is fundamentally unhealthy for them.

You shouldn't.

Who is in a better position to judge what is unhealthy help....you, a charitable organization, or the government workers who execute the law?

[moda0306]

K,

But you're saying that these programs, as a function of the fact that they foster dependency and entitlement, induce poverty.

A lot of charitable acts "foster dependency and entitlement" no different than government programs.

Further, why should anyone do ANYTHING for anyone else if they're not fundamentally deserving of it?  If they don't have it as a result of for-profit private activity, then they are by-definition not deserving of it... why should charities even exist... why should we "expect" them to replace government if their mere existence is to provide goods/services to people who did not earn it?

Either people deserve help, or a social baseline, and we shouldn't scoff at having that woven into government guarantees any more than the deed to our land, or they DON'T deserve help, and whether a charity or religious group will step in should be irrelevant.

[Kshartle]

Either people deserve help, or a social baseline, and we shouldn't scoff at having that woven into government guarantees any more than the deed to our land, or they DON'T deserve help, and whether a charity or religious group will step in should be irrelevant.

So this is a false argument.

It's know as: Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
Assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

There are in fact people who deserve to be helped, and to whom help is good and moral. They do not need to be helped by the government robbing people and having everyone go vote to see who gets the loot.

How do we know they deserve to be helped? People look at their situation and decide voluntarily to help them. Helping them improves the lives of others and it's in their self-interest. No one is forced to do what they don't want to do.

Can you see how your argument is false (the either or)?

[Mountaineer]

Further, why should anyone do ANYTHING for anyone else if they're not fundamentally deserving of it?

Because it is not up to us to play God.  Please consider the concept of unconditional love.  A baby is a good example of why unconditional love is important.  A new baby is needy and gives nothing back except tears, noise, vomitus, pee and poop.  If the parents did not have unconditional love, they would either kill the child or eat it for its protein and fat value.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Further, why should anyone do ANYTHING for anyone else if they're not fundamentally deserving of it?  If they don't have it as a result of for-profit private activity, then they are by-definition not deserving of it... why should charities even exist... why should we "expect" them to replace government if their mere existence is to provide goods/services to people who did not earn it?

If the government stopped stealing from producers they would be richer. If it stopped giving handouts...those who can work would have to....we would all be richer.

The amount of charity available would increase and would be concentrated on the deserving.

If you beleive otherwise then please don't claim democracy is the will of the people. Please don't use that false argument again to justify the theft and murders and kidnappings. If democracy is the will of the people then clearly so is charity because we have this huge welfare state. If democracy is the will of the people then caring for the poor and the elderly is the will of the people and we don't need the state to do it. The state sucks at it.

[moda0306]

Either people deserve help, or a social baseline, and we shouldn't scoff at having that woven into government guarantees any more than the deed to our land, or they DON'T deserve help, and whether a charity or religious group will step in should be irrelevant.

So this is a false argument.

It's know as: Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
Assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

There are in fact people who deserve to be helped, and to whom help is good and moral. They do not need to be helped by the government robbing people and having everyone go vote to see who gets the loot.

How do we know they deserve to be helped? People look at their situation and decide voluntarily to help them. Helping them improves the lives of others and it's in their self-interest. No one is forced to do what they don't want to do.

Can you see how your argument is false (the either or)?

Well my dichotomy depends on a definition of "deserve."  To "deserve" something implies (in my mind) a duty by someone else.  Otherwise they don't "deserve" it.

It also presupposes in a world that you don't agree with, where government does have certain legitimate enforcement/infrastructure roles.

Now if you want to define "deserve" differently in such a way that implies no duty upon someone else, that's fine.  But then, once again, we need to move to the next question... if there is no duty to care by anyone in society, why burden ourselves with coming up with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist by discussing charities and religious organizations...

And I guess it begs the question that if to "deserve" something doesn't imply a duty on someone else, what the heck does it mean?


So I guess my questions are:

1) Does one person "deserving" something imply a duty of another?

2) If not, what does to "deserve" something really even mean, as it seems to imply some moral weight?

3) Also, if not, why burden ourselves with a solution if we have no "duty" to do so? Why should anyone ever think about anything outside of what it is their duty to do, especially if there's a good chance it's going to breed poverty through dependence and feelings of entitlement?

This will help in forming better logical chains.

[moda0306]

Further, why should anyone do ANYTHING for anyone else if they're not fundamentally deserving of it?

Because it is not up to us to play God.  Please consider the concept of unconditional love.  A baby is a good example of why unconditional love is important.  A new baby is needy and gives nothing back except tears, noise, vomitus, pee and poop.  If the parents did not have unconditional love, they would either kill the child or eat it for its protein and fat value.

... Mountaineer

What is "playing God," really?  Do doctors "play God" when they try to keep a dying person alive?  How about when they try to help someone commit suicide?

Does a baby "deserve" to be cared for?  Does this imply a "duty" on behalf of anyone if the baby's parents are both dead?  If not (sorry to be redundant with questions), what does "deserve" really mean?

It seems to me that to say someone "deserves" something is kind of a bs statement unless it implies a duty of someone else to either do something, or not do something.

If I "deserve" to use my property how I see fit, I see there is a "duty" for you to not infringe on that right.

If I "deserve" the $1,000 in your pocket given the terms of an agreement, I see a "duty" on your behalf to pay me.

If I am a nice guy but disabled, or a baby, and I "deserve" a helping hand, where is the duty on behalf of someone else?

[Kshartle]

1) Does one person "deserving" something imply a duty of another?

2) If not, what does to "deserve" something really even mean, as it seems to imply some moral weight?

3) Also, if not, why burden ourselves with a solution if we have no "duty" to do so? Why should anyone ever think about anything outside of what it is their duty to do, especially if there's a good chance it's going to breed poverty through dependence and feelings of entitlement?

1. No

2. To say they "deserve it" is a poor usage of the word. It's better to say they would get charity voluntarily from people who value them and are giving to help, rather than enable. A widow who was a housewife and has several children would get help from others. That is the confirmation of her being deserving. That is the yardstick by which we can measure who is deserving. No one has a right to impose a duty on others. If no one likes you because you are horrible or everyone can see you are just lazy you won't get help. You will be "undeserving".

Of course some will use guilt and enablers will be too selfish to cut off the leeches as in the case with my family.

3. Is this a rehtorical question? Have you ever volunteered or contributed to charity? Have you ever cared about or other people who have had some bad luck? Did you ever want to help them?

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

So only if someone is cared for do they deserve the care in the first place.

That seems quite convenient.

Does that mean if someone isn't getting proper care that, by definition, they DON'T deserve it?


The third question wasn't rhetorical.  I have volunteered, but I'm simply trying to gauge the logic of those who think the government's attempt to help people is actually toxic, much less not helpful.  If I have no duty to help someone, and any help could very easily breed dependency and poverty, then I don't see why we should encourage anyone to do something that is OUTSIDE their duty to do, or suggest that institutions dedicated to those support systems are a positive for society in the long-term.

[Mountaineer]

Further, why should anyone do ANYTHING for anyone else if they're not fundamentally deserving of it?

Because it is not up to us to play God.  Please consider the concept of unconditional love.  A baby is a good example of why unconditional love is important.  A new baby is needy and gives nothing back except tears, noise, vomitus, pee and poop.  If the parents did not have unconditional love, they would either kill the child or eat it for its protein and fat value.

... Mountaineer

What is "playing God," really?  Do doctors "play God" when they try to keep a dying person alive?  How about when they try to help someone commit suicide?

Does a baby "deserve" to be cared for?  Does this imply a "duty" on behalf of anyone if the baby's parents are both dead?  If not (sorry to be redundant with questions), what does "deserve" really mean?

It seems to me that to say someone "deserves" something is kind of a bs statement unless it implies a duty of someone else to either do something, or not do something.

If I "deserve" to use my property how I see fit, I see there is a "duty" for you to not infringe on that right.

If I "deserve" the $1,000 in your pocket given the terms of an agreement, I see a "duty" on your behalf to pay me.

If I am a nice guy but disabled, or a baby, and I "deserve" a helping hand, where is the duty on behalf of someone else?

Being a Christian makes it easy to respond to questions like these as there is an absolute that one can go to for resolving many "what if" type situations.  For example, from God's perspective, the only thing we are truly deserving of is death; thanks be to God for Jesus, our Savior, who has rescued us.  God has declared us righteous on Christ's account. 

For moral questions about deserving and duty - this passage, for Christians, makes it clear that we should focus outward on helping others in need, not be curved inward on our self to see what we can get out of a situation:

Matthew 25:31-46
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Final Judgment

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

So only if someone is cared for do they deserve the care in the first place.

That seems quite convenient. It is

Does that mean if someone isn't getting proper care that, by definition, they DON'T deserve it? What is proper charity if it's not being given voluntarily? Care can be purchased. Charity that is forced is not charity and no one "deserves" the property of someone else just like they don't deserve to have anyone else as their slave.


The third question wasn't rhetorical.  I have volunteered, but I'm simply trying to gauge the logic of those who think the government's attempt to help people is actually toxic, much less not helpful.  If I have no duty to help someone, and any help could very easily breed dependency and poverty, then I don't see why we should encourage anyone to do something that is OUTSIDE their duty to do, or suggest that institutions dedicated to those support systems are a positive for society in the long-term. This is just more of the Excluded middle fallacy. Either we should have the government steal and redistribute to whom the law decides is needy or we shouldn't have charity. I'm sure everyone else understands why this doesn't make sense so I have to bow out. If anyone else see's where I'm coming up short in the explanation department please let me know.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

I'm not excluding the middle... I'M not saying we "shouldn't have charity."  I'm saying, by a logical conclusion of your premise that 1) we have no "duty" to those in need, and 2) There is a high likelihood that we will actually do damage rather than help them, then 3) Why encourage charities as a solution, rather than question the problem to begin with...

Maybe lack of help for those in need isn't even a problem.  Maybe it is just what it is.  Babies will die, disabled will starve, elderly will get sick... $HIT happens!

I mean you said it yourself:

no one "deserves" the property of someone else

If it would take my willing labor or a doctor's tools to help someone in need, then they don't DESERVE to be helped, given this assertion.

If people don't deserve someone else's property, and to help them would require someone's property, then you are contradicting yourself by saying they deserve it.

Maybe they don't deserve it.  Maybe a baby with dead parents doesn't deserve any help if it requires someone else's property to provide that help, which it would almost certainly require.

[Kshartle]

I can't continue this.

You're deliberatly drawing false conclusions.

Everyone should be free to help whoever they like.

No one should be forced to.

When people are forced to there are moral hazards which create dependancy, entitlement, laziness, etc.

All that nonsense about letting babies starve is just nonsense. More human shields to support the jackboot of the state and the desire to have everyone controlled.

Not supporting welfare has nothing to do with support for private charity or it's virtues.

[Mountaineer]

Kshartle,

I'm not excluding the middle... I'M not saying we "shouldn't have charity."  I'm saying, by a logical conclusion of your premise that 1) we have no "duty" to those in need, and 2) There is a high likelihood that we will actually do damage rather than help them, then 3) Why encourage charities as a solution, rather than question the problem to begin with...

Maybe lack of help for those in need isn't even a problem.  Maybe it is just what it is.  Babies will die, disabled will starve, elderly will get sick... $HIT happens!

I mean you said it yourself:

no one "deserves" the property of someone else

If it would take my willing labor or a doctor's tools to help someone in need, then they don't DESERVE to be helped, given this assertion.

If people don't deserve someone else's property, and to help them would require someone's property, then you are contradicting yourself by saying they deserve it.

Maybe they don't deserve it.  Maybe a baby with dead parents doesn't deserve any help if it requires someone else's property to provide that help, which it would almost certainly require.

I may be totally off base here re. someone needing/requiring help, but it seems you are confusing voluntary help with forced help for your argument. 

What did I miss?

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

he seems to be viewing help as an absolute to make his argument and discounting the difference between good help (the kind that actually helps) and bad help the kind that doesn't help or causes unintended harm (and often steals from others to do so)

[Kshartle]

I may be totally off base here re. someone needing/requiring help, but it seems you are confusing voluntary help with forced help for your argument. 

What did I miss?

... Mountaineer

You missed nothing. This is always the confusion. Escaping the paradigm of forced action has not happened for some. They don't think a voluntary society could exist because they can't think of a way to "enforce" it. Ponder that one

[Kshartle]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

He is assuming what is true when the government engages in it is true for non-government persons also.

With that assumption in mind, if welfare is bad then so is private charity.

It's the exluded middle fallacy.

[moda0306]

I can't continue this.

You're deliberatly drawing false conclusions.

Everyone should be free to help whoever they like.

No one should be forced to.

When people are forced to there are moral hazards which create dependancy, entitlement, laziness, etc.

All that nonsense about letting babies starve is just nonsense. More human shields to support the jackboot of the state and the desire to have everyone controlled.

Not supporting welfare has nothing to do with support for private charity or it's virtues.

If you can't answer the question, or the answer is something that doesn't sound nice, that is ok, Kshartle... no need to go on a tirade about how I'm a statist.  This isn't about government... this is about whether people are "deserving" or whether it's healthy for me to help anyone at all.  Forget for a second that government exists at all or that anyone is advocating it.

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I'm not talking about government.  I'm talking about personal moral philosophy.  If you would stop with your straw men and ad hominem attacks against me and my positions , and concentrate on the moral logic around what we "deserve," then you'll find yourself thinking more clearly and able to discuss this topic, rather than whether government should be involved with taking care of people.

[Kshartle]

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I said that deserve was not the correct word. If by "deserve" you mean "implies a duty on behalf of others", then no, they do not.

If people voluntarily give to someone that they value......then that person has done something to demonstrate that they are "worthy" of charity.

Does that make it more clear? Does worthy carry enough distinction from deserve that we can establish that no one "deserves" the property of others but might in fact be "worthy" of charity? That "worthiness" is on display when charity is voluntary (which it has to be to still qualify as charity).

[moda0306]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

[Kshartle]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

Before agreeing on premises it's best to agree on definitions, specifically the definition of "deserve".

To you it implies an obligation on the part of another. That's fine....but this obligation must arise from a voluntary agreement. Example - If I sell something on Ebay, the customer "deserves" to have the goods shipped to them by me.

Just being poor doesn't make you deserving.

[moda0306]

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I said that deserve was not the correct word. If by "deserve" you mean "implies a duty on behalf of others", then no, they do not.

If people voluntarily give to someone that they value......then that person has done something to demonstrate that they are "worthy" of charity.

Does that make it more clear? Does worthy carry enough distinction from deserve that we can establish that no one "deserves" the property of others but might in fact be "worthy" of charity? That "worthiness" is on display when charity is voluntary (which it has to be to still qualify as charity).

You said that "deserve" didn't imply a duty of another. I thought we were proceeding on that definition until you mentioned the property thing.

But the definition to the word "worthy" includes "deserve":

deserving effort, attention, or respect.

So if one disabled person is nice, but has lost anyone who cares about him, and nobody in town cares, he isn't "deserving" of help?

While another disabled person is an @sshole, but has a daughter who feels the obligation to help him, he is "deserving" of that help?

Or replace "deserving" with "worthy" if you wish, though it is essentially the same...


This is ok if it is your opinion, but I think some moral philosophers would take issue with your method for determining worthiness.  In this world, a baby with bad parents who don't care for him properly wasn't "worthy" of their care, but a spoiled kid on the other side of town is "worthy" of all the stuff he gets that he didn't need.

Of course, I can't prove my moral position here.  I'm just quite sure yours has some screws loose .

[moda0306]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

Before agreeing on premises it's best to agree on definitions, specifically the definition of "deserve".

To you it implies an obligation on the part of another. That's fine....but this obligation must arise from a voluntary agreement. Example - If I sell something on Ebay, the customer "deserves" to have the goods shipped to them by me.

Just being poor doesn't make you deserving.

I totally agree we need to establish definitions!!!  I've spent pages with you in other debates trying to do so.

I don't 100% believe that "deserve" MUST imply duty... but it's something I guess I was inclined to believe. I actually think there is some scholarly debate on this based on a couple sites I've hit on while searching.

This is pretty important though.  The way you define "deserving" seems to make it much more a function of the individual providing the charitable service than the one receiving it.  Usually we ask ourselves "is he deserving of some help?"  But nowhere in that do we try to determine whether he's getting help as the DECIDING factor as to whether or not he deserved it in the first place.

[Kshartle]

I don't 100% believe that "deserve" MUST imply duty... but it's something I guess I was inclined to believe. I actually think there is some scholarly debate on this based on a couple sites I've hit on while searching.

This is pretty important though.  The way you define "deserving" seems to make it much more a function of the individual providing the charitable service than the one receiving it.  Usually we ask ourselves "is he deserving of some help?"  But nowhere in that do we try to determine whether he's getting help as the DECIDING factor as to whether or not he deserved it in the first place.

Why is it important?

What different action do you take based on your thoughts on this subject?

It's only important if you think some people should take from others with force and give to others.

I do not so it's irrelavent.

I decide who's worthy of my help. Everyone does that and is free to do that.

When charity is perverted into welfare via theft...the consequences are predictable and what we see before us.

This stuff is simple I think.

How do you think the poor should be helped? Who is deserving of help in your opinion?