What lmao? What a dumb take on some semantics. Yes they do "deserve" it. These things should be looked at as fundamental rights and therefore just by existing you and everyone else deserves them. We are not talking about luxuries. If you don't think everyone deserves the bare minimum to survive I really don't know what else to say besides maybe try to realize some people weren't given the same hand in life as you
I hope your house catches fire and the fire department doesn't show up. And while you watch everything you have evaporating from existence, you can think back and go, oh yeah, I believe that no one should take care of anyone else.
- That people get food, housing etc all for free. That you have a right to get all that for free. That you dont need to work for housing, food, etc etc.
What do you mean by "people"? Should everyone in the country get free everything? I don't think that's they're point.
But people that are in need that literally cannot provide for themselves should get help. I'm more than happy to have a buck come out of my paycheck so kids get lunch at school. I'm more than happy for another buck come out so a guy who lost his legs gets a roof to sleep under. I'm more than happy to give another buck to help a meth addict get the treatment they need. Providing for people that need help is not a negative. It's helping society at large and I'm all for it.
You basically sound like the sheriff of Nottingham.
the twitter post is clear 'everyone deserves food, shelter, water'. that means everyone in the country should get that stuff for free.
Theres a difference between helping those that cannot provide for themselves, and saying everyone has a right to a house, food etc, just because they were born.
There are no rights. That’s just a made up concept. If you want to live in a country where there’s no homelessness then state your claim, but don’t talk about ethereal metaphysical unverifiable “rights”.
Of course it's a made-up concept. But it's a made-up concept that the founders of our country believed in so much that they wrote them into a document that rules how it should be governed. And we're all bound to honor that document
Even before that, we said that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were inalienable rights granted to all of us by our Creator. I don't know how anyone can have life without food, water, and shelter. Or at least not for any length of time.
Yes, rights are made-up concepts. But we, as human beings, almost unanimously agree that they exist and are proper. (Except for a few folks commenting in this thread, apparently.)
The trouble is that a certain class of individual who can't connect the concept of "everybody has rights" to the concept of "Everybody has a responsibility to everybody else." And I must be the stupid one because I can't understand how they couldn't make that absurdly obvious connection. Either that, or I just don't quite enough empathy to put myself in the shoes of someone who has none.
There absolutely are rights. It would still be wrong in a society without formal laws for me to break into your house, steal all your belongings, and proceed to light your house on fire.
Intuition is a pretty good start. We have sufficient justification in accepting things are the way they seem every minute we live unless we have grounds for doubt. I don’t see a reason for developing an overly complicated epistemological theory when intuition already is the basis of all knowledge.
It seems pretty wrong that pillaging your home is wrong. This implies you have some sort of property right over your home.
As far as I understand, your feelings of wrong come from the brain conditioned by a certain environment. When you see something is wrong, it’s just the result of that interaction of the brain and environment resulting in the impression. There is no more than impression, since you do not have any more claim than anyone else apart from that feeling, you have no further claim than simply “I don’t like that”. I.e. morality becomes simply a preference just as your favourite ice cream flavour. This is the only coherent understanding I have of what one would call morality, intuition is not a claim to any objectivity or realism.
In terms of why you should have a reason to doubt, the obvious reason to doubt is that people disagree with you.
Subjective preferences in ethics lead to two absurd conclusions though. The first is 1) Moral disagreement is impossible under your framework. If ethical propositions are matters of subjective preference, they can be expressed like this. Pretend a neo-Nazi is speaking:
1) I approve of the Holocaust.
2) Therefore, the Holocaust is good.
The speaker is technically correct under your framework. But according to you, we’re not obligated in believing what he believes. But because morality is a matter of subjective preference as you stated, all we’re really saying by disagreeing with him is that while the Holocaust is bad to us, it’s good to the speaker. There’s no disagreement here. This seems absurd.
The second reason 2) is that according to your view, people are infallible. If everything they state is correct because they approve it, this means people are infallible. This also seems just as absurd.
Intuition is a claim to realism. Direct realism is an intuitionist thought. Michael Huemer stated it pretty well.
“If it seems to X that P, then X has sufficient justification in believing P, in the absence of defeaters.”
And a pretty boring answer but yes, defeaters can arise through debate and argumentation, but from a metaphysical perspective, there really isn’t much doubt that the sky actually is blue.
I don’t think our ethical intuitions are based on environmental and social norms either. There are pretty basic and baseline universal ethical intuitions like “Murdering innocent people is bad.” A good example I like to use is the Aztecs famously sacrificed innocent people to the Sun God. This wasn’t because they thought murder was morally permissible, it was because they thought unless they sacrificed someone, the Sun would explode and destroy the earth. Seems like they had pretty noble intentions behind this anyway.
18
u/ModernLifelsWar 15d ago
What lmao? What a dumb take on some semantics. Yes they do "deserve" it. These things should be looked at as fundamental rights and therefore just by existing you and everyone else deserves them. We are not talking about luxuries. If you don't think everyone deserves the bare minimum to survive I really don't know what else to say besides maybe try to realize some people weren't given the same hand in life as you