Languish.org

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlSlcoMIYAA8tLn.jpg)

QuoteThe Mirror's Crying Child Photo – Not All That it Seems by Dan Barker

Here's the front cover of the Daily Mirror. A haunting image of a starving British child, crying their eyes out.

Only... the child is from the Bay Area, and the photo was purchased from Flickr via Getty Images...

Here's the source of the original image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/4084544644/ (Here's a happier one taken the following day: https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/4086511962/. Apparently she was crying over an earthworm.)

An excellent photo, taken by the excellent Lauren Rosenbaum in November 2009, shared on a US website (Flickr), sold by an American photo agency (Getty Images), used to illustrate poverty in Britain.

    Does it matter that the photo is not really a starving child?
    Does it matter that the photo wasn't even taken in the UK?
    Is there an ethical issue in buying a stock photo of a child – not in poverty – and using it to illustrate poverty?
    Does it matter that the headline begins "Britain, 2014″, but the photo is actually "USA, 2009″

All things considered, I'd argue that's more ethical than taking a photo of a starving British child crying at a food bank, should such a scenario ever occur.

I don't see the big deal.  There's no one above the age of seven who believes in Santa Claus or British tabloid "journalism."  The picture is likely the most authentic thing on that front page.

Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2014, 06:22:55 AM
I don't see the big deal.  There's no one above the age of seven who believes in Santa Clause or British tabloid "journalism."  The picture is likely the most authentic thing on that front page.

Lawyers believe in the Santa Clause.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2014, 06:35:30 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2014, 06:22:55 AM
I don't see the big deal.  There's no one above the age of seven who believes in Santa Clause or British tabloid "journalism."  The picture is likely the most authentic thing on that front page.

Lawyers believe in the Santa Clause.

:lol:  Touche.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2014, 06:35:30 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2014, 06:22:55 AM
I don't see the big deal.  There's no one above the age of seven who believes in Santa Clause or British tabloid "journalism."  The picture is likely the most authentic thing on that front page.

Lawyers believe in the Santa Clause.

^_^

It's newspaper art for a story.  Why would any of that matter?  And why would we be surprised that a rich country would hand out lots of food assistance?

In German papers use of stock photo is usually credited as such, if it's a somewhat reputable paper.

Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2014, 07:51:04 AM
It's newspaper art for a story.  Why would any of that matter?  And why would we be surprised that a rich country would hand out lots of food assistance?

Yeah I didn't get that either.  We are rich so WHY ARE WE HELPING THE POOR???!!11  Let them eat cake.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 08:33:42 AM
Yeah I didn't get that either.  We are rich so WHY ARE WE HELPING THE POOR???!!11  Let them eat cake.

We as a country are rich. There shouldn't be people depending on charity for their food.

Food banks in this country barely existed before the recession and the government's changes to welfare (the largest cause for referral is that someone's not received their benefits in time).

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 08:59:57 AM
We as a country are rich. There shouldn't be people depending on charity for their food.

Ah well we have the mentally ill, ex-convicts who cannot get jobs or receive welfare, drug addicts and substance abusers of other stripes, and all the dependents of the above.  Plenty of people who either cannot get welfare or are incapable of benefiting from it.  Charity is going to have an important place in our society.  Also to an American those seem like tiny numbers but I realize your country is 1/5th the size of ours.

QuoteFood banks in this country barely existed before the recession and the government's changes to welfare (the largest cause for referral is that someone's not received their benefits in time).

Unemployment and rising sovereign debt levels will do that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 08:59:57 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 08:33:42 AM
Yeah I didn't get that either.  We are rich so WHY ARE WE HELPING THE POOR???!!11  Let them eat cake.

We as a country are rich. There shouldn't be people depending on charity for their food.

Food banks in this country barely existed before the recession and the government's changes to welfare (the largest cause for referral is that someone's not received their benefits in time).

Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 08:59:57 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 08:33:42 AM
Yeah I didn't get that either.  We are rich so WHY ARE WE HELPING THE POOR???!!11  Let them eat cake.

We as a country are rich. There shouldn't be people depending on charity for their food.

Food banks in this country barely existed before the recession and the government's changes to welfare (the largest cause for referral is that someone's not received their benefits in time).

If I said food banks exist in Oslo, Norway, would you believe me? The influx of Schengen citizens with no work has led to that, along with a growing number of domestic poor.

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 11:18:30 AM
If I said food banks exist in Oslo, Norway, would you believe me? The influx of Schengen citizens with no work has led to that, along with a growing number of domestic poor.

Odd I guess I always pictured Norway like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ffohVdAbY

Yes, it's exactly like that.

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 11:34:07 AM
Yes, it's exactly like that.

Well what did they blow their thousand dollars on?  Bah.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 11:34:41 AM

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 11:34:07 AM
Yes, it's exactly like that.

Well what did they blow their thousand dollars on?  Bah.

A Big Mac with extra fries.

They didn't credit a stock photo? BFD.

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 11:41:25 AM
A Big Mac with extra fries.

European prices never cease to amaze me.

Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2014, 01:00:49 PM
They didn't credit a stock photo? BFD.

The point is the photo is not a Blighty stock photo but of a God Damn Foreigner.

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

...and replace it with the inefficiency and humiliation* of welfare :P


*well they ought to feel humiliated

Btw when you yell at poor people, is that inefficient?

Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2014, 04:13:00 PM
Btw when you yell at poor people, is that inefficient?

No because I'm usually on my way somewhere when I'm doing it.  I multitask.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM
Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

I see a distinction without a difference.

TBH I really dislike this dichotomy. You see it in the opposite direction here a lot, like private charity is somehow morally superior to public, or vice versa. You have an organization formed by the citizenry to fulfill certain purposes including helping the poor. Why does it matter whether it is a government or not? If it is inefficient or humiliating that is a matter of administration.

The Freestore Foodbank around here does a pretty good job of getting food to poor people.  We have food drives in our office and they're fun to participate in.  Gives me a warmer feeling than paying taxes.

Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

...and replace it with the inefficiency and humiliation* of welfare :P


*well they ought to feel humiliated

It does, but that doesn't really help getting them jobs again.  In fact, it's counter productive.  People who are humiliated daily become depressed and are less likely to find work.

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 04:26:44 PM
I see a distinction without a difference.

Well in terms of inefficiency the most popular charities in this country (and donations are about 0.7% of GDP) are animals, kids and cancer, in that order. That's great, but actually lots of the most needy don't fall into those three categories. Charity is fine as a supplement in some way, but it'll always be dependant on the desires of donee rather than where help is actually needed. The sad truth is a donkey sanctuary will always get far more money than most people-charities.

Also it's always insufficient. Even the most well-intentioned liberal philanthropists, like a Rowntree or a Toynbee, can do no more than put a sticking plaster on poverty. Personally I'd also add that I have cut back on a lot of charities I used to donate to, including Oxfam and the RSPCA, because they seem to be getting a lot more political and about 'campaigns' and less about actually doing things. I'm a lot more mistrustful of charities than I was and I know other people in my family feel the same. That's a more modern problem perhaps, but it's there.

As to the other issue, I'd try and reclaim 'entitlement' as a good word. We are entitled to welfare because we have paid into the system or because of something in our circumstances. As a society we have decided that if you are made redundant, are unable to work or are old that we will look after you and you won't need to rely on the whims of noblesse oblige and the private generosity of a few. Maybe charity never had that connotation in the US or Canada, but here a part of setting up the welfare state was about dignity. That we will educate our young, care for our sick and our elderly, look after those out of work and that those people will have dignity and not have to go, as they did in the 30s, to charities and the well-to-do to meet their basic needs.

More importantly in this case as I say we've never really had food banks before and the ones we have you need to be referred to by a GP or the Citizens Advice Bureau. This is novel and I think it's a disgrace that we're back at this. It's also striking that there's lots of reports that the Chancellor (who's hardly a red) is very worried about the competence of the ministers at the DWP.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2014, 04:37:28 PM
It does, but that doesn't really help getting them jobs again.  In fact, it's counter productive.  People who are humiliated daily become depressed and are less likely to find work.

It would provide motivation for me to find a job.  I'd dig ditches to avoid being on welfare.

Where are you going to get this fancy ditch digging job?  They have machines that do that now.

Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2014, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2014, 04:37:28 PM
It does, but that doesn't really help getting them jobs again.  In fact, it's counter productive.  People who are humiliated daily become depressed and are less likely to find work.

It would provide motivation for me to find a job.  I'd dig ditches to avoid being on welfare.

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

People seem to think that being on welfare or receiving charity is an active life-choice, like taking up jogging or eating more fish.

I want food stamps.

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 06:01:32 PM
People seem to think that being on welfare or receiving charity is an active life-choice, like taking up jogging or eating more fish.

I look at it this way.  If someone is out of work, out of money, out of support from friends and family, then he really doesn't have much choice but to receive welfare or charity. 

But if we go back a few years or decades, the picture maybe different.  Did he study hard at school or university?  Did he spend too much and save too little?  Did he try hard enough to find a job?

It is conceivable that somebody made all the "right" choices but still end up in an impossible situation.  It is also conceivable that someone made a lot of poor choices and now suffer from the consequences from said choices. 

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 06:01:32 PM
People seem to think that being on welfare or receiving charity is an active life-choice, like taking up jogging or eating more fish.

:yes: I've even heard a few conservatards try to spin it as single moms trying deliberately to get knocked up multiple times for the welfare checks.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 16, 2014, 08:44:27 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 06:01:32 PM
People seem to think that being on welfare or receiving charity is an active life-choice, like taking up jogging or eating more fish.

I look at it this way.  If someone is out of work, out of money, out of support from friends and family, then he really doesn't have much choice but to receive welfare or charity. 

But if we go back a few years or decades, the picture maybe different.  Did he study hard at school or university?  Did he spend too much and save too little?  Did he try hard enough to find a job?

It is conceivable that somebody made all the "right" choices but still end up in an impossible situation.  It is also conceivable that someone made a lot of poor choices and now suffer from the consequences from said choices.

So what lesson are we supposed to draw from this thought experiment?

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 16, 2014, 09:05:19 PM


So what lesson are we supposed to draw from this thought experiment?

That we don't have enough information to say "it is a choice" or it is not?

Quote from: Monoriu on April 16, 2014, 09:12:03 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 16, 2014, 09:05:19 PM


So what lesson are we supposed to draw from this thought experiment?

That we don't have enough information to say "it is a choice" or it is not?

And if it is a choice..?

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 16, 2014, 09:39:22 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 16, 2014, 09:12:03 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 16, 2014, 09:05:19 PM


So what lesson are we supposed to draw from this thought experiment?

That we don't have enough information to say "it is a choice" or it is not?

And if it is a choice..?

I don't think we can ever find out.  The cost to look at each person's life and attribute fault before the government will release welfare is prohibitive.  We'll just have to continue doing what is practical and release welfare on a bare minimum basis.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2014, 08:59:49 PM

Quote from: Norgy on April 16, 2014, 06:01:32 PM
People seem to think that being on welfare or receiving charity is an active life-choice, like taking up jogging or eating more fish.

:yes: I've even heard a few conservatards try to spin it as single moms trying deliberately to get knocked up multiple times for the welfare checks.

I have had people tell me they were carrying out this plan but it seems like a dodgy one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

How is charity recieved from the state any less humilating than charity recieved from an individual?

It's impersonal.

In Sweden it's a choice to be poor. Education is free, and getting a decent education is a simple and convenient way to avoid being poor (even though it is unlikely to make you rich).

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 16, 2014, 11:30:05 PM
It's impersonal.

And that's better because...?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2014, 11:22:30 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Are food banks an inferior form of charity to welfare?

Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

How is charity recieved from the state any less humilating than charity recieved from an individual?

In principle it is an insurance system that we have here in the UK. While you are working you pay National Insurance, in return you get money off the state for sickness, unemployment and an old age pension.

In practice successive governments have broken or weakened the insurance link so that most of these payments will come regardless of contributions. In addition those that have made large contributions for, say, several decades, get little in the way of special treatment................unfortunate for those that have made large contributions and experience misfortune only to receive miserly benefits.

In any event, because of this insurance principle it is not perceived as charity from the state, it is an entitlement.

Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
In Sweden it's a choice to be poor. Education is free, and getting a decent education is a simple and convenient way to avoid being poor (even though it is unlikely to make you rich).

The choise is not always free or even councious. Which of cource makes it impossible to attach blame to the "choise", and  which invalidates your implication that poor people have themselves to blame..

Quote from: Bluebook on April 17, 2014, 02:43:14 AM

Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
In Sweden it's a choice to be poor. Education is free, and getting a decent education is a simple and convenient way to avoid being poor (even though it is unlikely to make you rich).

The choise is not always free or even councious. Which of cource makes it impossible to attach blame to the "choise", and  which invalidates your implication that poor people have themselves to blame..

The number of people who live in Fritzl basements is vanishingly small. And as for conscious, I don't see why it would matter if the choice is conscious or not.

Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2014, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2014, 04:37:28 PM
It does, but that doesn't really help getting them jobs again.  In fact, it's counter productive.  People who are humiliated daily become depressed and are less likely to find work.

It would provide motivation for me to find a job.  I'd dig ditches to avoid being on welfare.

I imagine if you had experience with machinery we actually use for ditch digging, and have for about forty years, you wouldn't have need for it.

But I take the point: you'd do any stupid, demeaning job to avoid being on welfare.  I suggest you go wash dishes for a year, and let me how you managed without welfare.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 05:12:49 PM
Where are you going to get this fancy ditch digging job?  They have machines that do that now.

FUCK.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2014, 08:59:49 PM
:yes: I've even heard a few conservatards try to spin it as single moms trying deliberately to get knocked up multiple times for the welfare checks.

This is exactly what happened under the old AFDIC.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 17, 2014, 04:41:36 AM
But I take the point: you'd do any stupid, demeaning job to avoid being on welfare.  I suggest you go wash dishes for a year, and let me how you managed without welfare.

And you may still end up needing some welfare. But, not to worry, that's the system working.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2014, 07:09:56 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 17, 2014, 04:41:36 AM
But I take the point: you'd do any stupid, demeaning job to avoid being on welfare.  I suggest you go wash dishes for a year, and let me how you managed without welfare.

And you may still end up needing some welfare. But, not to worry, that's the system working.

Well hopefully you humiliated enough you won't show your face at a polling place.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 07:07:46 AM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2014, 08:59:49 PM
:yes: I've even heard a few conservatards try to spin it as single moms trying deliberately to get knocked up multiple times for the welfare checks.

This is exactly what happened under the old AFDIC.

I don't think the conservatards have stopped spinning with the establishment of TANF.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
I have had people tell me they were carrying out this plan but it seems like a dodgy one.

Yeah.  I cashed a lot of welfare checks when I was a bank teller.  The conversations I overheard when one welfare queen encountered another were mind-blowing.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2014, 11:42:08 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 16, 2014, 11:30:05 PM
It's impersonal.

And that's better because...?

Because it's less humiliating.  :P

Government agents don't have the same discretion as private charities to decide who is and who isn't worthy of their money. So there's less kow-towing and less condescension involved.

Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2014, 01:23:58 PM
Yeah.  I cashed a lot of welfare checks when I was a bank teller.  The conversations I overheard when one welfare queen encountered another were mind-blowing.

You outta hear the conversations in a gun shop some day.  Modern gun tards make those olden-times welfare queens sound quite rational.

Quote from: Maximus on April 16, 2014, 04:26:44 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2014, 04:07:20 PM
Welfare isn't charity. Part of the reason we established a welfare state was to remove the inefficiency and humiliation of charity.

I see a distinction without a difference.

TBH I really dislike this dichotomy. You see it in the opposite direction here a lot, like private charity is somehow morally superior to public, or vice versa. You have an organization formed by the citizenry to fulfill certain purposes including helping the poor. Why does it matter whether it is a government or not? If it is inefficient or humiliating that is a matter of administration.

When it's welfare there is no moral component. Charity is a good act because someone must make a moral choice to do it. You can't choose to not pay your taxes, so the morality of the act is removed.

Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2014, 01:23:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
I have had people tell me they were carrying out this plan but it seems like a dodgy one.

Yeah.  I cashed a lot of welfare checks when I was a bank teller.  The conversations I overheard when one welfare queen encountered another were mind-blowing.

I didn't know they actually existed.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 17, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
When it's welfare there is no moral component. Charity is a good act because someone must make a moral choice to do it. You can't choose to not pay your taxes, so the morality of the act is removed.

There is arguably a moral component in the acceptance of welfare.

I'm not going to respond to that.  Yi would just become unhappy, so I leave his statement to just hang there like a corpse on giblet.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 06:58:08 PM
There is arguably a moral component in the acceptance of welfare.

Absolutely, for some people.  But when it is, it is a personal moral component.  If someone says "I'd get a job digging ditches before I took welfare," that a sound moral position.  If someone says "he [or she] should have gotten a job digging ditches rather than accept welfare," that's not a sound moral position, that's a mere judgement.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 06:58:08 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 17, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
When it's welfare there is no moral component. Charity is a good act because someone must make a moral choice to do it. You can't choose to not pay your taxes, so the morality of the act is removed.

There is arguably a moral component in the acceptance of welfare.

Also in collectively deciding what welfare we are going to provide.

Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2014, 05:08:46 PM
You outta hear the conversations in a gun shop some day.  Modern gun tards make those olden-times welfare queens sound quite rational.

The hell.  Try a gun show if you want to hear some nuttiness.

/flex right biceps
/flex left biceps

Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 11:18:32 AM
The hell.  Try a gun show if you want to hear some nuttiness.

To great a cost in lifespan.  I'm only even in gun shops while friends buy ammo or something (and I look at real-life models of the weapons I use in FONV using the Classic Weapons mod), but the people who hang out there are still bitching about birth certificates and "Obamacare."

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2014, 11:50:41 AM
To great a cost in lifespan.

I'm not dead yet.  Anyway it's worth the price of admission just to people watch :D

QuoteI'm only even in gun shops while friends buy ammo or something (and I look at real-life models of the weapons I use in FONV using the Classic Weapons mod), but the people who hang out there are still bitching about birth certificates and "Obamacare."

It does vary.  Freakiest I've encountered was one shop in Kentucky I stopped by to see if they had any military surplus type rifles.  They had almost no firearms but plenty of odd black helicopter-type literature.  And there were a few old guys sitting around like they had been there for a few hours.  They got really quiet when I walked in and I ended up spending less than a minute there.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 06:58:08 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 17, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
When it's welfare there is no moral component. Charity is a good act because someone must make a moral choice to do it. You can't choose to not pay your taxes, so the morality of the act is removed.

There is arguably a moral component in the acceptance of welfare.

Not really. I haven't felt that and I've been unemployed since the summer (and until next Monday). As RH says, I see it as cashing on the insurance I paid for during my working years.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
Not really. I haven't felt that and I've been unemployed since the summer (and until next Monday). As RH says, I see it as cashing on the insurance I paid for during my working years.

I suppose it may depend on how it's structured, but over here at least I don't regard unemployment insurance as welfare-- at least as long as it's not extended indefinitely.

Do welfare queens actually wear crowns?  How can you pick them out?

Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
Not really. I haven't felt that and I've been unemployed since the summer (and until next Monday). As RH says, I see it as cashing on the insurance I paid for during my working years.

Same. I don't see any moral element in accepting welfare. If you're in a situation where you can get it then you should. That's what it's there for. There's no more moral element here than using a state school or the NHS even if you could afford private school or health insurance.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 07:59:16 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
Not really. I haven't felt that and I've been unemployed since the summer (and until next Monday). As RH says, I see it as cashing on the insurance I paid for during my working years.

Same. I don't see any moral element in accepting welfare. If you're in a situation where you can get it then you should. That's what it's there for. There's no more moral element here than using a state school or the NHS even if you could afford private school or health insurance.

So, you are arguing that there could not possibly be a moral argument against accepting welfare, or are you actually agreeing with Yi that "there is arguably a moral component in the acceptance of welfare" (my italics) and just disagreeing with that argument?

I don't think there's a moral argument whatsoever, if you're entitled.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 08:20:30 PM
I don't think there's a moral argument whatsoever, if you're entitled.

No possible moral argument, "if you are entitled."  Why qualify this?  If there is a qualifier, then morality is arguable.

You can add a moral argument to pretty much anything.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 08:20:30 PM
I don't think there's a moral argument whatsoever, if you're entitled.

And that is the crux of the Socratic argument.

I don't follow.

Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

Arguably, yes to all of the above.  All are provided as part of a social contract that says that a person contributes according to ability and receives according to need.  If a person is simply accepting without attempting to contribute, then there is a moral element to that acceptance.

I am not sure why this would even be controversial.

there are situations where an individual may technically qualify for a welfare program but not qualify for the purpose of that program. i think there's definitely a moral component in accepting welfare then

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2014, 01:06:54 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

Arguably, yes to all of the above.  All are provided as part of a social contract that says that a person contributes according to ability and receives according to need.  If a person is simply accepting without attempting to contribute, then there is a moral element to that acceptance.

I am not sure why this would even be controversial.

If I'm understanding you correctly, when you say that there's a moral element to these actions you mean that it's evidence of a moral failure of sorts? If you receive without attempting to contribute, that is evidence of a moral shortcoming. Am I understanding your usage correctly?

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 03:28:25 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2014, 01:06:54 PM
Arguably, yes to all of the above.  All are provided as part of a social contract that says that a person contributes according to ability and receives according to need.  If a person is simply accepting without attempting to contribute, then there is a moral element to that acceptance.

I am not sure why this would even be controversial.

If I'm understanding you correctly, when you say that there's a moral element to these actions you mean that it's evidence of a moral failure of sorts? If you receive without attempting to contribute, that is evidence of a moral shortcoming. Am I understanding your usage correctly?

I am saying that it could be.  The issue isn't "is receiving welfare immoral?" it is "is there possibly a moral dimension to accepting welfare?"  In other words, "is it possible to immorally accept welfare?"  I say that it is.  Free-riding is not moral.

No. Paying taxes is a requirement, so merely complying with the law in paying them or taking tax breaks has no moral content. The choice has been made for you. Morality requires a choice on the part of the individual. Deliberately breaking the law might have, however.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

I don't think there's a moral element to any of it.

I don't think there's a moral element to taking welfare to which you are legally entitled.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
No. Paying taxes is a requirement, so merely complying with the law in paying them or taking tax breaks has no moral content. The choice has been made for you. Morality requires a choice on the part of the individual. Deliberately breaking the law might have, however.

Nonsense.  Taking a tax break is not a requirement, and second many things that are required by law are a moral choice.  Abiding by or breaking the law can be a moral choice.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2014, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

I don't think there's a moral element to any of it.

I don't think there's a moral element to taking welfare to which you are legally entitled.

I don't think argument by assertion adds anything to a debate.

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2014, 07:01:26 PM
I don't think argument by assertion adds anything to a debate.

I just answered Jake's questions and wanted to clarify that by 'entitled' I don't mean that someone's contributed but that they're 'legally entitled'. I think it's exactly comparable with taking tax credits, using state school systems or healthcare provision.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2014, 07:04:19 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2014, 07:01:26 PM
I don't think argument by assertion adds anything to a debate.

I just answered Jake's questions and wanted to clarify that by 'entitled' I don't mean that someone's contributed but that they're 'legally entitled'. I think it's exactly comparable with taking tax credits, using state school systems or healthcare provision.

More argument by assertion.  You are simply saying, again, that you don't think that there are moral dimensions because you don't think that there are moral dimensions. :yawn:

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates?

I suppose if you believed that the things those rebates were intended to promote were wrong, it might be for you. But then presumably you would have had to engage in that behavior yourself in order to be eligible for the rebate, so...

It was once considered sinfully to gain money from interest.  It wouldn't take much more to decide that simply the act of taking advantage of tax rebates is morally wrong.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2014, 07:27:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates?

I suppose if you believed that the things those rebates were intended to promote were wrong, it might be for you. But then presumably you would have had to engage in that behavior yourself in order to be eligible for the rebate, so...

So if the analogy holds, and I haven't seen anything that suggests it doesn't, then there can be a moral dimension to accepting welfare if you believe that welfare promotes something you believe to be wrong.

Which does seems consistent, in that people who argue against welfare often claim it promotes laziness and mooching. That's not how I see it, of course, so I don't see the alleged moral dimension in accepting welfare either.

As I see it, both tax rebates and welfare are ways to spend public money to incentivize certain behaviour or provide social goods. There is no difference, and no moral dimension to either.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2014, 06:06:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Is there a moral element in taking advantage of tax breaks and rebates? Is there a moral element I taking advantage of government programs like healthcare (where available)? Or is the moral element present only if tax money is funnelled to you in specific ways?

I don't think there's a moral element to any of it.

I don't think there's a moral element to taking welfare to which you are legally entitled.

Yeah, I concur.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 07:40:19 PM
As I see it, both tax rebates and welfare are ways to spend public money to incentivize certain behaviour or provide social goods. There is no difference, and no moral dimension to either.

Yeah that's essentially what I'm trying to say too.

Another dimension being that a government (or any collective entity) is incapable of agency of its own, so it's actions are always amoral. IMO, morality requires a single will making a decision to which the individual making it ascribes positive or negative moral value.

so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 10:03:10 PM
so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Aren't Pell Grants need based?  If they were dishonest to get them, then yes there is a moral component.

Quote from: sbr on April 19, 2014, 10:32:29 PMAren't Pell Grants need based?  If they were dishonest to get them, then yes there is a moral component.

yes, pell grants are need based. for the scenario i'm familiar with, the student obtained the grants legally. but according to some views in this thread, so long as welfare is obtained legally, there is no moral component attached

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 10:03:10 PM
so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PMWho the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

would you think there's a moral component to someone with money going down to homeless shelters every week for a free meal?

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 10:03:10 PM
so, for the "no moral component to welfare" crowd - say a student is awarded federal pell grants every semester of college, even though he can pay for college without taking on any debt if he refused the grants. there is no moral component in the student's choice to either accept or refuse those grants?

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
would you think there's a moral component to someone with money going down to homeless shelters every week for a free meal?

If they misrepresented themselves to obtain the free meal, I would think there was something morally dubious about it.

If they showed up in all their affluent privilege and still got a free meal, I wouldn't think there was anything particularly amiss morally. I'd expect that if the meal in question made a difference to the shelter's program, that the administrators would not serve the wealthy; but if they do I expect the program could manage. Honestly, though, I don't think anyone would regularly dine at a homeless shelter without a compelling reason.

But to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2014, 11:06:04 PM
It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

That's just daft.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 11:06:41 PMBut to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

in each of your scenarios there is a purpose to the subsidy. that purpose was not violated

pell grants are awarded to those students with financial need. that is the purpose of the program. the student in this scenario is aware of the social program's purpose, acknowledges his situation does not fit under that purpose, yet accepts the money regardless

if the financially secure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners were all (legally) applying to programs and accepting money from those programs whose stated purpose was to assist financially insecure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners, then, yes, i would say that would be immoral

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2014, 11:06:04 PM
It's not uncommon.  I've seen it here.

That's just daft.

Of course it is.  Back in 1993, we had a flood here.  A really, really, big flood.  My mom was a council woman representing in those days and her ward encompassed an area that was completely destroyed by the flood.  I remember watching whole houses get picked up and washed away.  Anyway, FEMA came in and offered a buy out.  They would pay the price of the house that was lost and their belongings with the promise they would settle somewhere else (so we wouldn't have this problem in the future).  Many people didn't want to take it.  They didn't want to take government money, cause that's bad.  Of course these people had absolutely nothing now, they had been tax payers before but the areas was never wealthy, but they still didn't want it.  Eventually they were convinced to take the cash and leave.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM

Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

:huh: Many people do this.

I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ? :unsure:

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Well you'd try, but you wouldn't reach the stuff on the top shelf.

Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:29:54 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ? :unsure:

Yes. That shit was good back in the day. You could make fantastic Mac and Cheese out of it.

Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2014, 08:31:47 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Well you'd try, but you wouldn't reach the stuff on the top shelf.

I am a fantastic 6 feet tall.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FJAZCanw3aTc%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=453b6a2a9d8c80e41228a4de5b1e8b29780f8846)

Sitting in a wheelchair? :yeahright:

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:33:02 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:29:54 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I would grab everything I'm eligible for.

Even the government 'cheese' ? :unsure:

Yes. That shit was good back in the day. You could make fantastic Mac and Cheese out of it.

10 or regular?

Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2014, 08:36:21 AM
Sitting in a wheelchair? :yeahright:

Find a new joke please.

Lying on a gurney?

I am gonna turn the other cheek today since it is Easter.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2014, 08:39:17 AM

Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2014, 08:36:21 AM
Sitting in a wheelchair? :yeahright:

Find a new joke please.

OMG you really are in a wheelchair. I'm so sorry man.

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 11:29:19 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 11:06:41 PMBut to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

in each of your scenarios there is a purpose to the subsidy. that purpose was not violated

pell grants are awarded to those students with financial need. that is the purpose of the program. the student in this scenario is aware of the social program's purpose, acknowledges his situation does not fit under that purpose, yet accepts the money regardless

if the financially secure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners were all (legally) applying to programs and accepting money from those programs whose stated purpose was to assist financially insecure universities, farmers, companies, and homeowners, then, yes, i would say that would be immoral

I guess I am not familiar enough with the process, but how are all of these people legally and honestly applying for and getting need based money they don't need?  In my experience it is tough to get need based money when you do need it.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM
Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

A classmate of my brother was  given an academic free ride at Swarthmore, so he turned down the Merit Scholarship money, which is not need based.  That's the only real world example I know of someone turning down legal free money.

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 11:06:41 PM
If they showed up in all their affluent privilege

How does one do that?

Quote from: sbr on April 20, 2014, 08:51:18 AMI guess I am not familiar enough with the process, but how are all of these people legally and honestly applying for and getting need based money they don't need?  In my experience it is tough to get need based money when you do need it.

As I understand "need based" programs there are criteria and metrics in place to determine of someone qualifies. As you say, it can sometimes be very difficult to qualify, even if it seems pretty clear that you are in need.

Which is why I don't see why people expect others to apply a nebulous secondary set of morality based criteria and reject money they're entitled to of they otherwise qualify. To me it seems a rhetorical red herring relying in outliers and anecdotes to paint those who receive need-based help as "immoral".

If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify. And as you say, it's often pretty difficult to qualify for help when you need it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM
Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

Yeah exactly. The only difference is whether the bugaboo is "lazy poor people" or "evil corporations".

Personally, I'm not fond of big corporations paying zero tax through various clever schemes, but I don't blame them for doing so if it's possible. What those solutions should lead to is reform, rather than appeals to the morals of the corporations.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AM
If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances. :hmm:

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:57:25 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM
Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

Yeah exactly. The only difference is whether the bugaboo is "lazy poor people" or "evil corporations".

Personally, I'm not fond of big corporations paying zero tax through various clever schemes, but I don't blame them for doing so if it's possible. What those solutions should lead to is reform, rather than appeals to the morals of the corporations.

Ugh. More legislation for all? :x

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:57:25 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 10:46:13 PM
Who the hell turns down money they're legally entitled to?

I don't see what's immoral about accepting the grant money, unless it was fraudulently obtained. Is there some sort of moral imperative that states that the ideal for students is to be as poor as possible without accumulating debt?

This reminds me of the leftie groups in the UK who get very angry about companies and people legally reducing their tax bill.

Yeah exactly. The only difference is whether the bugaboo is "lazy poor people" or "evil corporations".

Personally, I'm not fond of big corporations paying zero tax through various clever schemes, but I don't blame them for doing so if it's possible. What those solutions should lead to is reform, rather than appeals to the morals of the corporations.

Ugh. More legislation for all? :x

If the laws are no good, what is wrong with a law to change it?  Or should we be stuck with bad laws because we have hit some sort of cap on the number we can/should have?

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 10:02:08 AM
Ugh. More legislation for all? :x

I expect some of this could be achieved with less and different legislation. Generally, the more complex the system the easier it is to find loopholes to exploit.

The main point, however, is that it is foolish to expect people and corporations both to leave money lying on the table if it's legally available to them.

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 10:01:19 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AM
If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances. :hmm:

And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 10:20:36 AM
The main point, however, is that it is foolish to expect people and corporations both to leave money lying on the table if it's legally available to them.

That seems like a different discussion than the one being had.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 10:21:56 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 10:01:19 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AM
If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify.

I recall my sister getting pretty steamed at a former classmate who was receiving foodstamps as she couldn't be bothered to take on a job that would fully cover her living expenses. Of course, fast forward several years and my sister just signed up for medicare under similar circumstances. :hmm:

And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

Oh certainly - though at the same time, I do have a bit of <_< for such layabouts.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 10:21:56 AM
And I'd think your sister was being silly getting steamed like that.

Disagree.  Food stamps should be for people who are unable to afford food, not for those who are not in the mood to work.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AMAs I understand "need based" programs there are criteria and metrics in place to determine of someone qualifies. As you say, it can sometimes be very difficult to qualify, even if it seems pretty clear that you are in need.

Which is why I don't see why people expect others to apply a nebulous secondary set of morality based criteria and reject money they're entitled to of they otherwise qualify. To me it seems a rhetorical red herring relying in outliers and anecdotes to paint those who receive need-based help as "immoral".

If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify. And as you say, it's often pretty difficult to qualify for help when you need it.

woah, woah. hold up a second. there are views discussed in this thread saying that there can never be any moral component to legal acts related to welfare. i pointed out a scenario where there can be a moral component attached to a legal act regarding welfare. that's my only point. suggesting that i'm attempting to "paint those who receive need-based help as 'immoral'" is a very gross and unfair assumption

if the rule is there can never be moral component attached to welfare, and there's one instance where that's incorrect, then the rule is wrong

Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2014, 11:06:41 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
would you think there's a moral component to someone with money going down to homeless shelters every week for a free meal?

If they misrepresented themselves to obtain the free meal, I would think there was something morally dubious about it.

If they showed up in all their affluent privilege and still got a free meal, I wouldn't think there was anything particularly amiss morally. I'd expect that if the meal in question made a difference to the shelter's program, that the administrators would not serve the wealthy; but if they do I expect the program could manage. Honestly, though, I don't think anyone would regularly dine at a homeless shelter without a compelling reason.

But to take your scenarios and posit a yes (as that seems to be the answer you would give). Is it similarly immoral for a university to accept a research grant, if they could afford to pay for the project anyhow? Is it immoral for a farmer to accept a subsidy for crop, even if they could afford to grow it without the subsidy? Is it immoral for a company to accept tax breaks to open a plant, even if they could in fact build and operate the plant at a profit without getting the subsidy? Is it immoral for a homeowner to write off their mortgage payments, even if they could afford to mortgage without the tax deduction?

These are arguments that there may be circumstances under which it is moral to accept government money or welfare.  I don't think that this is in contention.

If you are arguing (as you seem to be elsewhere, and as Sheilb is explicitly stating) that it is always moral to accept welfare, so long as it is legal, then I posit you this situation:  a person graduates from school, and decides that welfare provides him or her enough to live on, and so decides to become a permanent welfare recipient, without ever working a day in their lives.  Moral, or not?

Its just common sense to accept money you're entitled to; unless it involves a lot of work to get it for very little reward.

Is it immoral...perhaps so....when other people are doing it.
But when its you, why shouldn't you get to take a little from the system you've given so much to?
The problem is with the system in leaving so much available to people who don't need it, not the people who actually do the natural thing and take it.

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 11:06:41 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AMAs I understand "need based" programs there are criteria and metrics in place to determine of someone qualifies. As you say, it can sometimes be very difficult to qualify, even if it seems pretty clear that you are in need.

Which is why I don't see why people expect others to apply a nebulous secondary set of morality based criteria and reject money they're entitled to of they otherwise qualify. To me it seems a rhetorical red herring relying in outliers and anecdotes to paint those who receive need-based help as "immoral".

If there's a scenario where plenty of people who don't need the money are getting need-based help, reform the criteria; don't impugn the morals of the people who qualify. And as you say, it's often pretty difficult to qualify for help when you need it.

woah, woah. hold up a second. there are views discussed in this thread saying that there can never be any moral component to legal acts related to welfare. i pointed out a scenario where there can be a moral component attached to a legal act regarding welfare. that's my only point. suggesting that i'm attempting to "paint those who receive need-based help as 'immoral'" is a very gross and unfair assumption

if the rule is there can never be moral component attached to welfare, and there's one instance where that's incorrect, then the rule is wrong

It is ironic, is it not, to see someone write and complain about "red herrings" by employing strawman arguments?

I don't know of anyone who is arguing that there is always a moral component to accepting government money, but Jacob seems determined to defeat that argument anyway.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2014, 11:11:26 AMIf you are arguing (as you seem to be elsewhere, and as Sheilb is explicitly stating) that it is always moral to accept welfare, so long as it is legal, then I posit you this situation:  a person graduates from school, and decides that welfare provides him or her enough to live on, and so decides to become a permanent welfare recipient, without ever working a day in their lives.  Moral, or not?

Moral. I sort-of actually think this may be the future. I'm beginning to think we should just move to a minimum basic income and do away with the rest of the welfare state.

But I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 01:59:53 PMBut I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

middle of winter, pipe bursts. fuel reserves will only last until the pipe is fixed if the local population complies with requests to lower their thermostats to 55 to 60F. temperatures outside are roughly -20 to -40F (-28 to -40C). there is no moral component if one family responds by purposely raises their heat usage while the rest of the community complies and lowers their heat usage?

correct me if i'm wrong, but you, jacob, and madimmortal are all essentially saying that people should never pass up an opportunity to (legally) benefit themselves. since there is no moral component to these acts, it is not even a question of "right or wrong," but merely something people should do automatically. you are saying we have no duty to society (which the government is essentially is) beyond legal duties

take that logic to its extreme

let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 02:33:56 PMsociety (which the government is essentially is)

Do you really believe that?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 03:00:04 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 02:33:56 PMsociety (which the government is essentially is)

Do you really believe that?

Do you really not believe that government is created to secure the rights and promote the interests of the members of society?

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

She's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides.  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 01:59:53 PM
But I think in that situation you could question the morality of the system but not the individual. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where we owe the state more than legal requirements. Whether that's paying more tax than we have to by abstaining from taking advantage of tax credits or legal tax avoidance, or receiving fewer benefits than we're entitled to.

Interesting (and thanks for expanding your argument beyond mere assertion).  So, your argument is that there are individuals, and there is the state, and individuals should always maximize individual (or maybe family) benefit (i.e. give nothing to anyone beyond themselves) other than legal requirements?  Or, in your mind, is "the state" a separate entity from a "society" to which we may have moral obligations?  If the latter, where is the line between the state and society?  And does society offer social benefits like welfare, or does only the state do that?

My view is that the social contract isn't a legal document, and that individuals have obligations to society (which, IMO, includes the government).  Among those obligations is one to not tax resources unnecessarily, even when legally allowed to do so.  It therefor follows, in my argument, that welfare was not intended to provide a labor-free free life to anyone capable of working, and that people who accepts welfare in violation of its purpose is doing so immorally.

I also categorically reject the concept of "the morality of the system."  I know that not everyone shares this view.  I often wonder, when engaged in these kinds of philosophical debates with Brits, if there isn't a fundamental difference in our views of society based on the fact that Americans including me, I am afraid) assume that everyone thinks that the people are sovereign, while Brits assume everyone believes that the government (Parliament, to be exact) is sovereign.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
No. Paying taxes is a requirement, so merely complying with the law in paying them or taking tax breaks has no moral content. The choice has been made for you. Morality requires a choice on the part of the individual. Deliberately breaking the law might have, however.

But you are (ideally) involved in the process of deciding what aid will be made available. There is morality involved in deciding whether one will be entitled to it or not.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 03:00:04 PMDo you really believe that?

society is "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." government is that order. the rules of society are created and imposed by the government, and (at least in the US) society chooses what those rules are. so, yes. government is society just as my neighbor is society

again, what i'm hearing from the arguments in this thread is that there is no moral duty beyond adhering to the rules of the land. no one is saying that the destitute mother with starving children should not accept food stamps, because there is no moral component with her acceptance of food stamps. but just because there is no moral component in some situations does not remove the moral component from every decision. when you try to do that, you back yourself into a corner where you find yourself admitting that people utterly (and purposefully) exploiting either the system or other individuals are not immoral. that is wrong and goes against the very concept of morality

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 03:21:42 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

She's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides.  :hmm:

I'm with you.  There is a moral element to your allowing her to waste four years (or whatever) of her life on a relationship under false pretenses, but she got the same $25,000 economic benefit from reduced living expenses that he did.

I'm so relieved that my post is no  longer hanging there like a gibbet.  :weep:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 03:21:42 PMShe's paying half your rent, but she's also taking up half your space. Not real sure where the economic exploitation resides.  :hmm:

grumbler touched on it

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2014, 03:32:44 PMI'm with you.  There is a moral element to your allowing her to waste four years (or whatever) of her life on a relationship under false pretenses, but she got the same $25,000 economic benefit from reduced living expenses that he did.

the immorality is that the man is wasting the woman's time for the mere economic benefit. she wanted a future husband, while he wanted reduced debt. she never would have participated in the scheme had she known the truth - that misrepresentation is the immorality. furthermore, i noted the grocery bill being paid in full, so even then it is not an equal divide

Lying is a moral failing; taking money somebody freely offers you is not.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 03:42:02 PM
Lying is a moral failing; taking money somebody freely offers you is not.

you are exactly right. it is a moral failing, even if it is legal

But getting back to the subject of taking grants for education, it's lying if you obtain them fraudulently. It's not lying if you take them legally even though you could be working or raiding your parents' savings to pay for school.

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 03:32:10 PM
society is "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." government is that order. the rules of society are created and imposed by the government, and (at least in the US) society chooses what those rules are. so, yes. government is society just as my neighbor is society

Society is a concept, and government is merely one of the entities involved in that concept.

Quote
again, what i'm hearing from the arguments in this thread is that there is no moral duty beyond adhering to the rules of the land.

You're hearing that because you are drawing an equivalent where none exists and then translating our statements through that filter.

Of course you have responsibilities to your fellow man aside from those you have to the government. The two are not the same.

Nice to hear that so many posters will rape the commons to death instantly given half a chance. Warms the heart it does.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
But getting back to the subject of taking grants for education, it's lying if you obtain them fraudulently. It's not lying if you take them legally even though you could be working or raiding your parents' savings to pay for school.

but the arguments in this thread said there is no moral component if it's done legally. exploiting a federal social program is not immoral if it's done legally. therefore, exploiting a girl fraudulently is also not immoral because it was done legally

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 03:50:10 PMSociety is a concept, and government is merely one of the entities involved in that concept.

You're hearing that because you are drawing an equivalent where none exists and then translating our statements through that filter.

Of course you have responsibilities to your fellow man aside from those you have to the government. The two are not the same.

the government is not a cash tree with infinite resources, or some separate construct that watches over man like the tower of sauron. government is a system that encompasses every aspect of society. our fellow man pays into the system, and the system pays out. when you exploit social programs, you exploit your fellow man. since there's no moral component in exploiting your fellow man if it's done legally, then there's no moral component to legally exploiting your fellow man in other areas

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 04:01:06 PM
but the arguments in this thread said there is no moral component if it's done legally. exploiting a federal social program is not immoral if it's done legally. therefore, exploiting a girl fraudulently is also not immoral because it was done legally

The law is much more comprehensive in banning immoral methods of taking money than immoral behaviors in human relationships.

Then you should never take any government benefits of any kind--since in the case of every program in existence, there exists a minority of citizens who do not want it, but from whom taxes are appropriated to support it anyway--and you would be exploiting those people.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 04:14:05 PMThe law is much more comprehensive in banning immoral methods of taking money than immoral behaviors in human relationships.

1) assuming that's true, that's not at issue here. if it's legally entitled, there's no moral component. that's why i found the argument to be very flawed, because it was such a blanket statement without taking several factors into consideration

2) i don't think that's true. much of human behavior is regulated

Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
let's say i make a girl fall in love with me and have her move in. she agrees to pay half of my rent, along with half utilities and the grocery bill. i have no interest in marrying her or staying with her longer than is necessary - using her for the financial benefit. she thinks i'm the one. i put up with her for the rest of my schooling, then break up with her. overall net gain is, say, $25,000, which means less debt for me. there is no moral component to my actions because i was legally entitled to act the way i did, since i pay taxes and therefore am benefited by the laws of the US which allowed me to exploit this poor girl

correct?

It's immoral to deceive the girl about your intentions. It is not immoral to have a roommate with whom you share bills.

In fact, students living together and splitting bills is a pretty common arrangement.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 04:16:12 PM
Then you should never take any government benefits of any kind--since in the case of every program in existence, there exists a minority of citizens who do not want it, but from whom taxes are appropriated to support it anyway--and you would be exploiting those people.

nonsense. society supports the enactment of social programs that have various purposes, such as providing food stamps to those in need. all of society consents to it - even though who disagree with it consent to it by remaining in the country and paying taxes. thus, the poor mother with starving children accepts food stamps with no moral component attached

but those instances where someone manages to legally exploit the system and violates the purpose of the program, accepting when not in need? society never consented to that, and therefore the person has just exploited society.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2014, 04:36:54 PMIt's immoral to deceive the girl about your intentions. It is not immoral to have a roommate with whom you share bills.

In fact, students living together and splitting bills is a pretty common arrangement.

Quotethe immorality is that the man is wasting the woman's time for the mere economic benefit. she wanted a future husband, while he wanted reduced debt. she never would have participated in the scheme had she known the truth - that misrepresentation is the immorality. furthermore, i noted the grocery bill being paid in full, so even then it is not an equal divide

"Society" is a concept, not a person. It cannot decide anything. It cannot support anything. It merely is a description of what exists, good and bad. It can't be offended or exploited any more than can the color green.

I remember not to long ago on this board several posters claimed that a certain politician was bad because she imposed a moral viewpoint on economic activity.

LaCroix, I most definitely believe that there are actions that may be legal and that are simultaneously immoral because they harm the common weal.

In general, however, I do not think this applies to receiving government benefits, subsidies, tax credits, etc. We can probably find an edge case or construct a hypothetical where it may be immoral to accept such benefits, but I expect it to be just that - an edge case or a contrived hypothetical.

I reject the more general argument that it is an individual moral failing to collect government benefits unless the collector conforms to a subjective level of deserving it independent of the legal requirements.

There is a strong current of thought that holds that unless poor people conform to the most virtuous behaviour and/or are abjectly miserable, it is immoral for them to receive help. I find that point of view odious.

The issue, as I see it, is whether one is acting within the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, neither, or both.

The moral person will act within both the spirit and the letter of the law (or, in edge cases, the spirit but not the letter of the law).  The merely legalistic person will act in accordance with the letter of the law.  To argue that there is no moral aspect of laws and entitlements is to argue that there is no spirit of the law at all.

However, on can only judge whether one is acting in accordance with the spirit of the law (as one understands it) for one's self.  I agree with Jacob that there are those who propose to pass that judgement on others, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that this is right or proper. 

I'd dispute that deliberate exploitation (= immoral) only happens in edge cases and contrived hypotheticals.  Here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/san-jose-cops-rush-disability-retirement-bids-as-rules-tighten.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/san-jose-cops-rush-disability-retirement-bids-as-rules-tighten.html) is a story about police retiring with disabilities (and thus receiving their retirement benefits tax-free) in a city in California.  Fifty-eight percent of the police who retire here retire with disabilities - including those who go on to have a second police career. The rate is 15% in New York City.  I'd argue that many of those claiming disability are exploiting the system, and are thus acting immorally (though not all of them are, and I can't tell the difference).  A quick search of the internet shows that this is no isolated case, and it certainly isn't hypothetical.  It is entirely legal, though.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2014, 05:34:45 PM
The issue, as I see it, is whether one is acting within the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, neither, or both.

The moral person will act within both the spirit and the letter of the law (or, in edge cases, the spirit but not the letter of the law).  The merely legalistic person will act in accordance with the letter of the law.  To argue that there is no moral aspect of laws and entitlements is to argue that there is no spirit of the law at all.

What if it is the spirit of the law that is immoral? In that case, LaCroix's point is worth considering, I think.

I mean it's not uncommon to have bad laws or for people to use law to do harm to other people, but it isn't the law itself that is to blame. The law has no morality. It didn't create itself. It doesn't enforce itself.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 05:51:17 PM
What if it is the spirit of the law that is immoral? In that case, LaCroix's point is worth considering, I think.

Can you give me an example where the "spirit of the law" is immoral?  There are bad letters of the law, but I know of no case in which a legislature has said "let's make an evil law!  Might be fun!"

QuoteI mean it's not uncommon to have bad laws or for people to use law to do harm to other people, but it isn't the law itself that is to blame. The law has no morality. It didn't create itself. It doesn't enforce itself.

The letter of the law has no morality, correct.  That was my whole point.

Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2014, 03:51:28 PM
Nice to hear that so many posters will rape the commons to death instantly given half a chance. Warms the heart it does.

Right?  If I was legally entitled to take my fellow citizens tax dollars and I didn't need to, I wouldn't.  But it seems I am in the minority in that position.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2014, 07:17:28 PM
Can you give me an example where the "spirit of the law" is immoral?  There are bad letters of the law, but I know of no case in which a legislature has said "let's make an evil law!  Might be fun!"

Well, slavery being legal comes to mind. Laws outlawing sodomy. The law that expelled the Jews from Spain. The executive order that had Japanese Americans rounded up in camps. There are lots.

England expelling the Jews 200 years before was fine.

And Sweden expelling them before they even got there.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2014, 08:08:24 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2014, 07:17:28 PM
Can you give me an example where the "spirit of the law" is immoral?  There are bad letters of the law, but I know of no case in which a legislature has said "let's make an evil law!  Might be fun!"

Well, slavery being legal comes to mind. Laws outlawing sodomy. The law that expelled the Jews from Spain. The executive order that had Japanese Americans rounded up in camps. There are lots.

What law made slavery legal?  And what was its spirit?  In the case of the US, allowing slavery was seen as a necessary compromise to gain Southern support for independence, and so the spirit of the law was to permit US independence.  Only Neil thinks that evil.

Laws outlawing sodomy were in the spirit of saving souls.  Hardly evil.

Expulsion of the Jews was in the spirit of saving souls.  hardly evil.

The executive order regarding the Japanese was intended to prevent sabotage.  Hardly evil.

There don't seem to be "lots."  In fact, there don't seem to be any.  But I can be convinced otherwise, with actual evidence.

Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2014, 07:30:42 AM
What law made slavery legal?

Well the 1664 Act of Maryland stated:

QuoteBe it enacted by the Right Honorable, the Lord Proprietory, by the advice and consent of the Upper and Lower House of this present General Assembly, that all negroes or other slaves already within the Province, and all negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the Province shall serve durante vita. And all children born of any negro or other slave shall be slaves as their fathers were for the term of their lives

Before that black slaves could work off a labor contract, like an indentured servant, or convert to Christianity.  Now they were slaves forever.  Wahoo!  But this was done to preserve the slave economy of Maryland so...hardly evil?

QuoteLaws outlawing sodomy were in the spirit of saving souls.  Hardly evil.

Expulsion of the Jews was in the spirit of saving souls.  hardly evil.

The executive order regarding the Japanese was intended to prevent sabotage.  Hardly evil.

Basically anything you do that is horrible that you can find a lame rationalization for to justify is not evil.

Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 08:26:41 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2014, 07:30:42 AM
What law made slavery legal?

Well the 1664 Act of Maryland stated:

Slavery was legal before 1664.  The Romans had slaves.  The Greeks had slaves before them.  The institution of slavery goes back before the institution of laws, I'd bet.

QuoteBasically anything you do that is horrible that you can find a lame rationalization for to justify is not evil.

:huh:  That argument came out of the blue. I don't agree, but, whatever.

Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2014, 03:12:04 PM
Slavery was legal before 1664.  The Romans had slaves.  The Greeks had slaves before them.  The institution of slavery goes back before the institution of laws, I'd bet.

Slavery, in the form it existed in Colonial Maryland, was created by this law.  Before the idea slaves were bonded for life and that the children of slaves were slaves was not the way it worked.  But I guess more to the point: so what?  A law cannot be evil if it addresses something that already exists in some form or has happened before in the history of the world?

Quote:huh:  That argument came out of the blue. I don't agree, but, whatever.

That is entirely your argument grumbler.  This is not evil, this lame rationalization will explain why.  That may not be what you mean but that is what you said.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2014, 02:03:10 AM
And Sweden expelling them before they even got there.

That's just solid planning.

Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2014, 03:20:16 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2014, 02:03:10 AM
And Sweden expelling them before they even got there.

That's just solid planning.

:lol:

Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
Slavery, in the form it existed in Colonial Maryland, was created by this law.  Before the idea slaves were bonded for life and that the children of slaves were slaves was not the way it worked.

I don't know where you are getting this impression, but it isn't true.  Roman slaves were slaves for life, and the children of slaves were themselves slaves.

QuoteBut I guess more to the point: so what?  A law cannot be evil if it addresses something that already exists in some form or has happened before in the history of the world?

That you would ask this question tells me that you don't have any idea what the debateI am in with LaCroix, MiM, and Jacob is about, so I'll stop right here.  We aren't talking about "evil laws."

QuoteThat is entirely your argument grumbler. 

Okay, thanks for telling me what my argument is.  Always nice when someone tells me what I think.

Now I'm trying to think up a law enacted to be evil.  I can think of laws that were thought of as a "lesser evil".  Perhaps some of the more mad or decadent kings.

I think lots of the coercion laws passed about Ireland in Gladstone's government that, for example, suspended habeas corpus would be an example of that. They were passed despite Gladstone's philosophical opposition, despite the fact that he didn't think they would work but because the government thought they were politically necessary to get through a positive agenda Irish land reform, disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and establishment of a Catholic university.

They were bad laws that the government didn't believe in and didn't believe would have a positive effect, but that the government passed as a political trade-off for good laws that they did believe in and did believe would have a positive effect. I don't know if bad faith law-making goes against the spirit of the law, but they're certainly an example of it. And of course more than once Gladstone's positive agenda was defeated, while the coercion laws always tended to get enough votes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:45:12 PM
I think lots of the coercion laws passed about Ireland in Gladstone's government that, for example, suspended habeas corpus would be an example of that. They were passed despite Gladstone's philosophical opposition, despite the fact that he didn't think they would work but because the government thought they were politically necessary to get through a positive agenda Irish land reform, disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and establishment of a Catholic university.

They were bad laws that the government didn't believe in and didn't believe would have a positive effect, but that the government passed as a political trade-off for good laws that they did believe in and did believe would have a positive effect. I don't know if bad faith law-making goes against the spirit of the law, but they're certainly an example of it. And of course more than once Gladstone's positive agenda was defeated, while the coercion laws always tended to get enough votes.

Okay.  I'm convinced.  On reflection, I'd add those laws whose spirit was motivated by willful ignorance.  For example, the Butler Act of 1925 in Tennessee, which banned the teaching of any story of man's origin save that of the biblical account (see:  "Scopes Monkey Trial").  True ignorance allows for moral motivations for bad laws, but willful ignorance does not.