Agreed
10
1
90.9% 9.1%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Similar claims
- 9-18 ZPG is the only ethical decision regarding the size of your brood.
- 111-13 On Jyte, I vote on such deeply serious claims and such terribly silly claims in quick succession that I can hear my brain grinding as it shifts gears.
- 11-35 I am willing to exploit other people in order to become rich.
- 72-23 I support women's rights, but I don't think of myself as a feminist.
- 12-30 I don't think of myself as a feminist, but I don't mind being called one.
Discussion (5)
But many people won't do it unless they can see a clear personal gain. :/
Not generally. They will propably oppose your "support" when you first steal their money and then "ask" them what to do with it; that's where they - rightfully - bring in their personal preferences. And that's why empty phrases such as "better for society" or "better for the environment" are so popular, when in fact "good for the person in need" is the only argument that counts. If any is necessary at all.
Of course, helping one person doesn't justify stealing that "help" from another.
http://jyte.com/cl/a-good-goal-doesnt-justify-bad-means
Also, whenever I discuss the unethical basis of taxation, the first question people always ask is: who's going to help the poor? Always.
This means that people do care. It just means that they can no longer imagine how they can help effectively without taxes. The actual question is not "Why should I help", but "How can I help" - that's a fundamental difference, and that's a cultural, civilizational question; when a civilization has no - or very limited - means to help without stealing, I think that something's severely wrong.
Claims like yours support and accelerate these dynamics; it implies that an individual is only worth anything in the context of a "society" - when he or she has something to "give to society", or in other words: if "society" needs him or her; I do not generally think this is true, or at least I don't think that anyone has an obligation to unvoluntarily give anything at all ("freedom of association").
Your claim also implied that help needs justification, and it implied that the goal justifies the means.
I was raised in an environment where most people did not want to help the poor. They didn't ask that question. And they didn't feel that helping those in need was important.
There are a lot of people like that.
And they need to have justifications that make sense to them. I feel that it is both inherently right and to people's best interests, although not always obviously.
I think better education builds a better society. I think better education and job opportunities with decent benefits will help to decrease crime.
I think giving people multiple motivations is good.