Sola
beta
5 months

What kind of people deserve to live?

This may sound like a question dictators may ask, but the truth is that this is a question every society asks, as survival is dependent on how resources available to the society are distributed to the members of the society.

It isn't just who are directly murdered, but who is denied access to necessities that die.

So, I ask again, who deserve to live, and who don't?

8610votes
3.886SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
82
554
8610
USA, Fremont
82 comments
Nina One
This is an excellent question. A corollary to it is, who deserves a decent quality of life along with choice and self-determination? I think privileged people are happy enough for many people to live, as long as they stay in their “place” and slave for the benefit of the wealthy.
10
DELETED USER
No one deserves to live. No one deserves anything.
5
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H
So deserves the guy not being at least thanked who saved your close relative? Or don't deserves the baby some food? No one deserves something out of nothing, ok, but out of reason for sure.
Philo 0316Author
So should it be legally permissible for anyone to kill anyone else? If nobody deserves to live, this seems fair.
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, I am talking in the context of being denied necessities
Philo 0316Author
JDaniel Richer, what's the difference though? Should a squatter be able to deny access to an absentee owner who wants to rent the house on Airbnb? Well, I think that's sometimes fair, but you probably don't.
10
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, me not giving you bread today is not equivalent to me taking your future and your kids future and their kids future etc, by executing you.
1
Philo 0316Author
JDaniel Richer, suppose there is someone who is about to die without your help, and there is no one else around. In this situation, executing this person and denying help from this person ends with the same result: the dead person, and all the potential children would be denied a future as well. It's also interesting that you are considering persons who are yet to exist. This would mean not having unprotected sex is just as evil as refusing to save another person, as both of these result in you taking away future kids' lives.
10
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, the kid thing is talking the theoretical kids that they could've had if they so wanted to. Obviously not everyone wants kids or even sex. I would probably help them to save my conscience and want nothing in return. But even if I did feed them for a day...what about tomorrow? Are they suddenly my responsibility?
Philo 0316Author
JDaniel Richer, well, not "suddenly." There are billions out there who need that same help, and needed that help for a long time. I think anyone who can help should help.
10
Nina One
JDaniel Richer, we have a few short years to prevent global catastrophe. Is this really the time to focus on individual advantage?
10
DELETED USER
Nina One, what global catastrophe is it this time? Bees going extinct again? Another 2012? Y2K? Overpopulation?
10
DELETED USER
Nina One, even if action was taken (idk what kind that would be), that would only delay the inevitable.
Philo 0316Author
JDaniel Richer, life seems to be full of delaying the inevitable. I don't think it's fair to say delaying the inevitable is something we shouldn't do. We're all going to die but we all still try to live, for example.
10
Nina One
JDaniel Richer, what you’re saying is that you’d rather live for the moment than try to help avoid catastrophe for millions of people. Yourself possibly included. The point of the warning is that we could reduce the impact if we all work together.
10
Nina One
JDaniel Richer, first, vote for Democrats, who might take climate change more seriously. Here’s a quick list of things you can do to reduce your contribution to global warming. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/7-instant-ways-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint_us_59321992e4b00573ab57a383
B Samson [WildFyre]
Is this about that caravan headed to the US border?
Philo 0316Author
No, although this applies to practically any situations.
10
SimplyATable
Anyone that recently killed can go
Philo 0316Author
What do you mean by killed?
SimplyATable
Killed another person
DELETED USER
Go where? Also is this including troops and people who killed in self defense or by accident?
SimplyATable
No, anyone that killed because they wanted to, not because they had to.
Philo 0316Author
SimplyATable, how do we define that? Surely we're gonna count murder, but what about reckless endangerment? Is that killing because they wanted to? What about self defense? What about joining the army, instead of being conscripted or drafted? Refusing to help someone in need? At what point is killing a matter of want rather than need?
20
thelevel
That's what I was thinking. It's an interesting question to ask... who deserves to die. It seems give enough evil acts, most people want their enemies gone.
thelevel
You didn't share half your sandwich. Guilty. Off with yer head
Philo 0316Author
Well, one solution to that is taxation. Distribute the responsibility, so no one person has to dedicate their entire income to ensure others aren't doing terribly. But yes, we do need to recognize that everything we do means not doing something else that can help others. Sharing sandwiches isn't very effective because it doesn't last very long, but buying produce in bulk by pooling money together is!
10
thelevel
Philo 0316, if the answer to struggle is.. who to kill or steal from. Then it's just a new greater struggle. Not a breakthrough where the struggle is gone
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, hold on, who to kill? The point here is to save lives, not kill. I think killing is worse than stealing. Don't you?
thelevel
Philo 0316, of course one is worse. My point is that it's just a new, and potentially worse struggle. Not a real solution. Like if you could liquidate everything the 1% have tomorrow and give it out to the poor. It may look helpful to a lot of people. But there were some people who resisted and they were beaten, taken away, or killed. It's a struggle met with more bad.
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, we can take a much less extreme solution. For example, instead of liquidating everything, we could make it so that workplaces are managed more democratically, so that profit gained from businesses are distributed more evenly. There's also progressive taxes, which is far from liquidating everything. I agree people who resist the system facing violence is bad, but the thing is that this is already happening to poor people. Shouldn't we stop this downward violence?
10
thelevel
Philo 0316, that power can arbitrarily be shifted to whatever those in charge decide. As soon as it's ok to take over Google and distribute profits, now the state owns it. Just like taxes, the state can arbitrarily decide to take more or less. Obama can have reasons, Trump can have his too, the next person, leaders in other countries as well. They can arbitrarily decide to take what they want. I think most people dont realize the setup if the US is already identifying everyone as a slave. A slave to arbitrarily set taxes, jury duty, and other services you must give.
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, if you're afraid of state control, why not let workers own it collectively? You're afraid of one or few people making decisions, but this is already happening in private hands.
13
thelevel
Philo 0316, I'm not afraid of the state. It's the twisting of the purpose of the state I do not support. Twisting it from a group who's purpose is to carry out violence when needed. Such as if theres a killer roaming the streets. Go ahead and lock him up. But when the state becomes something else... and we have them violating peoples property for bogus reasons. Minorities getting taxed more, jury duty via threat, etc. This is the tyranny I want dissolved
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, um, every society has a group of people whose purpose is to use violence. If the government didn't do this, it would be some sort of militia or private security. Regardless, wouldn't it be better if workplace was organized more democratically instead of one or few people that control everything?
10
DELETED USER
Philo 0316, I am a fan of companies like Morning Star that is basically non hierarchical capitalism.
Philo 0316Author
JDaniel Richer, that seems mostly fair, although I don't see why they would specify that they have unequal power. That doesn't seem very non-hierarchical.
thelevel
Philo 0316, that's the purpose of government. If enough people saw it this way, they wouldn't misconstrue government to mean something else. And I'm not implying no government is the solution either. Just that government can't serve a purpose where they basically turn immoral acts into moral acts. Like killing a serial killer. Or taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Government officials are still committing immoral acts.
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, what? No. The conclusion from this is not that violence is wrong (that would mean that every society is necessarily immoral, which isn't very useful), but rather that we should control violence in a socially beneficial way. For example, you likely think self defense is not immoral, since a greater injustice is prevented. Similarly, we ought to use violence in such a way that greater injustice is prevented. Right now, violence is used to protect property, rather than people, so that must change.
thelevel
Philo 0316, no, I was talking about the nature of government. And the only use of violence should be to directly protect yourself or those who are defenseless. But robbing the rich is an indirect form of violence. Only justified by greater good, which is always arbitrarily set by who is justifying it.
Philo 0316Author
thelevel, why do you draw a distinction between indirect and direct violence? What makes one worse than the other? You're right that greater good is an arbitrary line, but so is essentially every other argument. The line you just drew is also arbitrary, except that it doesn't even attempt to consider how other people are affected.
thelevel
Philo 0316, direct violence is an immediate threat. A person enters your neighbors home and you have the means to stop them from harming and robbing your neighbor. Indirect would be not immediate. A guy digging holes in the middle of the road. You'd plan for them and avoid hitting them. And theres definitely gray area where we can't know things. Then theres black as no white where some things can be known. Respect for all peoples property is clear, does not change, and can have boundaries for using violence when needed as I described. Greater good is always gray.
Infidel Castro
The knee high Nike sock crowd can go first
1
Philo 0316Author
What do you mean by that?
DELETED USER
Live is a gift. It is something you receive. We, people, do not give life and therefore should not decide on whether people deserve to live or not.
10
Philo 0316Author
So do you want like... unconditional non-intervention?
3
Alucard
Well nobody exactly deserves to live... and nobody exactly deserves to die. You just live and then you die. You humans can be lucky to have the ability to die. That way you can give your live a meaning.
1
Philo 0316Author
It's just another way to phrase "how should we distribute the resources available to our society?"
Hanover Fiste
We need to stop denying youth to the elderly. Stop denying access to work for the needy. Stop denying access to military jobs. Stop denying access to abortion where life is totally respected.
Philo 0316Author
I'm guessing you're trying to be ironic?
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, no, just sarcastic. Did I succeed?
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, it seems nonsensical to me, mixed with some actual good points.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, lol yeah my sarcasm is usually never random. I was trying to make points that we really shouldn't be making decisions about who should/shouldn't live. I was also making light of this recent fairness doctrine going around. It's impossible to make a fair world. We shouldn't even try. Equal opportunity, but not equal results. Finally I kinda tried to make a slight light about how we choose death to thousands every year just because they haven't finished being born yet. I was intentionally subtle because I'm pro choice and didn't want to cause a huge debate on this card.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, it's impossible to simply not make a decision. There is a system in place that decides who lives and who dies, and doing nothing supports that system, and by extension supports the decisions over life and death the current system makes. "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" is a pretty common phrase, but it ignores that consequences compound, whether that's a good thing leading to more good things, or bad things leading to more bad things. The previous results affect the future opportunities. A homeless person doesn't have equal opportunities as a celebrity or an executive, and will not have equal opportunities, unless some large scale social and economic changes are made in favor of the poor, and at the expense of the rich. Usually when I say this, the people who were saying equal opportunity either insist that equal opportunities exist because they are equal under law, or just bite the bullet and say inequality is a good thing. I hope you choose neither.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, there has been a system in place since the beginning of time. Darwin called it natural selection. It insures survival of a species and life itself. It is how limited resources are rationed. I, and everyone who lives, support that system, but we don't have a choice. The weak of any species will not survive. I, however, choose not to intervene with this natural system that has worked for millions or billions of years, which could result in an end to our species, and our species may not reach the next phase of our evolution.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, firstly, natural selection is not a moral process. It describes what happens, not dictate us what should happen. What is natural isn't always how things should be. Secondly, you seem to misunderstand natural selection. Cooperation is a very high fitness trait a species can have, and it's found in practically all social animals.
5
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, natural.selection guarantees the survival of the species. The strong survive and get the resources. If the weak survive instead, the species will eventually become extinct. It's how we came to be. It's impossible for you to disagree with it. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a mechanical method that has been around for billions of years. Nothing g has ever escaped it....until government came along. Then everything changed.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, seriously no, that's not what natural selection is about. You are misunderstanding natural selection. It's not the "strongest" that survive, but rather "fittest" (and even then, it's not entirely accurate). Fitness is defined as the likelihood of reproduction, which depends heavily on the environment. Whales may be very fit in the ocean, but they will not survive for long when beached, for example. By the end of mesozoic era, the strong dinosaurs perished while weak and small mammals persisted. You're right that it's not a matter of opinion, but you just fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works. What you're saying aligns close with how social darwinists (like "race realists") misrepresent the theory.
10
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, so show me a screen shot of where I said "strongest" I am well aware of what it means. You totally misunderstood me, and argued against that thing you think I've said. Let's start over.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, sure. What are you really saying?
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, as far as natural selection goes, we are messing with it. Medication, surgery, rehab, etc. Also with socialism we are messing with it. Now we believe in survival of ALL. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but to the topic of your card, we are deciding who lives. We are not allowing nature to decide.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, I understand that. I'm asking who we should decide to save.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, I advocate for natural selection for the survival of our species. We don't really know what we're doing, and since we have decided to make everyone live, we are overpopulating the planet and killing it with our pollution. No that's not my true stance, because I've never thought so deeply about it, but if we discuss it long enough, it just might be. I really wasn't answering the "should" question, but answering what we have already chosen, collectively. It sure sounds nice, nobody deserves life more than anyone else. But there's consequences to everything we do. What's your thoughts after I bring it this direction?
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, I think that at this point, natural selection isn't a very useful or helpful way to decide which people should live. Technological progress is based more on how resources are allocated rather than who has the best engineering gene, for example. Also, overpopulation isn't nearly as much of a problem as wealth inequality. Most of the pollution is created by first world countries and meeting their needs, not the populous third world countries. We need sustainability, yes, but addressing overpopulation is not very helpful in that regard. We'll have to address it at some point in the near future as third world countries industrialize, likely with birth control, since the cause of the population boom will be from reduced death rate. Lastly, I agree with the claim that nobody deserves life more than anyone else. But at the moment, the wealthy few use up much more resources than the rest, and this has a huge environmental consequence. This should be addressed at the root cause level.
5
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, I disagree on some of your points about wealth. Money does nothing when it just sits there. It doesn't pollute, other doesn't use resources. It just sits there. If your measure of wealth is based on money then wealth isn't bad since it really uses zero resources. Money can "command" resources or labor. But like you said, resources are limited. If we distributed all wealth equally, then more resources would be used than currently. That would cause inflation and rationing, because there simply isn't enough. That's because we have too many people.. Now, since nature knows what an inferior Gene is, and we don't, let nature decide who lives. Or we can let everyone live until the planet runs out of resources. You know as well as I do, we are running out of fossil fuel, and solar may not sustain 7 billion people without making g huge farms that will kill habitats for wildlife. We also cannot filter water fast enough. I'm sure you have seen predictions of running out of fresh water. So, should we let the weak survive, and hope their Gene's can survive the effects of climate change and the ozone hole? Or should we begin to let nature take it's course, and lower the population to a level that earth can sustain? Once again money in itself does not use any resources, especially the digital kind.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, of course wealth doesn't spontaneously cause pollution. I'm talking about wealthy individuals, communities, and countries who use substantially more resources than others. If we were to divide up resources more evenly, it would mean that the super wealthy can no longer just throw away resources. Things like waging war to sell and steal things is a negative sum, but profitable, so it continues. Misshapen fruits and vegetables are thrown away to control supply and maximize profit. Houses are held instead of used for profit. If everyone had the same wealth (or more practically, if we divided resources based on needs first), nobody has any incentive for wasting resources in such frivolous ways. And when you say let nature take its course, how far are you willing to take it? Are you willing to abolish nation states, cultures, property, and all other social constructs, so that only genes matter? What about technology? Should we let technology affect Does that sound like a desirable future to you? I strongly doubt that you actually believe this.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, to your first paragraph, people don't get rich by throwing away resources. I've known a lot of people and been to a lot of places. Most poor people (in America) are more wasteful than rich. I live far below my means, and with that I've survived the last 2 years of Obama unemployed. I'm glad I saved money. I could have been poor if I wasted resources. I think you have a misconception as to how people become, and stay, rich. Also to your first paragraph, let's say we take that dusty money away from the rich, who have been saving and not wasting resources, and give it to the poor. Doesn't it seem obvious that more resources will be used? More people have more resources. It's not sitting anymore. To the later, I'm being hypothetical about letting nature take it's course. You're right that I don't really believe this, but to a certain extent. I cannot turn my back on people in need. People, all people, need access to healthcare. But honestly, we are creating a new problem. We are keeping an older and more needy population. We are creating a burden on the working class, and yes the rich too. If at any time, the wealth accumulation begins to go negative, you know that this "resource" of rich people will go away....then what? Future generations will not have this "resource" to turn to anymore. We need to assist people any way we can, and I honestly don't advocate for letting the weak die, but we do need to make it sustainable for our grandkids, and their grandkids. For example, bill gates has enough wealth to feed the poor and hospitals for about a year. Then what? Don't be shortsighted about this, and don't treat success of others as your source. What I actually advocate for is lifting people to where they can help themselves. As many people as possible. Only then can we assist those who are unable. In other words we need more helpers. There are only about 2000 billionaires. We need more of them, not less. We also need more people in the middle class. There's lots of ways we can do that, but redistribution is not one of them. It can be a part of the solution, but only a small part. The able must be going in a positive direction or we're all fucked.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, let's talk about one thing at a time. Developers don't open up all the housing units they have for renting out, even though it will mean nobody will be homeless. Why? Isn't this inefficient? And isn't this a form of waste, since it's a resource that's being unused? And lastly, are these housing controlled by rich, or poor?
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, housing is controlled by both rich people and government. Let's compare New York to Houston. New York sets price controls on rent. Developers can't make a profit so they build office buildings instead. Now they have a shitload of homeless people. Houston is a place where someone making minimum wage can buy a 1500 square foot house with 3 beds and 2 baths. Do you still want government oversight or not? 😎
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, you're only looking at the surface level. Firstly, what I'm calling for is a less hierarchical body controlling housing. Secondly, lack of rent control frequently results in evictions in order to raise rent, sometimes without any fault of the renter. Lastly, that's exactly my point! When we use profit as guideline, the people who control property focus on maximizing profit rather than maximizing use value (such as meeting everyone's needs). And to further add, housing units already exist. They're simply not being used because it would increase supply and thus lower rent. This is what protecting property rights does.
10
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, no, the free market and competition keeps prices low. I just cited evidence. The artificial price control causes shortages. It's macro economics 101, and happens in real life. Shortages cause inflation, so price controls become even more necessary. Free markets keep prices low. Rent in Houston is far below the artificial low imposed by government in NY. The shortage that results created the thousands of homeless families in NY. This is real life for people sleeping under Bridges and shelters. Real life, not a political game of who gets to control everything.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, you want sources? Sure, here: Real cases of rent control working, and how to implement it correctly http://urbanhabitat.org/sites/default/files/UH%202018%20Strengthening%20Communities%20Through%20Rent%20Control.pdf Market based defense for rent control: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/101065 Refutation for anti-rent control study https://medium.com/@tenantstogether/rent-control-works-a-response-to-business-school-professors-misguided-attacks-1305d9770ff7 Empty houses outnumber homeless people, and it's because of private property: https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-homeless-families-in-foreclosed-homes-2012-6 Let me know if you find any of this insufficient, so I can give you more sources and explain what's actually going on. You're right that it's macro 101, but real life turns out to be more complex than basic economics. And if you want an answer for your NY/Houston example, firstly you can't compare two cities and look at a single variable. That's just bad statistics. Which is why I present you with few other examples where rent control works fine.
10
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, your first link is a PDF file. I skipped it. Second one is also a download. The third one doesn't address the shortage of housing caused by rent control, and only touts the goodness for those fortunate enough to get in one. It discusses San Francisco, where they have waiting lists of 1-2 years to get a home. I don't call that good....until you finally get one. Finally the article on business insider from 2012 makes my case exactly. If government wants to supply homes, then it should do just that. It should be the actual supply. Forcing landlords to lose money will not entice anyone to become one. I'm not a fan of landlords, even though I've had a few rental houses before. Too many of them are looking to get rich easy, and don't repair homes. Section 8 landlords are the worst. They get guaranteed tax money to provide homes, so taxpayers make someone rich. I think it would benefit the taxpayer AND the poor if the government administered the houses. Yes I'm a fan of small government, but this is an exception. How about some peer reviewed journals if you want to use articles? https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265253?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents That one shows how the low rent is often used to justify but also causes shortages. Find me one of your own that addresses shortages and actually claims it does not cause shortages. Here's another one that disputes your "articles" and is also peer reviewed. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369108975484 Because anyone can write an article. They can also leave out important information. Surely rent control is good for those who actually get a home that's covered. But what about those homeless people, who have jobs? So let's fast forward your 2012 article and see what happens in 2018. California is having a major crisis. It's a wheel estate boom. The cost of living in a state with too much "control" aimed at keeping prices down always backfires. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/sd-living-in-cars-in-california-20171227-story.html
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, I'm not getting a subscription to a journal just for this. The PDF links I provided are free and only few pages long. You can't possibly expect me to read your things. The second link you provided says, in the abstract, "[t]he research shows that there is no evidence to support Tucker's conclusion that rent control causes homelessness." Did you just grab random journal articles that seem to support your claims? I think you would definitely benefit from reading it, though. Your last link definitely speaks truths about how there are people living in cars now, but makes no claims on why it is. As far as I see it, it's because people aren't allowed into homes that are already available.
Philo 0316Author
Hanover Fiste, and as for shortages, can you genuinely tell me that free market doesn't cause shortages when it holds empty houses away from homeless people? This is definitively a form of shortage.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, "While many analysts contend that a shortage of affordable housing is a principal cause of homelessness, one recent well-publicized study argues that housing shortages themselves—and hence homelessness" The evidence is everywhere. The cities that utilize rent control have the highest number of homelessness. We can eliminate homelessness because some of it is caused by mental illness. But there are literally families out in the streets due to the shortage of housing. Your business insider link proves just that. It explains how we have empty homes and homeless people, but it's not as simple as putting them together. This article came right after the housing bubble burst. Today and most of the time we just plain have shortages. This is especially true in NY and SF where waiting lists go over 2 years. You and I can play link tag all day. There's biased articles on both sides. Let's try to come to the truth: Is there a waiting list for housing where price controls exist? Is there cheap housing in huge cities that don't use price controls? Ask yourself questions like that. You'll figure it out.
Hanover Fiste
Philo 0316, your assumption that the free market is keeping empty houses. Read your article again. It was a short time after a ton of foreclosures. This is not an every day occurrence. How many empty houses are there today? That was a 2012 article. Go ahead and ignore what I just said....because it won't fit your agenda. My agenda is truth and real solutions. Go ahead and test me on that....I'll actually agree with you sometimes, as I did above and think government should provide housing....😎
Philo 0316Author
I'm trying to address your first three paragraphs here, not trying to change subject.
Write something...
Send