posted
Reading a recent Newsweek letters section, I came across a letter that made a point I profoundly disagree with.
quote:Sociologist Andrew Cherlin's notion that "we have a moral obligation to provide every American with a decent life" is ridiculous. Nobody has the obligation to provide me with anything. I have a responsibility to provide for myself and my family.
The last two sentences are what interest me. The writer's opinion seems to be that she has no obligation to provide for anyone except her family, and furthermore that she is morally required to provide for her family. I've found this to be a very common sentiment among people who are basically "libertarian" about property rights. But I don't think it makes any sense.
Libertarians often justify their views on property rights with a principle like this: what I've earned is rightfully mine and no one else's. I can give it away if I want, but no one has the right to demand that I give it up. That's the same as stealing. But this principle can't be completely true if our letter-writer is correct. Because she believes that some people can rightfully demand things from her: her family, for example her children.
Let's suppose our letter-writer is correct. Then suppose the following situation: I have a lot of extra money on hand, and a child is starving. Am I morally required to provide for the child? Our letter-writer would say, It depends. Is the child yours? So providing for the child is morally good only if the child is mine. But providing for the child can't be good for everyone, or else they too would be obliged to provide for it. So it has to be that my child's welfare is only good for me -- it's not good for anyone else.
But then it seems like we're not talking about morality anymore. Aren't morally good things supposed to be good period, not just good for me?
To put things back in libertarian terms, what gives my children such a special power over me, that they can demand property that would otherwise be mine alone? It can't be because they share my genes: if I give to a sperm bank, that doesn't obligate me to provide for all of the resulting kids. It can't be because we've signed a contract (which is how people normally become obliged to help others on the property-rights view) because we never signed one. And it can't be because I chose to create the kids, because sometimes parents don't choose. In an extreme case, if a woman is raped and has no means of abortion available to her, we want to say that she's still beholden to the resulting child.
In short, I think people who say they have no obligation to anyone but their family are mistaking natural biological drives for real ethical right and wrong. What do you think?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely jumping past all of childhood to when said offspring are adults because I just don't want to deal with that aspect...
I periodically see clients who intentionally write a child or grandchild out of their wills. "So-and-so are all of my children, but for various personal reasons I choose not to make provision for this one". In one particular case, the child in question had been completely supported by the parent all her adult life and in Dad's opinion had received her inheritance already. In another case, there was so much acrimony between parent and child that they hadn't spoken in 10 years.
Unless the kid who's been excluded can prove to a judge that the parent wasn't mentally competent at the time they signed their will, there's nothing they can do about it.
In Illinois, at least, if a person passes away without a will (intestate) and a probate estate is opened in the courts, 50% of their estate is given to the surviving spouse (if any) and the remainder is divided equally among all living children.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's suppose our letter-writer is correct. Then suppose the following situation: I have a lot of extra money on hand, and a child is starving. Am I morally required to provide for the child? Our letter-writer would say, It depends. Is the child yours? So providing for the child is morally good only if the child is mine. But providing for the child can't be good for everyone, or else they too would be obliged to provide for it. So it has to be that my child's welfare is only good for me -- it's not good for anyone else.
This, I think, is an overly simplistic example. Starving child == helpless, it's pretty clear there's a moral obligation on society (of which you are a part) to take care of its young. As Whitney said, "...the children are our future."
Change that example to a grown man (homeless) who's starving and I think the response might be a lot different. To me, the question is why are they starving? Are they mentally or physically handicapped? Are they alone, with no family or friends to help them through a rough spot? Or are they just alcoholics, whose addiction took control of their life and drove it into the ground?
If it's the last, I'm not as sympathetic to them. It's about accountability for me, and that last situation is ultimately no one's fault but their own. I would still feed them, because I'm not totally morally bankrupt, but I don't think someone who doesn't should be criticized. It is your money, and you can do whatever you like with it.
But I know no one succeeds completely on their own. Everyone got a break, a push, a recommendation or something that got them going. And I think it's their moral obligation to pay it forward once you're on top. I also think everyone should realize that "There but for the grace of God goes I" is a very true statement, even if you don't believe in God.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that I have a moral obligation to help all those in need. However, I also think that everyone should have the choice to give or not to give. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with policy that requires people to do so against their will.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate it when someone with a much longer and better written post manages to get it posted before me. Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel that I have a moral obligation to help all those in need. However, I also think that everyone should have the choice to give or not to give. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with policy that requires people to do so against their will.
Right, that's why my initial question was about moral right and wrong, as opposed to what's legal or illegal.
Though your opinion raises an interesting question: why should it be legal not to give when it's morally wrong not to? In a lot of cases our society doesn't give people the option to act immorally without being punished.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess in simplistic terms (because I have a simple mind) I would put it something like the following. I'm comfortable with making bad things that people do against the law but uncomfortable with punishing them for good things that they didn't do.
Compulsary Hatrack Disclaimer: I know real life is more complicated than that, and someone could instantly come up with 10 examples and say: "Well what about that case Bao! What would you do then?"
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: But then it seems like we're not talking about morality anymore. Aren't morally good things supposed to be good period, not just good for me?
Nope. Context is everything. Killing some random stranger is evil. Killing someone who is trying to kill me is morally correct.
quote:I feel that I have a moral obligation to help all those in need. However, I also think that everyone should have the choice to give or not to give. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with policy that requires people to do so against their will.
Right, that's why my initial question was about moral right and wrong, as opposed to what's legal or illegal.
Though your opinion raises an interesting question: why should it be legal not to give when it's morally wrong not to? In a lot of cases our society doesn't give people the option to act immorally without being punished.
That's wrong. Take anti-discrimination legislation, for example. I'm a woman. I'm Jewish. I'm gay. All of those things are reasons why someone might not want to hire me. By law, they can't refuse to hire me for those reasons (except some places where the third one isn't included).
That's wrong. If someone refuses to hire me because I'm Jewish (for example), that person is a thug and a bigot. But it's his right. Forcing morality on people is wrong. Forcing people to refrain from forcing others... that's entirely different.
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I think you're on the mark. You punish people for action, not inaction.
I don't see how you can draw a useful distinction between action and inaction for these purposes.
Consider: If I throw someone who can't swim into deep water and then pull them out a moment later, I've done something that's only a little bit wrong. But if I throw them in and then don't act to save them, I've done something very wrong. The inaction seems to be part of my wrongdoing.
quote:Nope. Context is everything. Killing some random stranger is evil. Killing someone who is trying to kill me is morally correct.
I don't see how any of this contradicts, or even engages with, anything I've said.
Killing someone who's trying to kill you seems to be good, period (assuming you have no other option), not merely good for you.
Anyway, you can hold the libertarian line if you want. But the onus is then on you to tell me why your children have the right to demand that you support them.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sociologist Andrew Cherlin's notion that "we have a moral obligation to provide every American with a decent life" is ridiculous. Nobody has the obligation to provide me with anything. I have a responsibility to provide for myself and my family.
I agree with the writer's sentiments insofar as it is in reaction to the wording of the quote. He said 'we have a moral obligation to provide every American with a decent life'. I disagree with this. I think we have a moral obligation to provide every American with the opportunity for a decent life. In other words, I don't believe in dragging someone out of the gutter. I believe in offering them a hand up.
Money doesn't solve everything. It doesn't actually solve much of anything, really, as FEMA's adventure in giving $2K for hurricane victims proved. I don't think what they did was wrong, but it was certainly ineffective. So one question we have to ask before we go in to upgrade someone's living standards is whether we're really actually helping them in an enduring way.
I don't think that our obligations are limited to our families, just as I don't believe that society lacks obligations to my family. I think society is obliged to keep a public standard healthy for children to dwell in. In privacy, whatever. But I think it's totally wrong to think that public libraries must allow hard-core porn to be viewed on screens where children have access. By the same token, I believe that our family should do what it can to help those in need. BUT...I should not sacrifice the needs of my family for someone outside of my family. My first obligation is to my family, then to society.
Did that make any sense? I don't think we can insulate ourselves, thinking our families are islands. But I don't think we should be compelled legally to give either. It's a gift or it's a tax. I'm not a socialist. People need to work and make a contribution to society as well as they are able -- this isn't for society's good, though it certainly benefits -- it's for the person's own good. There's nothing like being needed and making a contribution for building self-respect. Every good work has value. (This, btw, is why my kids have chores. We can afford to hire most of the chores done. But we don't, because for one, they need to know how to do stuff around the house, but also, by working in the house, they make their contribution, and they can take pride in the work they do. They know they are needed as well as having their needs met.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the quote was changed to "we have the moral obligation to provide every American with the opportunity for a decent life", I would agree with it in the abstract.
I think that it is a good thing when people who have extra help out people outside their family.
However, I am very uncomfortable legislating it as a requirement. Government has far too heavy and clumsy of a hand to suit me.
Furthermore, if charity is forced, it ain't charity.
Do we have the obligation to provide every American with a free ride? Nar.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I think you're on the mark. You punish people for action, not inaction.
I don't see how you can draw a useful distinction between action and inaction for these purposes.
Consider: If I throw someone who can't swim into deep water and then pull them out a moment later, I've done something that's only a little bit wrong. But if I throw them in and then don't act to save them, I've done something very wrong. The inaction seems to be part of my wrongdoing.
Not at all. The inaction doesn't even exist. You threw them in. That's the wrong. In the other case, you threw them in, which was wrong, but then you fished them out, which mitigated it.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Nope. Context is everything. Killing some random stranger is evil. Killing someone who is trying to kill me is morally correct.
I don't see how any of this contradicts, or even engages with, anything I've said.
Killing someone who's trying to kill you seems to be good, period (assuming you have no other option), not merely good for you.
It's not so good for the guy I kill.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Anyway, you can hold the libertarian line if you want. But the onus is then on you to tell me why your children have the right to demand that you support them.
Easy. The same reason the person I throw into the water has a right to demand that I fish him out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the "Throwing them into deep water" argument you have illustrated why one must take care of their own children.
By Boinking and neither having an abortion nor giving responsibility of the child to another via adoption, you are throwing the child into the deep water of this world.
For the next 18 years you must hold them up and teach them to swim or they will drown. This is YOUR responsibility because YOU threw them in.
Libertarianism isn't just about the freedom to do what you want, but the responsibility to honor your commitments. Such as your kids.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
