Social Justice - Are there limits?

This thread was spawned from the Utopia Thread. Start there.
First question, (What should we do with those who are poor through their own fault?) "The Undeserving Poor" someone (Eliza Dolittle's father, I think) called them. Are they still entitled? Many say yes, even if the problem is drugs, violence, or sloth. The entitlement is irrevocable. Can a member of society ever limit his/her rights to the Good Life" through their own actions?

Second question, (Even if the need is not self inflicted, are there still limits?). Medical care is a good example. Each extra month of life society buys for its members becomes geometrically more expensive than the previous. When do we have the duty/right to say "enough"? Can we ever tell a member that it is now time to die because we can't afford the next treatment?

Shorahmin,

The was a science-fiction book (and I'm afraid I can't remember what it was called, but I think it was a Pohl-Kornbluth book) in which one of the characters said (and I paraphrase from memory): "I would rather see money given to a hundred people who didn't deserve it than one needy person go hungry."

That's my view, too.

Obviously, on a certain level, the answer to "Can a member of society ever limit his/her rights to the Good Life" through their own actions?" in most civilized societies is yes. All they have to do is engage in a "crime" and be convicted. That is the essence of prison - revocation of certain "inalienable" rights like that of freedom.

The civil rights movement in the US centers on this argument to a certain extent - at least with respect to the claim that access to "equal treatment in education and employment" will lead to equal opportunities to achieve the good life. Still, even such sports figures as Larry Bird openly admit a human tendency to discriminate in picking his players - a bias FOR black players - which effectively turns the tables and places an "equally skilled" white player in a position of limited opportunity to play in the NBA. So, sure, whether codified or not, members of society get their chance/rights to the good life restricted on a routine basis. It's part of being a member of the "species human"!

As for the question, "Can we ever tell a member that it is now time to die because we can't afford the next treatment?", my personal opinion is a definite yes. And that's after watching both friends and loved ones wither on the vine of unbelievably exorbitant medical treatment which the doctors openly admitted had no hope of leading to a better quality of life - only extending it in the current, admittedly painful, status. In most of these cases, the rational interludes of the patients involved discussions of when to "pull the plug". Nothing positive came fromthem - including little or no preparations for the "time after" that had not already been taken care of. So, I have no problem with drawing a line somewhere. The problem, obviously, is who gets to draw the line... who gets to say, "enough is enough" and what criteria is to be used in reaching that decision - money? patient-reported pain? doctor opinion? which doctor? religious ministerial opinion? which one?

"I would rather see money given to a hundred people who didn't deserve it than one needy person go hungry."
The problem with that worthy sentiment is that it doesn't address the problem. Many cultures on Earth, even in the West, are approaching the point where they must withhold resources from the truely needy because they are unable to place realistic limits on entitlements. It is easy to say, "yes keep spending" when the well is bottomless. The question we must answer is "What to do when the well starts to run dry or at least a little muddy?" If we keep dividing the available resources into smaller and smaller pieces, we inevitably deny the hungry so we can feed the undeserving.

At this point, many will say the well isn't dry. They declare the problem will go away if we just lower military spending, raise taxes on the rich, or fire the president or PM. This is a "West Centric" response. Most hungry places do not have big armies or lots of rich people. Never-the-less, their wells are very dusty.

Let's focus on the real question. How do we fairly share limited resources while trying to cover all the needs (military, social, economic) that confront us?

Do even the 'deserving poor' deserve the right to support - damn right they do. Whatever their culture regards as the basic rights should be offered to everyone in that culture.

The UK is far from perfect, but spends a high amount per capita on homeless people trying to offer them a roof, food and the like. I am far happier with my tax pounds that get spent that way than with the ones that get spent on R+D for new weapons say.

That is different to saying that society has the right to 'protect itself', to enact laws and impose punishments on law-breakers. In fact a high proportion of our older homeless people are former prisonners, and have a better quality of life in prison than on the streets.

Does society have a right to stop paying for treatments, say for long term health support. It depends on the rights that society grants them. But by and large I think yes. Not because society has a right that way, but because it is a mistake (IMO) to offer length of life, society should try to offer quality of life. There comes a point where we are actually more humane to our animals (pets or farm animals) and say they are suffering beyond our hope of treatment, we will allow them to die now. This, unofficially at least, happens allegedly - a Brompton Cocktail is one such euphemism.

I am not advocating state-sponsored euthenasia, not quite, I am advocating the right of the support services to say we can no longer offer any hope of treatment, so rather than continuing to invest we will offer palliative care with the option of euthenasia. Again using the UK as an example people in persistent vegetative states can be euthenased. It requires the agreement of the family, the medical profession and then a visit to court where a judge makes the final call. Extending that sort of process to other conditions, and in those where appropriate involving the patient in the choice too, that seems reasonable, just and fair to me. It should be pointed out that the current situation requres the agreement of the medical staff and the family before it goes to court for final approval from the state - if either side disagrees it will not go forward, that is the model I think could be extended rather than the medics making the choice and trying to force it through.

At first I thought the euthanasia discussion was an improper extension of this thread, as the original question did not mention people at the end of their lives, but people still having opportunities but not using them.

On second thought one's view on euthanasia is relevant to the view on the amount of support one should give.

I only have to paint the following scenario:
1 society does not offer enough support to maintain a
quality of life one finds satisfactory
2 society does offer a means to end suffering, in the form
of euthanasia

To answer an earlier question, euthanasia can't be decided for you by someone else, it is a person's own decision. Even if a judge is involved, he/she is just a bystander.

But, such a decision can only exist where it is a free decision, not forced by circumstances. And to make it a free decision, society should be willing to support everyone indefinitely, no matter what the costs.

As the scenario above may look somewhat grim, I also offer 2 hopeful thoughts: when the amount of support lessens, people may find new ways of generating their own income

I just heard of a community of 70 people, everyone living on Dutch welfare, that decided to renounce their rights and febd for themselves. As if by magic, their incomes started to rise to a level where they could support themselves.

Also, evidence shows that even at an advanced age people are better of supporting themselves, e.g. by growing their own vegetables, than by sitting back and waiting for their deaths.

The last example unfortunatly won't apply to me: I could not grow my own vegetables, not even if they kicked me

Whever I hear phrases like "undeserving poor" I wonder, sez who? Who draws the line?

Who decides what you deserve?

So... we may think those with learning difficulties or physical difficulties who can't work to support themselves are "deserving". But someone who is a drug addict is not.

But this is crap. Being a drug addict is a disability in itself. It may have started self-inflicted, but I don't think anyone consciously thinks, 'Yes! I will take this heroin, fuck my life up, and never work again!!".

Perhaps the "undeserving" are only the workshy. But then, why are they workshy? Is it not a failing of our society that it produces the workshy? People aren't born into a vaccuum and we're largely shaped by our environment.

I'm workshy because I fail to see a value in the lot of the work available to me. Why the hell should I work late into the night just so people can rent videos at 2am? The work available to the "underclass" is often of this nature, who can blame them for not wanting to do it?

I have a job now, but it's one I can see a value in. I would rather be dependent on state benefits (which I must point out I'm not entitled to anyway coz I'm a student) than dependent on a cruddy, pointless job. On state benefits I have time, I can give my time to useful things. In a cruddy job my life and desire to be useful are being sucked away.

Any legislation that categorises deserving and undeserving on any grounds other than actual need is open to abuse. One of the reasons Hitler got away with what he did in Germany was because people quite happilly stood by and watched him dispose of "undesirables". Who draws the line, and how do we prevent that line being moved in future by someone like Hitler?

Shorahmin,

<<The problem with that worthy sentiment is that it doesn't address the problem. Many cultures on Earth, even in the West, are approaching the point where they must withhold resources from the truely needy because they are unable to place realistic limits on entitlements. It is easy to say, "yes keep spending" when the well is bottomless.>>

This country certainly hasn't got anywhere near the point you mention. The fact is that 90 per cent of the UK's wealth is held by about 4 per cent of its population. I think there's a long way to go before we start to worry about there being not enough to go round.

This is kind of a sad self-commentary, isn't it?

The "value" of any job that pays is that it puts food in your mouth (indirectly in that you get paid, you exchange that pay for food). Consequently, no job is valueless... undesirable in some other measure perhaps and intellectually unsatisfying maybe. But valueless? Nope.

If you really would rather be dependent on state benefits, you have to ask yourself what the consequence is if the rest of those in your country decide the same thing simultaneously. Who the hell is going to provide you those benefits? No one. You'll all be sitting on your asses with your hands out crying "feed me.. feed me" and I will be sitting elsewhere saying, "f*** 'em."

I have worked jobs that were disgusting, dissatisfying, paid poorly and even bordered on the illegal in order to put foo din my mouth. I've never been "on the dole" and that is a minor point of pride, though I can't exactly explain why except to say that my picture of myself is that of being self-supporting, not dependent.

That you are a studen barely explains the immaturity of the statement. When I found myself in a position, as a student, where my choice was to work at McDonald's or starve, I looked for alternatives and found a career in the military (though I hadn't intended it to be a career). Each time I approached the end of my enlistment I reevaluated my situation and made deliberate choices about what lifestyle I wanted and what I was wlling topay for that lifestyle. Never once did I consider going on the dole.

Consequently, you probably will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe in the "deserving poor" - not in today's climate. Even my mentally handicapped cousin (not she's not mentallychallenged, she's freaking retarded, just ask her) has more self-pride than to be on the dole. She helps to support herself by working menial labor because that is what she is capable of and suited for skill and intellect-wise. I have more respect for someone like her than anyone who voluntarily seeks government assistance in any form. (For the record, her family provides support that her own income does not cover in terms of her expenses.)

Support the deserving poor? the underserving poor? Hell no. People should work for any support they receive.

and

From: someone

Support the deserving poor? the underserving poor? Hell no. People should work for any support they receive.

Can I ask where you live Korg? I'm guessing it is the USA, but not sure. As a Brit I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with Jinny's POV and attitude. Yes if everyone was on the dole the system would grind to a halt, but we have a social system and a series of cultural expectations that regard time on the dole almost as a right of passage, certainly not anything to be ashamed of.

Is being on the dole and doing voluntary work you feel proud of worse than being a in a job you hate but lets you keep your pride that you are self-sufficient? It is a hard choice, but just as you said in your original post you have evaluated your choices and paid the price each time, other people may evaluate the costs differently. Does that make them immature? No, it means they have a different attitude, different experiences to you.

Whilst I respect your right to your preference for an almost Darwinian social setting I would rather live in a world with safety nets and support systems. But perhaps my attitudes are coloured by having lived, studied, worked and been on the dole in a city with unemployment running at 25-30% of its population at some points of my residency. There wasn't a wide-spread lack of desire to work, although undoubtedly there were 'slackers' there, there was a wide-scale lack of available jobs as almost all the local industries had shut. House prices had fallen through the floor so selling and moving wasn't a viable option for most of them either.

One menial job I applied for, cleaning toilets, which is close to the bottom of the pile for most people, had over 1,000 applicants - perhaps that will tell you how hard it was to find jobs at all. Should we let the unsuccessful 999+ starve?

Not everyone is capable of working. Some people are more disabled than others, and even those people with learning difficulties who get jobs (like my brother) by no means have the income to "support themselves" and are dependent on the assistance of the family.

There are many, many people who cannot work because they are too busy being the carer for someone who is ill or disabled. There are many people in the world who cannot even hope to support themselves due to bad luck with the weather, or war, or any number of other causes.

Not everyone has bootlaces to pull themselves up by, basically.

As for my own attitude towards work: putting food in my own mouth is a valueless and indeed negative action if it is at the expense of another. Why the hell should I feed myself by choosing a job that depends on the exploiting of child or slave labour somewhere in the world, or on cruelty to animals, or whatever? I would rather starve. If the goverment wishes to keep me alive by giving me a few quid that's very kind of Her Maj and I'm hardly going to turn it down, am I?