To go back to basics, what concerns me is that someone needs to build those homes, manage those homes, HVAC.... and they don't have a choice in it. This is fundamentally different than just not killing someone. If someone has a right to a home that home must be built. Similarly, for upkeep, maintenance workers basically become slaves... the task must be done and ideally done as soon as possible. Additionally I asked you earlier how much home these people are entitled to.... a dorm-style room with the essentials or the average house which costs around $225k in the US? Or something more expensive for all the troubles these people have been to? A dormitory style home runs into difficulty when you consider that many of the homeless are drug users and not mentally stable so they would be difficult neighbors. Unsupervised, these places probably turn into drug dens. Supervised - we have to turn people away. The problems balloon if we're now going to provide every homeless person with their own average American house.

But these are taking extremes. The right to clean air, clean water, good working conditions, freedom from abuse, a decent wage, freedom from discrimination, an education. None of these things have even the slightest evidence that they'll end civilisation, so why shouldn't we allow them as claims?

We're bouncing around too much here. You bring up a lotttt of issues here which each could warrant their own debate.

I'd just like to stick to the topic. We were talking about housing and "sufficient wage."

There are more unoccupied houses than homeless people in the US.

Ok, but who owns these homes? You can't give homeless people a home that someone has just left for a few months to go on vacation. It's still theirs.

Also, if the principle were that everyone were entitled to an equal-ish share of what is available, and too many people stopped producing as a consequence of that, then how much is available to be shared would go down, as would the size of an equal share of that, which would then incentivize people to work more again.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here: When you say entitled to an equal-ish share are you talking about land appropriation? If I'm imaging this correctly this seems to be saying we're just fleecing millionaires and billionaires. Am I getting you right or no?

Earlier on in the thread you mentioned the right to sufficient income. If everyone is given a house and a sufficient income just as a matter of right then you've destroyed the incentive to work for a lot of people. Sure, civilization can survive with a few parasite but if everyone is incentivized to become one then the system collapses.

There are, however, plenty enough houses. If everyone claimed a house, everyone would have a house. I don't see any evidence at all of immanent civilization collapse resulting from such a claim.

Are we talking about a dorm or an actual house? How much house do people have a right to?

Isaac, what is your response to the parasite case that I presented earlier on our island civilization? Does he have a right to the community's continued support through housing and food?

Yes, but these don't help us resolve differences over rights, which extend frequently into areas of morality over which there is far less agreement.

Yes, it's not absurd to say that someone has a right to housing or healthcare. On the other hand, if one could gain a right simply by proclaiming it as a want or desire it would result in absurdity like if everyone were just to demand constant back massages.

Now, of course, if absurdity doesn't bother you then, well, more power to you, but I see it as boundary for moral discussion.

You can't just arbitrarily say its not a right because it burdens someone else. Why doe burdening someone else prevent it from being a right?

I noted an important distinction. If you choose not to accept it as meaningful then okay.

Another way you approach it is an appeal to fairness: Imagine we were on a passenger plane and that plane crashed into an island and all the passengers now had to rebuild society. Everyone is working and planning and maybe they've elected a leadership, but I just flat out refuse to contribute. I'm happy to take whatever food or clothing the tribe gathers, but I personally refuse to contribute anything despite being able-bodied and perfectly able.

Now I demand a house and a sufficient income from the tribe.

If everyone were to do this there would be no civilization.

Again, you can dig your heels in and demand that these rights exist but I mean God...

Right. But basic moral intuitions don't help us with issues of rights because people disagree. Basic moral intuitions are not agreed upon.

There actually is widespread agreement on basic moral issues. How many people do you think are okay with wanton murder or rape? A sense of justice is built into us and I think you'd be surprised at the large number of issues that people agree upon.

then what is preventing the homeless person from claiming a right to housing?

It's a fundamentally different type of claim than claiming a right to life, which just involves that no one kills you or maims you intentionally. If I claim a right to housing I'm claiming that someone else must pay for and build a house for me. Also someone must repair and maintain that house now. Now other people are burdened whether through their time being taken or their money being taken.

If you agree that you're wronging that person then.... congratulations, you win, I guess?

I'm appealing to basic moral intuitions.... like that if I demand constant back massages from you that you're not actually obliged to give them. If you just want disregard this then you do you.

So what are they then? All you've given so far is that they are claims on individuals or governments. Nothing in that prevents you from declaring a right to constant back massages.

Yes, anyone can declare a right to constant back massages. That doesn't mean that that right exists.

If you've violated someone's rights you've seriously wronged them, do you agree? Are you seriously wronging someone who desires constant back massages by not giving them that?

The positive right to housing is just the negative right to not die from exposure. The positive right to health care is just the negative right to not be left to die.

Rights are claims on individuals or the government. While it's unfortunate if someone dies of exposure, we can't conclude that their rights were violated. If I wander off into the woods and die after getting lost - sure it's awful, but my rights weren't violated unless you want to be silly and say that "nature committed a crime" or something like that. Even if a homeless man dies on the street are we to say that everyone who passed him by violated his rights?

Rights are not simply wants or desires either. Otherwise I'd have a right to constant back massages.

Perhaps in academic circles too much is importance is given to the social control aspect of these hierarchies, along the lines of Michel Foucault, and the simple pragmatic reasoning just why things like the military are hierarchial with centralized leadership are sidelined.

I haven't read Foucault... but I do have over 5 years active duty military experience in the US (I am in the military.)

The effective function of the US military in peace time - obviously there's the national security part - but aside from that it brings people and families into the middle class (on the enlisted side.) You'll see Dave Ramsey posters at whatever duty station you're at and I can tell you that there'll always be lectures and classes on financial readiness no matter where you are. The US military absolutely has a vested interest in its soldiers being financially stable and this often a very pertinent issue because you have often young people from lower class backgrounds getting decent, stable paychecks for the first time in their lives. There's much more that could be said about this: The GI bill encouraging college attendance and the VA home loan giving someone the option to purchase a home with 0% down to name a couple.

On the other hand, as soldiers get married they do get dependent on this system and leaving would result in a pay cut so that's a definite reason how you get soldiers to stay in for the full 20 years plus the option of a pension and this is especially true once kids enter into the picture.

I'd be interested to read what academics have said about the military and if you've read that material I'd be interested in hearing it.

The example of the military shows that a true leadership school works only for very hierarchial organizations where higher level leaders are chosen by a formal process.

Yep - just expanding on your point here, in the US these types of leadership schools are present at basically all levels including the enlisted. For instance, once you make Sergeant (E-5) you're sent off to a leadership course and ditto when you hit climb up to E-7 when you're now supervising sergeants. Leadership education is pretty big in the US military.

Treating the height difference as if it's causing that difference in income is extremely bizarre. Imagine the social programs that would come of it:

I'm not saying it's the sole trait, but I don't think it's a shocking or absurd hypothesis that height helps men climb dominance hierarchies. The same thing could be said for good-looks. It's one trait amount many that helps.

Though nature only affords our societies with some of the differential, or enables/renders possible social costs which leverage distinctions in bodily properties, rather than playing a primary causal role for any of the social costs of having those bodily properties.

I get what you're saying here and it makes sense, but I do think there's a case to be made for say, humans inherently preferring more symmetrical faces.

Having a certain height or skin colour can only be changed through interventions like eugenics; drown all babies that come out at less than a certain size or whose skin colour is not as desired, or otherwise prevent reproduction of those people, maybe kill all people under 1.2 meters tall on their 16th birthday.

We're at a point where we can use genetic editing to eliminate diseases or conditions prenatally in mice, but we're still a ways off from humans. It seems this is going to become a greater issue as technology advances and we already have companies like CRISPR working directly on this genome editing. I'm just saying it's not like the old days where we'd need to use very painful or brutal means to accomplish something like this.

It's really coming down to what the possibilities of political action are and which ones are most relevant; race, gender/sex and disability are differences between people which engender risks that both matter a lot and can practically be mitigated or stopped through intervention.

Sure, but don't you believe the discussion could be broadened? Studies show the CEOs of fortunate 500 companies tend to be something like 3 inches taller than the average man, and that per every inch of height a man has it's an extra $800/year and that's not even digging into the inherent social respect given to height and romantic prospects. I think we can all agree that good-looking people are subject to preferable treatment and we could certain enact policies to at least aim to target this.

I'm just asking here whether you think the discussion ought to be broadened outside of the usual one on race, class, and gender (and sometimes disability which I think doesn't receive the same type of treatment as the others.)

Ok, and I could argue that fixing ugliness or equalizing height results in better lives for those people and levels the playing field in a number of areas. I feel we're kind of at a dead end here.

the ultimate goal is almost universally some variant of human well-being.

Why would gene editing resulting in height equality or fixing ugliness be antithetical to human well-being?

Recently a poll done by newsweek showed close to 80% of philosophy majors - higher than any other field - supported socialism, so I'd say at least for the "philosophy student" side of things we can draw our conclusions.

Every value needs to be weighed against other values. Equality is a value, and it's a value on both the left and the right but to different extents. Equality often takes the form of empowering or leveling the playing field for disadvantaged populations. Personally, I think it's a little cold and unempathetic to basically claim that you'd just like to preserve the struggles of these disadvantaged populations for the sake of "diversity."

People are against race-mixing for the purpose of preserving diversity. Of course that's not a stance that I attribute to you, but you can't just throw out "diversity" or some other competing value when I mention "equality" and deny that we even value equality.

Well I was responding to ZBT, that's why I linked his name.

I don't mean to make this a left vs. right thing. For some people equality IS a big value, so this point probably isn't aimed at you. I feel like you're viewing this as a person attack.

The issue I'm prodding about - as the discussion has evolved - is equality of opportunity or having a level playing field which I think a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum are cool with. As technology evolves and these issues enter into the realm of possibility, what does everyone think about addressing some of nature's inequalities?

My "evidence" is the way that the ZBT phrased his response: He said there was no magic wand, and in order to reach the goal we'd have to do X, Y, and Z which are appalling. That's not dismissing the goal; that's dismissing the means.

Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table.

We can go back and forth about the means... it's immaterial. Today we're making progress with genetic editing so hopefully we wouldn't need to resort to something as invasive as surgery.

IF the option were to present itself in a non-invasive manner (which could very well not be too far off) should we do it?

This is only the tip of the iceberg: consider further, is it fair that some men have a distribution of muscles that, say, gives them an advantage when it comes to sprinting?

Sure, but nature's inequalities manifest themselves in actual, everyday life whether it's a job hunt or promotions or social activity, etc. My main reason for this thread was just to point out that today's left seems to push for equality with, say, A, B, and C but they're not interested in X, Y, and Z which end up favoring/advocating for certain groups and basically ignoring others.

The reason we're all appalled at the idea of equality of height or equality of intelligence is that we have no intuitive notion that such a project might further human welfare

Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil.

It would level the playing field if all men were the same height. That's where equality of opportunity comes in.

Virgo, I don't actually support any if this. What I'm doing is I'm just granting the leftists this hypothetical to press on another issue.

but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth

I think you'd be surprised and I think you'd find a fair amount of support for this idea insofar as everyone is contributing and working hard.

EDIT: I think plenty of people just do value equality as well. Even as someone who's right-leaning the word doesn't disgust me.

If we truly value equality then why are we mostly stopping at economics? That's only one area of human life.

Well, if you spend all day hating the game and marinating on these thoughts don't be surprised if you find yourself in misery. Some thoughts that you have - and these thoughts may reflect reality - just aren't helpful and you should discard them.

In the end, I'd rather be a clueless pollyanna than live like Schopenhauer. But it's your call.

Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.

Well, if you're stuck in the game you might as well make the best of it... the rewards could be quite great. I think the rewards could blow you away. I do believe the reason for the game is the reward (to be specific, it's love.)

It doesn't really matter if you accept that you're in the game or not, or that you like the game itself or not... you're here, and you have one shot at this game (as far as we know) so pursue those rewards!

This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.

Could you give me an example?

I, personally, have identified obstacles to achieving greater happiness. I am working on breaking those down. I think if I were to break them down I would be thrilled and achieve a much higher degree of consistent happiness.

The problem in our discussion is that "the premises of life" seem to be extremely broad. Some of them might bother you, but not bother other people so it's not an inevitability.

I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.

I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.

The problem is that the scope of this discussion is soooo broad and we're probably experiencing different problems so that if I were to give advice it could be completely out of place or inappropriate to the situation you're dealing with.

In my case, I have... 1 or 2 main problems that I would like to fix. But I can still enjoy life. I have other areas in my life that I'm doing well with so I can sort of fall back on those.

Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.

I don't have a number for that. I think the question we should be asking is when is suicide justified.

If you're suicidal then we're no longer having a philosophical discussion: You need to go to therapy and get help. Anti-depressants can work wonders.

He was able to find meaning in his suffering. He could have killed himself at any point. There was no point which he just lied down and quit.

And for the record I don't blame people who committed suicide in those types of conditions, but it's not a certainty either.

I never said it was totally independent from past events, I'm just saying it's not a certainty given A or B. A or B could have an impact on C, but that's not to say that A or B caused C.

If you read Man's Search for Meaning it's about a guy's experience in a Nazi concentration camp. He was under some of the worst conditions imaginable, but he never wanted to kill himself or die. It's a matter of mindset.

The way I see it... there's risk factors for suicide. We can address these risk factors (poverty, losing a job, etc) but suicide is ultimately a choice that you make.

I just don't think that's how causation works when it comes to suicide.

Sure, losing your job or getting divorced or going into poverty might increase your chances of suicide but there's no 100% direct causation. Even the worst conditions like a concentration camp don't qualify as a "B" to your "C."

It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."

You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life."

I think by 'practical effects' he means the effects which actually happen on the ground, not effects that you theorize to happen. The ultimate verdict of a theory for the pragmatists would be if it actually works during its implementation, not whether the relations between the abstract ideas work out.

Maybe a thread about it would be useful.

Pierce also said: "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." This was his version of the pragmatic maxim.

If pragmatism is just about keeping purposes in mind then it's pretty innocuous, but I think it's founders had a little more in mind than that.

Let me try another example:

If I were to ask you to defend libertarian socialism would you respond with something along the lines of "Well, here's case study 1, here's case study 2, and here's case study 3 where the practical application of libertarian socialism led to x,y, and z as opposed to these implementations of capitalism here...."

Now, I haven't studied pragmatism academically, but from what I understand about it is that it's a ground-up approach where you're starting more with whether the approach has actually worked in the past and there's no meaningful sharp distinction between "in theory" and implementation.

I've just always read you as more of a theoretician; it would seem to me that a pragmatist's first impulse would be to respond with actual empirical data or historical fact to an issue rather than theory.